@Moose

Well, I am not advocating any “tire fired” electric plants. I do wonder why we have what amounts to a ban on nuclear energy. I wonder why our tax money is being spent to subsidize ethanol when it uses approximately as much energy to make as it produces, and damages the environment with huge tracts of unnecessary farm acreage. Not to mention that ethanol’s “carbon footprint” has been shown to be larger than petroleum gasoline. I do wonder why we are discouraged from exploring new advances in cleaner fossil fuel use while the scientists are still trying to get systems for solar into the more usable stages. I wonder why the same government hypocrites who vote against affordable, traditional energy solutions also vote against alternative solutions. Yes, Liberal Democrats have been the driving force behind killing several major solar energy “farms” and wind farm projects.

I am not against new technology. I just do not think we should abandon what we already have functioning until the new stuff actually works without bankrupting the country.

As for pollution, it is the money available in a healthy economy that will pay for new solutions that will pollute less. If you cripple the economy with restrictions then these solutions will be much slower in arriving, if they ever do. So yes, by all means outlaw burning tires for electricity, but kindly do not tax the coal plant that supplies local electricity out of business until we have invented something to replace it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata,

What market forces drive environmental responsibility?

If such forces do exist why did President Nixon need to sign the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?

If market forces are adequate to motivate environmental responsibility, why do we have an EPA?

Would you abolish the EPA?

You link shows that Earth Day was taken by some as a mandate for addressing global warming. First, I don’t see how it could be interpreted as such. But even if Earth Day carries the water for advocates of measures to address AGW, how does that make it part of some nefarious socialist agenda?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The difference between you and I, Dave Noble, is that you believe energy conservation should be mandated instead of market driven.

Most of us want the most fuel efficient vehicle that fits our needs. FFVs are a joke, and cost more to run because they are inefficient. Electric cars aren’t capable of the distance and torgue many need to haul trailers for work or recreation. We all pay electrical bills, but don’t want the government dictating what light bulbs to purchase. You’ll drag me out of incandescent kicking, screaming, biting and fighting.

That said, I also am very conservative in my electrical use because it comes out of my pocket in the end. Earth Hour passed me by virtually forgotten. I did not increase, nor decrease my already conservative use.

Your desire to have the government mandate conservation and alternative energies will result in even more cash out of the users’ pockets.

As for the pollution coating, the emissions controls and air in many big cities have been improving over decades because of advanced technology. Everyone wants clean air. However just because Congress makes a mandate doesn’t mean the technology follows easily, or in a cost effective manner.

As for as the “substantive reason” INRE Earth Hour is the socialist agenda to push global legislation, the link I posted in a comment in Skye’s post on this subject shows that to be undeniably true. “Pseudo-political science” directly from the horse’s arse… er, mouth…. is hardly “psuedo”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Jeff,

As both you and Mike rightly point out there is a difference between responsible freedom and unbridled freedom. I also agree that my right to freedom ends only where the exercise of my freedom harms you. But you would be wrong to suggest we all agree on where that line is drawn.

You think AGW is pseudo-science. I and many other Americans do not. But even if you are a climate change skeptic, conserving our fossil fuels through greater vehicle fuel efficiency, energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, various methodologies for conserving energy, and development of alternative energy sources are just common sense. Re: automobile fuel efficiency – Automobiles not only emit CO2 into the atmosphere, they also emit exhaust particulate. I once reviewed documents in a warehouse by the side of a state highway. The document boxes were covered with a thick coating of black dust – automobile exhaust particulate. That is clearly a pollutant. Greater fuel efficiency will reduce pollution from automobile exhaust.

The substantive reason given by various posters on this blog for protesting Earth Day is that it is a part of the socialist agenda to degrade the American economy by hamstringing the free market with regulation. I believe that is pseudo-political science and as much a product of belief as it is a product of logical analysis of factual evidence.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Jeff,

I’m glad to have a rational argument with anyone. But when I got up Saturday morning and saw all the juvenile suggestions of ways to protest Earth Day, it seemed to me that sarcasm was the only appropriate response. There is all the difference in the world between ranting and satire and there was nothing aimless about what I was trying to do. I think some people got the joke.

The style of my response actually has a name that I am sure you and many others are familiar with – it’s called reductio ad absurdum. You take a foolish idea (wasting resources to protest a perceived overemphasis on conservation) and draw it out to it’s logical confusion to show how truly foolish it is. Ironically, if you looked at Skye’s thread on the same subject, you see posters doing exactly what I was lampooning – trying to go the next guy or gal one better in protesting Earth Day by wasting resources.

I may attempt to address some of your substantive points later.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@GaffaUK: Smog and pollution caused by coal? The U.S. has the Clean Air Act, which my former employer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses to regulate plants which use coal and require the use of technology to limit pollution. There is also new “clean coal” technology being developed which is even better. But naturally, the environmentalists oppose that too just as they do wind, nuclear and some solar development.

@mooseburger said: ” voluntary and involuntary polarizes the issues and kind of denies that there is any middle ground or common sense arguments in the middle.”

Sort of like global warming, or clean coal, where we are told “the debate is over” there is no room for disagreement with the orthodoxy laid down by the environmentalists.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Lightbringer

“I am all for voluntary conservation. Unfortunately, the environmental extremists do not like the word “voluntary”. Nor do their socialist puppet masters, although for different reasons.”

I see your point, but voluntary and involuntary polarizes the issues and kind of denies that there is any middle ground or common sense arguments in the middle. Here is a good example:

There is plenty of energy available if the Socialists and environmental whackos would only let up use what we have. There is such a waste of old car tires in the world, why can’t I just burn them for heat and energy? We have an abundant supply, and the whacko’s who promote their Socialist environmental agenda keep us from burning these tires because they say it “hurts the environment”

There are some things that everyone agrees is not a good thing. Those that would advocate burning tires and allowing the black smoke to rise and be seen for miles away are not living in the realm of common sense.

If your Mother let you have her Estate, and she was very rich, and told you, use all my resources as you see fit, would you waste them, spend with abandon, gamble it foolishly, have little respect for the gift she has given to you?

Why would you promote foolish use of what Mother Earth has given us? Showing lack of respect for your Mother, or for Mother Earth is foolish.

When I hear folks say things like liam09 say:

“Just in case a lot of people decide to do this, I have turned on every single appliance I own (that I can fit into an AC outlet) to help neutralize their effect of socialism on the world. Its like my effort to neutralize vegans.. I eat at least 40X the amount of meat I would would regularly eat in one sitting, just to make sure I decimate pam andersons attempt of saving baby seals. In fact I eat baby seal O’s for breakfast.”

It makes me wonder who the Whacko’s really are……

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Wisdom

And which countries are you referring to….?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@GaffaUK So without coal – what’s your thoughts on the starvation and poverty that occurred, and is still occurring in many places around the world, without the affordable electricity provided by burning coal?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Mike

So with coal – what’s your thoughts on smog and pollution caused by burning coal?

Like or Dislike: 0  0