When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
This earth day sounds like some sort of compulsory ess-kissing religious holiday or foot-kissing of political leader day. We’ve had enough of this last time, so it’s sad to see nonsense like this starting in america.
While it may raise environmental conscioiusness by brainwashing dumb youths who can’t think for themselves, it really is a meaningless exercise promoted by those who hope to gain power, influence or money thru our gullibility or stupidity.
I do have concerns over pollution and habitat destruction, but my way is to donate directly to those orgs that directly do the work of preserving the wetlands or making sure the turtles grow to x length first before they are let off.
All this anthropogenic global warming, carbon credits, earth day, is just for gullible and dumb people—the sort who voted for Obama.
Dave
15 years ago
No one is forcing anyone to turn out their lights. Its voluntary. The fact that earth day is voluntary makes it the opposite of the various government restrictions that were posted above. Therefore the author of this post should be applauding earth day. Does he understand the difference between “voluntary” and “law?” I’m guessing that he was just so put off by the concept of energy conservation that he didn’t think through logical steps of his argument.
Thomas B.
15 years ago
Dave,
That’s the liberal plan. First to make it voluntary. Then to frown upon those who don’t do it. Then make it the law. Just look at Obama’s mandatory service proposal. First it was encouraged, then we started paying people to volunteer, now it’s going to be mandatory. Get a clue.
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
The enviromaniacs are at it again. Nobody (except for John Stossel and a few other sane people made to look like wackos by the alarmist media) ever seems to appreciate the mob mentality behind activism. It’s a perfect example of dysfunctional organizational psychology.
Many activists find out that alarmism works, and they get a huge ego boost to be seen as noble protectors of the vulnerable (environment, whales, endangered species), even if the endangerment is completely natural. I’m amazed at the people who will risk their lives to save a deer that falls through a crack in the ice on the surface of a pond or lake. The usual rationale is that the animal might drown or otherwise fall victim to a predator.
Um, “HELLO!!” That’s how nature has worked for millions of years. The environmental wackos end up interfering with the very process they claim to be protecting.
Of course, since activists’ egos are at stake, they can’t stand being seen as fools. In the face of believable criticism, they just modify their targets, and that is the key to dealing with activists. Expose the flaws in their arguments, and point them to an issue that they can tackle and claim victory. As long as the issue is sensible, they’ll feel important (and can save face.)
The trick is to find an issue that can be corrected without imposing a great deal of hardship on the activists’ foes, which is not always easy. The ego boost that activists get is usually proportional to the level of hardship they impose on others.
I’m going to do what Tom Bodett does, and “leave the light on.”
Jeff V
Chandler
15 years ago
You will be able to see my house from space tonight!
Tom in CA
15 years ago
Me too Chandler! Think I’ll let the sprinklers run all night and burn a huge fire in the fireplace just to top it off!
@Dave: I would love to hear your comeback to Thomas B.
I love watching libs twist themselves into pretzels.
Lightbringer
15 years ago
@Jeff V
Expose the flaws in their arguments, and point them to an issue that they can tackle and claim victory.
While this may work with a few idealistic youngsters who have let their hearts overwhelm their brains, it has a few flaws when it comes to dealing with the majority of the ecofreaks.
1. Exposing flaws in someone else religion usually only serves to piss them off and drive them further into fanaticism.
2. You said it yourself, their basic drive is not to save the Earth, it is to control other people. Yes, a big component of their emotional payoff is being able to claim moral righteousness at the same time, but if that was enough they would simply live green and look down their noses at the rest of us. If we manage to disprove their alarmism sufficiently to shut them up (or at least stop them from destroying the global economy), then their personality type is going to lead the worst of the bunch straight into some other cause with similar parameters. Gun control comes to mind.
3. Lastly, it will be hard to redirect them while the political Left continues to stroke their egos and champion their cause. The politicians get to cloak themselves in the same “holier than thou” mantle (even while completely flouting the spirit of the movement, think Al Gore’s electric bill or Pelosi’s jet travel), and they can damage the economy creating more and more state dependents and less mobility and freedom. Left wing politicians are not about to let such a useful and powerful tool just wander off.
My main take on the issue is that we have to discredit and remove (or at least reduce) the source of their official approval before we can successfully morph this religious movement back into one that shames us into environmental regulations instead of commanding us to deconstruct our entire economy and way of life.
luva the scissors
15 years ago
big, i mean big bonfire party with sports on the tv outside and lots of craziness here. i won’t turn off my lights, hell i might even sleep with the stupid things on.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mike,
First, thanks once again for presenting that hoary chestnut – the watermelon. No matter how many times you use it and for one more time explain it, it’s scintillating wit and profound insight never cease to amuse and enlighten. How about a watermelon graphic – Maybe a hammer and sickle carved into the rind of a watermelon so that the hammer and sickle are created by the red meat of the watermelon?
Gee, this is fun. And I’m learning at the same time.
Jeff,
Your love of freedom has inspired me. I’m going to go you and Tom one better. I’m going to leave all the lights in my house all day that day. And I’m going to run every appliance, crank up the heat , turn on all the water faucets, and leave both TVs on with the volume turned all the way up. And my coup de grace for freedom will be to turn my car on and let it idle until it runs out of gas. Hell, it’s my car and my gas and my electricity and my water. God bless America.
@Dave Noble: I see you are wasting more energy putting up snarky pointless retorts. Why not be a good lib and shut down your computer, turn off all the lights and go grow lettuce in your organic garden making sure to use no water other than that supplied by rain.
As for the graphic, how about this one?
Mike
15 years ago
What a bunch of garbage. For me, every light in the house will be on to protest these idiots telling me what I can and can not do!! I live in a country in which our basic freedoms are under attack by our leaders!! If we don’t wake up it will be over soon. WE can not expect the useful idiots in the MSM to help because the messiah has already bought them!!
FedUp
15 years ago
I’ll be turning on every light etc regardless of the 40% hike already in my electric bill. I suggest that it be mandatory that DC turn off all the AC AND heat for the next year – sessions will be shorter and there’ll be less time for them to screw up the American people. Let the critters go home and screw up their own states!! Mine are out in front with Specter and Casey!
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Luva,
The exercise of freedom is no place for half measures. Be like me. Go for the gusto, girl.
Alright, you’ve sparked my competitive spirit and I’m the kind of guy who likes to win big. I’m also going to change MY oil in MY car and pour the dirty oil in MY backyard. I paid for it all with the sweat of MY honest labor.
You know what OUR stands for? Oppressive Unamerican Restrictions.
Oh, yeah, and then I’m going to eat a half dozen burritos with extra hot salsa, wash em down with some beer made in a brewery as far away from my house as possible, get in my car with the brand new oil and gas from the leaking underground storage tank in my backyard, and go for a ride.
And, Boy oh Boy, I’m going to drive down the highway at 120 mph with all the windows open and both the heater AND the air conditioner on full blast. I’ll be honking the horn, blasting my stereo, and farting my brains out. God bless Greenhouse Gases.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mike,
Dude, you stole my screensaver.
The Other Mike and Fedup,
What a couple of wusses. Check out my stuff, losers. And you say you love freedom.
OMG.. another rare moment of “unity”, Dave Noble. I’ve used the “Earth at Night” for my screensaver desktop for almost a decade. Great image which, for those of you who have never seen it, can be viewed here.
Lightbringer
15 years ago
@Dave Noble
Your Prius does 120?
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Light,
Good one, seriously. I think Priuses might do 120. Actually, I drive a 1994 V-6 Camry coupe with 240,000 miles on it and I do change my own oil. I just don’t dump it in my backyard. I put it in used wiper fluid containers and then take it down to STS Tire, where they recycle it. The Camry gets in the high 20s for fuel efficiency. It’s my understanding that to scrap that vehicle and buy a new Prius would use up more resources than continuing to drive it. When the Iron Horse finally does breathe her last breath, I do intend to buy a highly fuel efficient vehicle, likely a Prius, since I have had excellent experience with Toyotas.
Mata,
I’m sorry, my screensaver shows Obama with the United Socialist States of America under his picture. I love that retro Commie look.
I guess even a brief moment of falsely perceived unity is better than none at all.
After all, we do live in the same country, even though you’re working to preserve and protect it and I’m working to debase and destroy it.
@Dave Noble: @Dave Noble: Slow down on the Kool Aid Dave. I think you might be overdosing on the stuff.
That stuff should come with a warning label.
As for your other straw dogs in the comment directed at Luva above, you fail to understand the essential point of LIBERTY! That is, we should be free to do as we please as along as we don’t harm anyone else. Rules for highway speeds and practical environmental controls like oil dumping are there to protect everyone.
Rules to limit water or electric usage are there to punish everyone. There are plenty of resources to supply those needs to those who wish to pay for them.
And another thing…. I forgot to include this story from the UK where they are using infrared technology to SPY on people to see how they are using energy:
How long before the Obama Administration or some idiot municipality in this country decides to do that? And can we not all assume that the same nit wits who screamed DOMESTIC SPYING when Bush was monitoring TERRORISTS OVERSEAS will be totally fine with this REAL INTRUSION into our lives and infringement on our liberty?
RightwingHippyChick
15 years ago
The people turning off the lights are actually not going to cause any savings as the not used energy is then wasted on random turbines etc to keep the network at a functional level.
They had this kind of ‘party’ in Germany not so long ago, it didn’t happen as not many people could be asked to turn the lights off, but it was interested watching the guys in the power stations explain the futility of this action and what they have to do to root around the idiocy.
On another note, in Switzerland, a guy invested 40 million Swiss Francs into building a fish farm that produces 5 tonnes of fish daily in environmentally friendly conditions. The local veterinarian hates the idea and claims that the slaughter methods used are cruel. The specially bred hybrid fish that do not exist in nature anywhere are grown @ 27C and when the time comes, the water is chilled slowly to 10C and when the fish are knocked out by the cold, they are tumbled with ice shards to remove the slime of their skin (the one drawback to this fish) before they are finally killed by the process. There is no proof at all that any of the fishes actually feels anything at time anymore since they are well and truly knocked out but the powers that be (hasslesome) are demanding that he brings proof that the method is not cruel, rather than that they are bringing the proof that it is. (…) To really annoy the owner, the authorities actually had approved of this method when the planning for the company was checked, and a law changed in the meanwhile and suddenly he is an criminal animal abuser instead of a business man who feed the country with cheap, healthy and environment-friendly fish.
Because of persistent harassment by ‘animal rights’ activists that are in key official positions, and because of the MSM smears that resulted in crashed sales of his very healthy and tasty fishes, the owner, Mr. Raab just about had enough and said he’ll turn off the electricity to the plant on Thursday, and the all-knowing state veteriarian should better organise the ‘proper’ slaughter and incineration of 400.000 fish, since clearly, he isn’t ‘able’ to do so satisfactorily. (If you take 1 minute to catch and dispatch a very slimy large fish, that is 6666 hours of solid fish killing, have fun guys…)
Thanks for that story @RightwingHippyChick. It gives new meaning to the phrase: slimy, smelly environmentalists!
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
@Dave,
There’s are huge differences between unbridled freedom and responsible freedom. I’m guessing that you understand the differences, but I’m not foolish enough to take such a bet. Or, maybe you just enjoy arguing for argument’s sake. I, on the other hand, prefer to dispute the ridiculous canards that *some* activists use to justify their actions.
With which part or parts of my previous post did you disagree? I’m open to well-reasoned debate about anything I say or do, but all I see in your ranting is hyperbole and aimless prattle. In other words, what’s your point?
Do you think people who don’t share your views are extremists? Based on your sarcastic and ludicrous list of “to do’s”, it sure seems like you believe that every one of your would-be detractors is a wacked-out mental case who must be constrained in order to prevent him from harming himself, others, and the world around him. Is this the case?
Or, maybe you’re simply trying to make a point, perhaps that moderates and conservatives just refuse to believe in any idea, proposal, or law that threatens to deny them the pleasure to do anything they want to do, anywhere, with anyone, etc. without restriction, even if such restrictions are based on sound science or universally accepted mores? If so, you are terribly wrong, and you fail to grasp others’ objections to questionable laws and regulations.
I object to edicts (laws and/or regulations) that limit my freedoms if:
A) the edicts are based on pseudo-science, and don’t do anything but complicate life and add bureaucracy or cost, make life more difficult, or increase the government’s scope of control;
B) edicts that are based on reliable and relevant science or data but whose enforcement does not address root cause and otherwise either makes matters worse or makes no difference but to add bureaucracy or cost, make life more difficult, or increase the government’s scope of control; or
C) result in consequences that are more of a problem than the law is intended to fix.
I believe most activists are genuinely concerned about the issue that impassions them, but their efforts are likely to be misguided if the hazards they are fighting are made to appear more pressing by bad science or by lawmakers with ulterior motives, particularly if these motives are driven by internalized needs (ego, the need to feel important, the desire to succeed at any cost, etc.). Surely you’ve seen or heard about issues that turn out to be non-issues, but still some people don’t seem to be able to let go of their “crusades,” haven’t you?
To me, the bottom line is that we’re better off as a society if we refuse to accept the limits to personal freedom that arise due to laws or regulations that create more of a problem than they solve, limit the civil liberties of a particular person or group of people arbitrarily, or benefit one person or group of people at the cost of another person or group of people (or the natural world) without recompense amenable to all involved parties.
If you’ve got different views on the constitutional or moral duties of government, I’d be more than happy to discuss them with you, preferably without excessive and unnecessary sarcasm.
Jeff V
Dave
15 years ago
Thomas B.,
Not really. That would mean we should abandon all charities because the government might make them mandatory. What you just did is called a “slippery slope” argument… get a clue.
My point is very simple. If the problem with energy conservation is that the government is going to infringe upon your freedom, kinda like the way they do with marijuana, then earth day seems like a conservative’s approach. It’s a win-win for everybody.
Mike’s America,
I’m a libertarian. Not a “lib.” And I have yet to turn into a pretzel.
Elizabeth
15 years ago
I left my lights on, but I noticed something peculiar…ALL OF THE TELEVISION CHANNELS ARE BROADCASTING.
So? The press doesn’t have to “darken” for the planet?
Once again, I’ll believe this crap is real when the people in power start acting like it’s real.
But since NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MTV and so forth are broadcasting…I see no reason to participate in this farce.
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
Lightbringer,
I agree with your reasoning. My suggestions were simple, first try ideas, nothing more. I like your deeper analysis and insight.
Indeed, the two great self-important groups (politicians and the MSM) are the enablers. We can get rid of bad/misguided politicians if we try, but the media are pretty much killing themselves slowly (albeit a bit too slowly for my tastes.) With a little luck and a lot of cooperation, we can take much of the wind out of the wackos’ sails.
I do want to point out that many times the environmentalists and other activists are right, and they can serve very important functions in society. We just need to be vigilant and do our best to counter bad pseudo-science (or junk science) with well-reasoned arguments, and be sure to thank the environmentalists for the services they provide when they are right!
Jeff V
liam09
15 years ago
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.
Nowadays the new religious fanatics and wackos are not the christian fundamentalists but rather the ecofreaks and treehuggers. The socialist libtards should be included in that category also.
AGW is one of the great conjobs of the modern western world. And this absurd earth day sounds a bit like one of those bad days from the mainland last time when it was under extreme rule, when people went to extremes doing silly things because the party was pushing some absurd policy.
William
15 years ago
Do these altruistic loons realize how stupid they look? Turn out the lights for an hour while there are hundreds of sporting events going on in areas, soccer fields, and ball parks; rock concerts and symphonies performing, movies running, steel mills and other manufacturing plants operating, etc. In one way, we can thank Al Gore for exposing the number of intellectial incompetents there are in the world. The light bulb in their brain has been turned off for quite a while.
Lightbringer
15 years ago
@Jeff V
I agree that environmentalists do serve an actual function, and are right in many cases when it comes to reigning in actual harmful pollution. Hence my line about returning to the days when they would shame congress into regulating industries that were harming the environment. Lead in the water supply, harmful chemicals in the rivers and air, etc.
But the left wing politicians and the enviro movement became entangled into a feedback loop. The more the enviro nuts would demand, the more the left would try and use such demands to shackle free enterprise. The more the politicians would support the demands, the crazier and “out in left field” the demands would grow. You are correct that the MSM are having a field day cheering their master’s new pets on. They have reached the point where they are protesting one of the three major components of our atmosphere (and blithely ignoring that huge fusion bomb in the sky).
The sad (and yet funny) aspect of this symbiosis is that if the Statists eventually do control industry, they will have the enviro freaks shot or imprisoned if they dare to protest the State’s industrial policies. In fact, I can easily envision a heavily socialist government of the future building hundreds of cheap, dirty coal plants to keep the proles supplied with electricity. The environmental whack jobs will have served their purpose and have become an annoyance instead of a tool.
mooseburger
15 years ago
When Partisan Koolaid drinkers on any side of an issue take an argument and push it as far to the extreem as possible and throw it back at you as being your position, it might win a snary little pi**ing match, but ignores the logic in both sides of an issue. Nobody is being forced to conserve anything. It is voluntary. Conserving resources is a good thing to do. God told ancient Isreal to only plant for 6 years on one field and let the 7th year be unplanted. He didn’t tell them use up everything as much as you want, there is always more. Conserving resources is a wise thing to do. Pushing too far to either extreem is not wise. It is not an Either or situation. If you are a Conservative who believes in God, you would want to treat His creation with respect and thanks for what He has given to us.
Lightbringer
15 years ago
Nobody is being forced to conserve anything. It is voluntary.
@Moose
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.
So if those of us who believe in Liberty accede to start the tug of war with one foot already in the mud puddle, exactly how long do you think it will remain “voluntary”?
ChipD
15 years ago
Ok, lets rachet down the hysteria a bit.
Since when did thrift and common sense become so fiercely politicized and wildly controversial?
Leaving aside the who-loves-Obama versus who-loves-Bush war for a moment;
Isn’t it good common sense to be thrifty and economical in our use of resources? Isn’t it a good idea to promote and encourage energy conservation?
Look, there are plenty of windbags in the environmental movement, and plenty who are as insufferably smug as a TV preacher-
but the fact remains that energy is expensive, and only getting more so, and until we can learn to conserve and reduce our use of it, it will continue to hurt our economy and national security.
And all the cursing of the President and Congress won’t change that.
Of course it makes sense for the climate change skeptics, like yourself, to do the opposite on the Earth Hour – but ChipD has a point.
Do you believe there are energy issues looming and how what would you do to tackle that? The earth has a finite level of fossil fuels and demand for them is going up. Do you do nothing and keep going the way we are going?
@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?
“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.”
@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.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
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.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
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.
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”.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
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?
Lightbringer
15 years ago
@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.
This earth day sounds like some sort of compulsory ess-kissing religious holiday or foot-kissing of political leader day. We’ve had enough of this last time, so it’s sad to see nonsense like this starting in america.
While it may raise environmental conscioiusness by brainwashing dumb youths who can’t think for themselves, it really is a meaningless exercise promoted by those who hope to gain power, influence or money thru our gullibility or stupidity.
I do have concerns over pollution and habitat destruction, but my way is to donate directly to those orgs that directly do the work of preserving the wetlands or making sure the turtles grow to x length first before they are let off.
All this anthropogenic global warming, carbon credits, earth day, is just for gullible and dumb people—the sort who voted for Obama.
No one is forcing anyone to turn out their lights. Its voluntary. The fact that earth day is voluntary makes it the opposite of the various government restrictions that were posted above. Therefore the author of this post should be applauding earth day. Does he understand the difference between “voluntary” and “law?” I’m guessing that he was just so put off by the concept of energy conservation that he didn’t think through logical steps of his argument.
Dave,
That’s the liberal plan. First to make it voluntary. Then to frown upon those who don’t do it. Then make it the law. Just look at Obama’s mandatory service proposal. First it was encouraged, then we started paying people to volunteer, now it’s going to be mandatory. Get a clue.
The enviromaniacs are at it again. Nobody (except for John Stossel and a few other sane people made to look like wackos by the alarmist media) ever seems to appreciate the mob mentality behind activism. It’s a perfect example of dysfunctional organizational psychology.
Many activists find out that alarmism works, and they get a huge ego boost to be seen as noble protectors of the vulnerable (environment, whales, endangered species), even if the endangerment is completely natural. I’m amazed at the people who will risk their lives to save a deer that falls through a crack in the ice on the surface of a pond or lake. The usual rationale is that the animal might drown or otherwise fall victim to a predator.
Um, “HELLO!!” That’s how nature has worked for millions of years. The environmental wackos end up interfering with the very process they claim to be protecting.
Of course, since activists’ egos are at stake, they can’t stand being seen as fools. In the face of believable criticism, they just modify their targets, and that is the key to dealing with activists. Expose the flaws in their arguments, and point them to an issue that they can tackle and claim victory. As long as the issue is sensible, they’ll feel important (and can save face.)
The trick is to find an issue that can be corrected without imposing a great deal of hardship on the activists’ foes, which is not always easy. The ego boost that activists get is usually proportional to the level of hardship they impose on others.
I’m going to do what Tom Bodett does, and “leave the light on.”
Jeff V
You will be able to see my house from space tonight!
Me too Chandler! Think I’ll let the sprinklers run all night and burn a huge fire in the fireplace just to top it off!
@Dave: I would love to hear your comeback to Thomas B.
I love watching libs twist themselves into pretzels.
@Jeff V
While this may work with a few idealistic youngsters who have let their hearts overwhelm their brains, it has a few flaws when it comes to dealing with the majority of the ecofreaks.
1. Exposing flaws in someone else religion usually only serves to piss them off and drive them further into fanaticism.
2. You said it yourself, their basic drive is not to save the Earth, it is to control other people. Yes, a big component of their emotional payoff is being able to claim moral righteousness at the same time, but if that was enough they would simply live green and look down their noses at the rest of us. If we manage to disprove their alarmism sufficiently to shut them up (or at least stop them from destroying the global economy), then their personality type is going to lead the worst of the bunch straight into some other cause with similar parameters. Gun control comes to mind.
3. Lastly, it will be hard to redirect them while the political Left continues to stroke their egos and champion their cause. The politicians get to cloak themselves in the same “holier than thou” mantle (even while completely flouting the spirit of the movement, think Al Gore’s electric bill or Pelosi’s jet travel), and they can damage the economy creating more and more state dependents and less mobility and freedom. Left wing politicians are not about to let such a useful and powerful tool just wander off.
My main take on the issue is that we have to discredit and remove (or at least reduce) the source of their official approval before we can successfully morph this religious movement back into one that shames us into environmental regulations instead of commanding us to deconstruct our entire economy and way of life.
big, i mean big bonfire party with sports on the tv outside and lots of craziness here. i won’t turn off my lights, hell i might even sleep with the stupid things on.
Mike,
First, thanks once again for presenting that hoary chestnut – the watermelon. No matter how many times you use it and for one more time explain it, it’s scintillating wit and profound insight never cease to amuse and enlighten. How about a watermelon graphic – Maybe a hammer and sickle carved into the rind of a watermelon so that the hammer and sickle are created by the red meat of the watermelon?
Gee, this is fun. And I’m learning at the same time.
Jeff,
Your love of freedom has inspired me. I’m going to go you and Tom one better. I’m going to leave all the lights in my house all day that day. And I’m going to run every appliance, crank up the heat , turn on all the water faucets, and leave both TVs on with the volume turned all the way up. And my coup de grace for freedom will be to turn my car on and let it idle until it runs out of gas. Hell, it’s my car and my gas and my electricity and my water. God bless America.
@Dave Noble: I see you are wasting more energy putting up snarky pointless retorts. Why not be a good lib and shut down your computer, turn off all the lights and go grow lettuce in your organic garden making sure to use no water other than that supplied by rain.
As for the graphic, how about this one?
What a bunch of garbage. For me, every light in the house will be on to protest these idiots telling me what I can and can not do!! I live in a country in which our basic freedoms are under attack by our leaders!! If we don’t wake up it will be over soon. WE can not expect the useful idiots in the MSM to help because the messiah has already bought them!!
I’ll be turning on every light etc regardless of the 40% hike already in my electric bill. I suggest that it be mandatory that DC turn off all the AC AND heat for the next year – sessions will be shorter and there’ll be less time for them to screw up the American people. Let the critters go home and screw up their own states!! Mine are out in front with Specter and Casey!
Luva,
The exercise of freedom is no place for half measures. Be like me. Go for the gusto, girl.
Alright, you’ve sparked my competitive spirit and I’m the kind of guy who likes to win big. I’m also going to change MY oil in MY car and pour the dirty oil in MY backyard. I paid for it all with the sweat of MY honest labor.
You know what OUR stands for? Oppressive Unamerican Restrictions.
Oh, yeah, and then I’m going to eat a half dozen burritos with extra hot salsa, wash em down with some beer made in a brewery as far away from my house as possible, get in my car with the brand new oil and gas from the leaking underground storage tank in my backyard, and go for a ride.
And, Boy oh Boy, I’m going to drive down the highway at 120 mph with all the windows open and both the heater AND the air conditioner on full blast. I’ll be honking the horn, blasting my stereo, and farting my brains out. God bless Greenhouse Gases.
Mike,
Dude, you stole my screensaver.
The Other Mike and Fedup,
What a couple of wusses. Check out my stuff, losers. And you say you love freedom.
OMG.. another rare moment of “unity”, Dave Noble. I’ve used the “Earth at Night” for my screensaver desktop for almost a decade. Great image which, for those of you who have never seen it, can be viewed here.
@Dave Noble
Your Prius does 120?
Light,
Good one, seriously. I think Priuses might do 120. Actually, I drive a 1994 V-6 Camry coupe with 240,000 miles on it and I do change my own oil. I just don’t dump it in my backyard. I put it in used wiper fluid containers and then take it down to STS Tire, where they recycle it. The Camry gets in the high 20s for fuel efficiency. It’s my understanding that to scrap that vehicle and buy a new Prius would use up more resources than continuing to drive it. When the Iron Horse finally does breathe her last breath, I do intend to buy a highly fuel efficient vehicle, likely a Prius, since I have had excellent experience with Toyotas.
Mata,
I’m sorry, my screensaver shows Obama with the United Socialist States of America under his picture. I love that retro Commie look.
I guess even a brief moment of falsely perceived unity is better than none at all.
After all, we do live in the same country, even though you’re working to preserve and protect it and I’m working to debase and destroy it.
@Dave Noble: @Dave Noble: Slow down on the Kool Aid Dave. I think you might be overdosing on the stuff.
That stuff should come with a warning label.
As for your other straw dogs in the comment directed at Luva above, you fail to understand the essential point of LIBERTY! That is, we should be free to do as we please as along as we don’t harm anyone else. Rules for highway speeds and practical environmental controls like oil dumping are there to protect everyone.
Rules to limit water or electric usage are there to punish everyone. There are plenty of resources to supply those needs to those who wish to pay for them.
You’re a commie tool Dave. Face it!
And another thing…. I forgot to include this story from the UK where they are using infrared technology to SPY on people to see how they are using energy:
http://yellowlimes.blogspot.com/2009/03/uk-energy-spy-plane-big-brother-is.html
How long before the Obama Administration or some idiot municipality in this country decides to do that? And can we not all assume that the same nit wits who screamed DOMESTIC SPYING when Bush was monitoring TERRORISTS OVERSEAS will be totally fine with this REAL INTRUSION into our lives and infringement on our liberty?
The people turning off the lights are actually not going to cause any savings as the not used energy is then wasted on random turbines etc to keep the network at a functional level.
They had this kind of ‘party’ in Germany not so long ago, it didn’t happen as not many people could be asked to turn the lights off, but it was interested watching the guys in the power stations explain the futility of this action and what they have to do to root around the idiocy.
On another note, in Switzerland, a guy invested 40 million Swiss Francs into building a fish farm that produces 5 tonnes of fish daily in environmentally friendly conditions. The local veterinarian hates the idea and claims that the slaughter methods used are cruel. The specially bred hybrid fish that do not exist in nature anywhere are grown @ 27C and when the time comes, the water is chilled slowly to 10C and when the fish are knocked out by the cold, they are tumbled with ice shards to remove the slime of their skin (the one drawback to this fish) before they are finally killed by the process. There is no proof at all that any of the fishes actually feels anything at time anymore since they are well and truly knocked out but the powers that be (hasslesome) are demanding that he brings proof that the method is not cruel, rather than that they are bringing the proof that it is. (…) To really annoy the owner, the authorities actually had approved of this method when the planning for the company was checked, and a law changed in the meanwhile and suddenly he is an criminal animal abuser instead of a business man who feed the country with cheap, healthy and environment-friendly fish.
Because of persistent harassment by ‘animal rights’ activists that are in key official positions, and because of the MSM smears that resulted in crashed sales of his very healthy and tasty fishes, the owner, Mr. Raab just about had enough and said he’ll turn off the electricity to the plant on Thursday, and the all-knowing state veteriarian should better organise the ‘proper’ slaughter and incineration of 400.000 fish, since clearly, he isn’t ‘able’ to do so satisfactorily. (If you take 1 minute to catch and dispatch a very slimy large fish, that is 6666 hours of solid fish killing, have fun guys…)
See here: http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&q=Melander+fish+farm+Raab
In other words, if you think the Earth Day is crazy, take careful note, it can get a lot worse!
Thanks for that story @RightwingHippyChick. It gives new meaning to the phrase: slimy, smelly environmentalists!
@Dave,
There’s are huge differences between unbridled freedom and responsible freedom. I’m guessing that you understand the differences, but I’m not foolish enough to take such a bet. Or, maybe you just enjoy arguing for argument’s sake. I, on the other hand, prefer to dispute the ridiculous canards that *some* activists use to justify their actions.
With which part or parts of my previous post did you disagree? I’m open to well-reasoned debate about anything I say or do, but all I see in your ranting is hyperbole and aimless prattle. In other words, what’s your point?
Do you think people who don’t share your views are extremists? Based on your sarcastic and ludicrous list of “to do’s”, it sure seems like you believe that every one of your would-be detractors is a wacked-out mental case who must be constrained in order to prevent him from harming himself, others, and the world around him. Is this the case?
Or, maybe you’re simply trying to make a point, perhaps that moderates and conservatives just refuse to believe in any idea, proposal, or law that threatens to deny them the pleasure to do anything they want to do, anywhere, with anyone, etc. without restriction, even if such restrictions are based on sound science or universally accepted mores? If so, you are terribly wrong, and you fail to grasp others’ objections to questionable laws and regulations.
I object to edicts (laws and/or regulations) that limit my freedoms if:
A) the edicts are based on pseudo-science, and don’t do anything but complicate life and add bureaucracy or cost, make life more difficult, or increase the government’s scope of control;
B) edicts that are based on reliable and relevant science or data but whose enforcement does not address root cause and otherwise either makes matters worse or makes no difference but to add bureaucracy or cost, make life more difficult, or increase the government’s scope of control; or
C) result in consequences that are more of a problem than the law is intended to fix.
I believe most activists are genuinely concerned about the issue that impassions them, but their efforts are likely to be misguided if the hazards they are fighting are made to appear more pressing by bad science or by lawmakers with ulterior motives, particularly if these motives are driven by internalized needs (ego, the need to feel important, the desire to succeed at any cost, etc.). Surely you’ve seen or heard about issues that turn out to be non-issues, but still some people don’t seem to be able to let go of their “crusades,” haven’t you?
To me, the bottom line is that we’re better off as a society if we refuse to accept the limits to personal freedom that arise due to laws or regulations that create more of a problem than they solve, limit the civil liberties of a particular person or group of people arbitrarily, or benefit one person or group of people at the cost of another person or group of people (or the natural world) without recompense amenable to all involved parties.
If you’ve got different views on the constitutional or moral duties of government, I’d be more than happy to discuss them with you, preferably without excessive and unnecessary sarcasm.
Jeff V
Thomas B.,
Not really. That would mean we should abandon all charities because the government might make them mandatory. What you just did is called a “slippery slope” argument… get a clue.
My point is very simple. If the problem with energy conservation is that the government is going to infringe upon your freedom, kinda like the way they do with marijuana, then earth day seems like a conservative’s approach. It’s a win-win for everybody.
Mike’s America,
I’m a libertarian. Not a “lib.” And I have yet to turn into a pretzel.
I left my lights on, but I noticed something peculiar…ALL OF THE TELEVISION CHANNELS ARE BROADCASTING.
So? The press doesn’t have to “darken” for the planet?
Once again, I’ll believe this crap is real when the people in power start acting like it’s real.
But since NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MTV and so forth are broadcasting…I see no reason to participate in this farce.
Lightbringer,
I agree with your reasoning. My suggestions were simple, first try ideas, nothing more. I like your deeper analysis and insight.
Indeed, the two great self-important groups (politicians and the MSM) are the enablers. We can get rid of bad/misguided politicians if we try, but the media are pretty much killing themselves slowly (albeit a bit too slowly for my tastes.) With a little luck and a lot of cooperation, we can take much of the wind out of the wackos’ sails.
I do want to point out that many times the environmentalists and other activists are right, and they can serve very important functions in society. We just need to be vigilant and do our best to counter bad pseudo-science (or junk science) with well-reasoned arguments, and be sure to thank the environmentalists for the services they provide when they are right!
Jeff V
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.
Nowadays the new religious fanatics and wackos are not the christian fundamentalists but rather the ecofreaks and treehuggers. The socialist libtards should be included in that category also.
AGW is one of the great conjobs of the modern western world. And this absurd earth day sounds a bit like one of those bad days from the mainland last time when it was under extreme rule, when people went to extremes doing silly things because the party was pushing some absurd policy.
Do these altruistic loons realize how stupid they look? Turn out the lights for an hour while there are hundreds of sporting events going on in areas, soccer fields, and ball parks; rock concerts and symphonies performing, movies running, steel mills and other manufacturing plants operating, etc. In one way, we can thank Al Gore for exposing the number of intellectial incompetents there are in the world. The light bulb in their brain has been turned off for quite a while.
@Jeff V
I agree that environmentalists do serve an actual function, and are right in many cases when it comes to reigning in actual harmful pollution. Hence my line about returning to the days when they would shame congress into regulating industries that were harming the environment. Lead in the water supply, harmful chemicals in the rivers and air, etc.
But the left wing politicians and the enviro movement became entangled into a feedback loop. The more the enviro nuts would demand, the more the left would try and use such demands to shackle free enterprise. The more the politicians would support the demands, the crazier and “out in left field” the demands would grow. You are correct that the MSM are having a field day cheering their master’s new pets on. They have reached the point where they are protesting one of the three major components of our atmosphere (and blithely ignoring that huge fusion bomb in the sky).
The sad (and yet funny) aspect of this symbiosis is that if the Statists eventually do control industry, they will have the enviro freaks shot or imprisoned if they dare to protest the State’s industrial policies. In fact, I can easily envision a heavily socialist government of the future building hundreds of cheap, dirty coal plants to keep the proles supplied with electricity. The environmental whack jobs will have served their purpose and have become an annoyance instead of a tool.
When Partisan Koolaid drinkers on any side of an issue take an argument and push it as far to the extreem as possible and throw it back at you as being your position, it might win a snary little pi**ing match, but ignores the logic in both sides of an issue. Nobody is being forced to conserve anything. It is voluntary. Conserving resources is a good thing to do. God told ancient Isreal to only plant for 6 years on one field and let the 7th year be unplanted. He didn’t tell them use up everything as much as you want, there is always more. Conserving resources is a wise thing to do. Pushing too far to either extreem is not wise. It is not an Either or situation. If you are a Conservative who believes in God, you would want to treat His creation with respect and thanks for what He has given to us.
@Moose
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.
So if those of us who believe in Liberty accede to start the tug of war with one foot already in the mud puddle, exactly how long do you think it will remain “voluntary”?
Ok, lets rachet down the hysteria a bit.
Since when did thrift and common sense become so fiercely politicized and wildly controversial?
Leaving aside the who-loves-Obama versus who-loves-Bush war for a moment;
Isn’t it good common sense to be thrifty and economical in our use of resources? Isn’t it a good idea to promote and encourage energy conservation?
Look, there are plenty of windbags in the environmental movement, and plenty who are as insufferably smug as a TV preacher-
but the fact remains that energy is expensive, and only getting more so, and until we can learn to conserve and reduce our use of it, it will continue to hurt our economy and national security.
And all the cursing of the President and Congress won’t change that.
@ChipD: Either you don’t get it or you do get it and you just don’t want to admit it.
This isn’t about promoting conservation or thrift. It’s about promoting a radical socialist big government agenda which has nothing to do with either.
And if you want to know why energy is getting more expensive just ask that #^@%@#*^$*&)(%()@#^& Obama.
Didn’t he say his plan was to raise energy prices even HIGHER?
How are you going to blame that one on Bush?
@Mike
Of course it makes sense for the climate change skeptics, like yourself, to do the opposite on the Earth Hour – but ChipD has a point.
Do you believe there are energy issues looming and how what would you do to tackle that? The earth has a finite level of fossil fuels and demand for them is going up. Do you do nothing and keep going the way we are going?
@GaffaUK: There is no energy issue that cannot be solved by the free market.
As for fossil fuels, we have an abundant supply of coal ready for the burning.
But the same watermelons who are pusing idiotic ideas like Earth Hour are doing everything they can to deprive us of the safe use of those resources.
Next question…
@Mike
So with coal – what’s your thoughts on smog and pollution caused by burning coal?
@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?
@Wisdom
And which countries are you referring to….?
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……
@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.
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.
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.
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”.
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?
@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.