Of course global warming exist. I never denied that. However how can you even begin to deny that there is no profit to be made in the global warming debate when the media is practically sucking Al Gore's dick? This thread pointed out that Al Gore, the very asshole who seems to be heading this movement is in a hypocrtical situation in regards to his personal power consumption and waste management. So yeah, i'd definitely say he's not in this for the correct reasons.
Also, how does it suck? I'd say that during our day and age any area that would be adversely affected by our contributations to global warming could easily find alleviation through modern technology. The amount of deviation we are seeing is not climatic.
Look up Paleoclimatology and Solar Variation before you begin to discredit my arguement.
Al Gore has been an environmentalist for well over 2 decades, far before it was popular, profitable, or politically useful. Trying to say that he's in this for the money is complete and utter bullshit.
As much as I wholeheartedly support nuclear power, trying to send it into space is not a good idea. You don't want a shuttle carrying radioactive materials to explode in the upper atmosphere. That would be bad.
I'm sure that one of the other reasons that nuclear power isn't more widely used is because of what happened at Chernobyl. Remember that? Radioactive Fallout drifted as far as the U.K., and upwards of 9000 people are predicted to die as a result of the cancer and radiation.
With all the disaster and subsequent cleanup needed to move over 116,000 people out of affected regions, people are still living in affected areas.
Could you imagine what would happen if nuclear materials detonated in the atmosphere? Catastrophe.
When you have a graphite moderated reactor with people who ignore safety protocols at the controls, you have a recipe for disaster. Fortunately most reactors today are water-moderated with better safety standards. Though I agree, putting large amounts of radioactive material near large amounts of burning rocket fuel would probably be something they'd need to examine thoroughly before attempting. I don't know why you think the radioactive materials themselves would "detonate", but there is a danger there.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
As much as I wholeheartedly support nuclear power, trying to send it into space is not a good idea. You don't want a shuttle carrying radioactive materials to explode in the upper atmosphere. That would be bad.
I'm sure that one of the other reasons that nuclear power isn't more widely used is because of what happened at Chernobyl. Remember that? Radioactive Fallout drifted as far as the U.K., and upwards of 9000 people are predicted to die as a result of the cancer and radiation.
With all the disaster and subsequent cleanup needed to move over 116,000 people out of affected regions, people are still living in affected areas.
Could you imagine what would happen if nuclear materials detonated in the atmosphere? Catastrophe.
When you have a graphite moderated reactor with people who ignore safety protocols at the controls, you have a recipe for disaster. Fortunately most reactors today are water-moderated with better safety standards. Though I agree, putting large amounts of radioactive material near large amounts of burning rocket fuel would probably be something they'd need to examine thoroughly before attempting. I don't know why you think the radioactive materials themselves would "detonate", but there is a danger there.
Well, if the rocket detonated ala Challenger then the nuclear material would be distributed basically everywhere that has a surface. Plus we always have the risk of that rocket one day returning.
People need to get crackin' on that space elevator.
We've sent nuclear material into space repeatedly, you know. Mostly in radiothermal generators (they don't induce a chain reaction, they just use the heat of the decaying elements).
Foremost. I never argued against reductions in CO2 or any measures that we could take to help slow the process of global warming.
Secondly, it's rediculous and idiotic to assume that publicity does not garner profit. Honestly, think of the social and political prowess that Al Gore has gained as a result of the film. He makes an assertion on a well known fact and suddenly we can't go a day without hearing his name or his film mentioned. That's fucking profit and you're blind to think otherwise.
Also, let's assume that we do go green. There will inevitably be a power vaccuum in the economy since according to your notions it is so much cheaper and profitable to none. It should be expected of a capitalist economy to milk any new market, so it's historically and logically inaccurate to think that there aren't corporations waiting to use new energy systems as a viable means to up their revenue.
Also, let's assume that we do go green. There will inevitably be a power vaccuum in the economy since according to your notions it is so much cheaper and profitable to none. It should be expected of a capitalist economy to milk any new market, so it's historically and logically inaccurate to think that there aren't corporations waiting to use new energy systems as a viable means to up their revenue.
Yes, there will be creative destruction where people who designed coal power plants would be out of work but people designing BIPV's or what have you will be gainfully employed. I'm afraid I don't see how this is a result of the climate change debate. Egads people are going to build ecologically regenerative products and sell them at a profit to people who want to buy them! The horror?
Also, when did profit come to mean 'any percievable positive impact?'
Also, let's assume that we do go green. There will inevitably be a power vaccuum in the economy since according to your notions it is so much cheaper and profitable to none. It should be expected of a capitalist economy to milk any new market, so it's historically and logically inaccurate to think that there aren't corporations waiting to use new energy systems as a viable means to up their revenue.
Yes, there will be creative destruction where people who designed coal power plants would be out of work but people designing BIPV's or what have you will be gainfully employed. I'm afraid I don't see how this is a result of the climate change debate. Egads people are going to build ecologically regenerative products and sell them at a profit to people who want to buy them! The horror?
Also, when did profit come to mean 'any percievable positive impact?'
How isn't their employment a result of the climate change debate? By aggrandizing the extent of damage our contributations to global warming will do we create a shift in the designers behind our energy market. So, of course the people who are designing eco friendly devices will be seeing some profit in one way or another because they are getting a meager amount at the moment. Again, i'm not saying that having a device that is friendly to the environment is a bad thing, i'm just saying the need isn't what it is made out to be. Nor are the benefits.
And profit came to mean 'any percievable positive impact?' the day that spin was invented. Imagine what Gore and the companies leading this movement will be able to accomplish on their personal agendas if we do make a shift to their designs. To deny ulterior motivations is wishful, at best.
Also, let's assume that we do go green. There will inevitably be a power vaccuum in the economy since according to your notions it is so much cheaper and profitable to none. It should be expected of a capitalist economy to milk any new market, so it's historically and logically inaccurate to think that there aren't corporations waiting to use new energy systems as a viable means to up their revenue.
Yes, there will be creative destruction where people who designed coal power plants would be out of work but people designing BIPV's or what have you will be gainfully employed. I'm afraid I don't see how this is a result of the climate change debate. Egads people are going to build ecologically regenerative products and sell them at a profit to people who want to buy them! The horror?
Also, when did profit come to mean 'any percievable positive impact?'
How isn't their employment a result of the climate change debate? By aggrandizing the extent of damage our contributations to global warming will do we create a shift in the designers behind our energy market. So, of course the people who are designing eco friendly devices will be seeing some profit in one way or another because they are getting a meager amount at the moment. Again, i'm not saying that having a device that is friendly to the environment is a bad thing, i'm just saying the need isn't what it is made out to be. Nor are the benefits.
And profit came to mean 'any percievable positive impact?' the day that spin was invented. Imagine what Gore and the companies leading this movement will be able to accomplish on their personal agendas if we do make a shift to their designs. To deny ulterior motivations is wishful, at best.
Can we at least be clear that we agree that coal power is absolutely gawdawful for the environment, global warming or not?
Secondly, it's rediculous and idiotic to assume that publicity does not garner profit. Honestly, think of the social and political prowess that Al Gore has gained as a result of the film. He makes an assertion on a well known fact and suddenly we can't go a day without hearing his name or his film mentioned. That's fucking profit and you're blind to think otherwise.
Also, let's assume that we do go green. There will inevitably be a power vaccuum in the economy since according to your notions it is so much cheaper and profitable to none. It should be expected of a capitalist economy to milk any new market, so it's historically and logically inaccurate to think that there aren't corporations waiting to use new energy systems as a viable means to up their revenue.
Yes, there will be creative destruction where people who designed coal power plants would be out of work but people designing BIPV's or what have you will be gainfully employed. I'm afraid I don't see how this is a result of the climate change debate. Egads people are going to build ecologically regenerative products and sell them at a profit to people who want to buy them! The horror?
Also, when did profit come to mean 'any percievable positive impact?'
How isn't their employment a result of the climate change debate? By aggrandizing the extent of damage our contributations to global warming will do we create a shift in the designers behind our energy market. So, of course the people who are designing eco friendly devices will be seeing some profit in one way or another because they are getting a meager amount at the moment. Again, i'm not saying that having a device that is friendly to the environment is a bad thing, i'm just saying the need isn't what it is made out to be. Nor are the benefits.
And profit came to mean 'any percievable positive impact?' the day that spin was invented. Imagine what Gore and the companies leading this movement will be able to accomplish on their personal agendas if we do make a shift to their designs. To deny ulterior motivations is wishful, at best.
Can we at least be clear that we agree that coal power is absolutely gawdawful for the environment, global warming or not?
Yeah, I agree. I just don't think we'll be able to make an efficient move for quite some time and the end result is just going to be needless profit and baseless popularity.
Secondly, it's rediculous and idiotic to assume that publicity does not garner profit. Honestly, think of the social and political prowess that Al Gore has gained as a result of the film. He makes an assertion on a well known fact and suddenly we can't go a day without hearing his name or his film mentioned. That's fucking profit and you're blind to think otherwise.
And?
And. . .everyone was saying otherwise. Glad you agree.
Yeah, I agree. I just don't think we'll be able to make an efficient move for quite some time and the end result is just going to be needless profit and baseless popularity.
If one is taking steps to expedite a process that otherwise might not get done until it's too late, I don't think any attention those steps draw would qualify as "needless" or "baseless."
Also, let's assume that we do go green. There will inevitably be a power vaccuum in the economy since according to your notions it is so much cheaper and profitable to none. It should be expected of a capitalist economy to milk any new market, so it's historically and logically inaccurate to think that there aren't corporations waiting to use new energy systems as a viable means to up their revenue.
Yes, there will be creative destruction where people who designed coal power plants would be out of work but people designing BIPV's or what have you will be gainfully employed. I'm afraid I don't see how this is a result of the climate change debate. Egads people are going to build ecologically regenerative products and sell them at a profit to people who want to buy them! The horror?
Also, when did profit come to mean 'any percievable positive impact?'
How isn't their employment a result of the climate change debate? By aggrandizing the extent of damage our contributations to global warming will do we create a shift in the designers behind our energy market. So, of course the people who are designing eco friendly devices will be seeing some profit in one way or another because they are getting a meager amount at the moment. Again, i'm not saying that having a device that is friendly to the environment is a bad thing, i'm just saying the need isn't what it is made out to be. Nor are the benefits.
And profit came to mean 'any percievable positive impact?' the day that spin was invented. Imagine what Gore and the companies leading this movement will be able to accomplish on their personal agendas if we do make a shift to their designs. To deny ulterior motivations is wishful, at best.
Can we at least be clear that we agree that coal power is absolutely gawdawful for the environment, global warming or not?
Yeah, I agree. I just don't think we'll be able to make an efficient move for quite some time and the end result is just going to be needless profit and baseless popularity.
Secondly, it's rediculous and idiotic to assume that publicity does not garner profit. Honestly, think of the social and political prowess that Al Gore has gained as a result of the film. He makes an assertion on a well known fact and suddenly we can't go a day without hearing his name or his film mentioned. That's fucking profit and you're blind to think otherwise.
And?
And. . .everyone was saying otherwise. Glad you agree.
I agree that it's beneficial to him, I just don't support the circumstantial ad hominem that you seemed to be going for. Just because something is beneficial in one way or another to someone, doesn't make them or their arguments less honest or less genuine.
Yeah, I agree. I just don't think we'll be able to make an efficient move for quite some time and the end result is just going to be needless profit and baseless popularity.
If one is taking steps to expedite a process that otherwise might not get done until it's too late, I don't think any attention those steps draw would qualify as "needless" or "baseless."
I don't believe the process will be expedited until something unfortunate happens. I thnk that as a result of this we will barely progress forward and people will see it as a reason to believe every word that comes out of Al Gores mouth while backing companies that are (in some cases) barely making a difference.
How isn't their employment a result of the climate change debate? By aggrandizing the extent of damage our contributations to global warming will do we create a shift in the designers behind our energy market.
Because people and companies very rarely throw money away for altruistic reasons. Or are you trying to say that venture capitalists are actually moral people? Passive systems that reduce CO2 emmisions are beyond the pale as far as cost effectiveness and a good number of active systems are very cost effective, essentially saving comapnies (b)millions of dollars and being applied for that reason. The good PR does go into the analysis, but it is hardly the sole reason.
But the idea that this is “just PR†is wrong. When you are spending $43 billion to buy a firm, you don’t scrap its core growth strategy merely to generate a few favourable headlines and pacify opponents. You do it if you believe that the strategy was wrong, and that you have a better one up your sleeve.
The only way that the debate might lead to people, other than ad-men, making money is by stricter regulations eventually coming down the pipe making regenerative technologies more cost effective. That won't happen in any serious way until Bush is out of office. Partly because he might try to edge it down with a veto threat, mainly because the Dems don't want him to be able to take credit for a progressive environmental policy.
Yeah, I agree. I just don't think we'll be able to make an efficient move for quite some time and the end result is just going to be needless profit and baseless popularity.
If one is taking steps to expedite a process that otherwise might not get done until it's too late, I don't think any attention those steps draw would qualify as "needless" or "baseless."
I don't believe the process will be expedited until something unfortunate happens. I thnk that as a result of this we will barely progress forward and people will see it as a reason to believe every word that comes out of Al Gores mouth while backing companies that are (in some cases) barely making a difference.
what?
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Yeah, I agree. I just don't think we'll be able to make an efficient move for quite some time and the end result is just going to be needless profit and baseless popularity.
If one is taking steps to expedite a process that otherwise might not get done until it's too late, I don't think any attention those steps draw would qualify as "needless" or "baseless."
I don't believe the process will be expedited until something unfortunate happens. I thnk that as a result of this we will barely progress forward and people will see it as a reason to believe every word that comes out of Al Gores mouth while backing companies that are (in some cases) barely making a difference.
what?
Typo aside. I don't think there will be much progression, but Gore will be heralded and inconsequential individuals will be funded.
I don't believe the process will be expedited until something unfortunate happens. I thnk that as a result of this we will barely progress forward and people will see it as a reason to believe every word that comes out of Al Gores mouth while backing companies that are (in some cases) barely making a difference.
You can make money off of environmentalism, just look at the sierra club. I think it is dumb to suggest that just because someone stands to make a profit that it negates the validity of their ideas. It is just as valid to point to those on the opposite side who stand to make a lot of money from global warming being ignored. Though I don't particularly care for Al Gore because I disagree with how he wants to fix the problem.
I don't believe the process will be expedited until something unfortunate happens. I thnk that as a result of this we will barely progress forward and people will see it as a reason to believe every word that comes out of Al Gores mouth while backing companies that are (in some cases) barely making a difference.
Yeah, I agree. I just don't think we'll be able to make an efficient move for quite some time and the end result is just going to be needless profit and baseless popularity.
If one is taking steps to expedite a process that otherwise might not get done until it's too late, I don't think any attention those steps draw would qualify as "needless" or "baseless."
I don't believe the process will be expedited until something unfortunate happens. I thnk that as a result of this we will barely progress forward and people will see it as a reason to believe every word that comes out of Al Gores mouth while backing companies that are (in some cases) barely making a difference.
what?
Typo aside. I don't think there will be much progression, but Gore will be heralded and inconsequential individuals will be funded.
I'm still confused as to what you are arguing here. Are you saying that we don't need to do anything in regards to CO2 emission reduction? Or that people will just pay lip service to reducing emissions while really doing nothing?
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I'm going to close in saying that I don't disagree with protecting our environment. I just don't think global warming is our largest threat and the fact that Al Gore and others are getting so much credit for pointing it out is ludicrous. I'm definitely not against seeing a large scale difference, but unfortunately I do not believe that the people with the power, money, and influence are on the same page as us and the green movement will continue to be restricted to a diminutive scale. Until something bigger than Al Gore happens, so I wish we'd stop kissing his ass.
I'm still confused as to what you are arguing here. Are you saying that we don't need to do anything in regards to CO2 emission reduction? Or that people will just pay lip service to reducing emissions while really doing nothing?
The second one. However, I also believe that our impact on global warming is aggrandized. Although, I've lived in Ohio all my life so I don't see anything wrong with wearing shorts in the morning and a winter coat at night.
I don't believe the process will be expedited until something unfortunate happens. I thnk that as a result of this we will barely progress forward and people will see it as a reason to believe every word that comes out of Al Gores mouth while backing companies that are (in some cases) barely making a difference.
Interesting and fantastic initiative. I skimmed the site but is there a list of projects mandating LEED accreditation? Or a list of fiscal benefits?
New Federal buildings are required to be LEED accredidated (I forget if it's a specific kind, but I believe it's rather broad). There are subsidies to following aspects of LEED for a building, but a building that is LEED platinum, gold, or silver is saving money in comparison to a building which is incapable of meeting those requirements.
The amount of money saved would depend on the particular building, though, so I couldn't give you any numbers. I don't know of any broad estimates either, but you don't have to go all the way to LEED to have a beneficial and cheaper building. Passive systems save money simply by being manifested by the designer. Light shelves, for instance, would lower your need for artificial lighting and if done properly will lower your need for heat in the winter and AC in the summer. They're a piece of wood sticking out of your window, hardly breaking the bank and an easy selling point.
However, I also believe that our impact on global warming is aggrandized. Although, I've lived in Ohio all my life so I don't see anything wrong with wearing shorts in the morning and a winter coat at night.
the fact that the climate has veered all over the shop in the last squillion years is fairly fucking irrelevant to the fact that its very unhealthy for bein's like us when that happens, and that perhaps provoking said veering into happening sooner than we can handle it is suicidal.
Foremost. I never argued against reductions in CO2 or any measures that we could take to help slow the process of global warming.
Secondly, it's rediculous and idiotic to assume that publicity does not garner profit. Honestly, think of the social and political prowess that Al Gore has gained as a result of the film. He makes an assertion on a well known fact and suddenly we can't go a day without hearing his name or his film mentioned. That's fucking profit and you're blind to think otherwise.
And he doesn't keep any of the profits. But you knew that, of course.
Also, let's assume that we do go green. There will inevitably be a power vaccuum in the economy since according to your notions it is so much cheaper and profitable to none. It should be expected of a capitalist economy to milk any new market, so it's historically and logically inaccurate to think that there aren't corporations waiting to use new energy systems as a viable means to up their revenue.
People will still make money? Is this relevant to your point about global warming not being a threat? You need to tie this together, somehow. Does the climate cool as the GDP grows?
Regardless of your feelings towards nuclear power, we certainly need some tighter regulations regarding nuclear safety. Storing waste in above ground caskets like we do now is not a viable long-term plan; nor is hiring the same company to both guard and evaluate the guarding at nuclear facilities. So stupid.
Well, if the rocket detonated ala Challenger then the nuclear material would be distributed basically everywhere that has a surface. Plus we always have the risk of that rocket one day returning.
People need to get crackin' on that space elevator.
Yes, but the words used indicated that the nuclear material itself detonated. I don't doubt it could be bad when the rocket explodes, but I just wanted to make clear that spent nuclear material just does not go boom all by itself. Also, what makes you think that "there's always a risk" of it returning? For instance if it hit the sun, or jupiter? Or if it left the solar system entirely, like the Voyager spacecraft? We're very good at predicting where things will go after we put them into space. The two real problems with the plan are safety while launching and cost. Putting spent nuclear material into space might make it less cost-effective than solar, even. I haven't crunched the numbers, but putting stuff into space is expensive. Not to mention you're burning all kinds of fossil fuels to put it there.
Regardless of your feelings towards nuclear power, we certainly need some tighter regulations regarding nuclear safety. Storing waste in above ground caskets like we do now is not a viable long-term plan; nor is hiring the same company to both guard and evaluate the guarding at nuclear facilities. So stupid.
Well we do have a long term plan; it's Yucca Mountain. It's just that people are too busy arguing that the waste should stay in aging, above ground storage locations in populated areas instead of buried in the middle of the desert.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
How does Al Gore's personal energy use affect the importance of education about global warming?
How does a priest's touching of little boys affect the importance of his message?
That's a poor comparison, a priest's message extends to topics unrelated to his misbehavior. We're talking about Gore's environmental message here, not his worth as a human being.
So a better comparison would be "How does a priest's touching of little boys affect the importance of his message to not touch little boys?" And the answer, of course, is that it doesn't. Unless you were arguing that we should molest boys because some priests were hypocrites?
This is leaving aside the fact that the smear job in OP has been refuted two or three times in this thread already.
Now, I personally think Gore is nailed here. He’s up against the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. Sure it’s a conservative think tank funded by Republicans that the Dept of Revenue says is “not a legitimate group.†But it says right on their website that they are “non-partisan.†Who are you going to believe?
How does Al Gore's personal energy use affect the importance of education about global warming?
How does a priest's touching of little boys affect the importance of his message?
That's a poor comparison, a priest's message extends to topics unrelated to his misbehavior. We're talking about Gore's environmental message here, not his worth as a human being.
So a better comparison would be "How does a priest's touching of little boys affect the importance of his message to not touch little boys?" And the answer, of course, is that it doesn't. Unless you were arguing that we should molest boys because some priests were hypocrites?
This is leaving aside the fact that the smear job in OP has been refuted two or three times in this thread already.
Can we at least be clear that we agree that coal power is absolutely gawdawful for the environment, global warming or not?
Here is the obvious truth. We, as in people, are pretty fucking gawdawful for the environment. We dam rivers, cut down forests, destroy other species and/or their habitats and drive them to extinction. Does that mean we should go down without a fight. No. But it is quite possible that we've already hit the point where the environment can't sustain the existing population. If energy is plentiful and cheap and the threat posed by something like global warming is credible (as I believe it now is) we will spend some of the economic value of that energy to burn it clean. If energy becomes scarce and hence expensive we all know you can fuck that. This suggests to me that a rational person who supports investing in things like Kyoto is an optimist with respect to our energy future and rational person who opposes it is a pessimist. Then again people aren't rational so I guess I'm just spamming the thread.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Posts
Al Gore has been an environmentalist for well over 2 decades, far before it was popular, profitable, or politically useful. Trying to say that he's in this for the money is complete and utter bullshit.
When you have a graphite moderated reactor with people who ignore safety protocols at the controls, you have a recipe for disaster. Fortunately most reactors today are water-moderated with better safety standards. Though I agree, putting large amounts of radioactive material near large amounts of burning rocket fuel would probably be something they'd need to examine thoroughly before attempting. I don't know why you think the radioactive materials themselves would "detonate", but there is a danger there.
Well, if the rocket detonated ala Challenger then the nuclear material would be distributed basically everywhere that has a surface. Plus we always have the risk of that rocket one day returning.
People need to get crackin' on that space elevator.
Secondly, it's rediculous and idiotic to assume that publicity does not garner profit. Honestly, think of the social and political prowess that Al Gore has gained as a result of the film. He makes an assertion on a well known fact and suddenly we can't go a day without hearing his name or his film mentioned. That's fucking profit and you're blind to think otherwise.
Also, let's assume that we do go green. There will inevitably be a power vaccuum in the economy since according to your notions it is so much cheaper and profitable to none. It should be expected of a capitalist economy to milk any new market, so it's historically and logically inaccurate to think that there aren't corporations waiting to use new energy systems as a viable means to up their revenue.
Yes, there will be creative destruction where people who designed coal power plants would be out of work but people designing BIPV's or what have you will be gainfully employed. I'm afraid I don't see how this is a result of the climate change debate. Egads people are going to build ecologically regenerative products and sell them at a profit to people who want to buy them! The horror?
Also, when did profit come to mean 'any percievable positive impact?'
How isn't their employment a result of the climate change debate? By aggrandizing the extent of damage our contributations to global warming will do we create a shift in the designers behind our energy market. So, of course the people who are designing eco friendly devices will be seeing some profit in one way or another because they are getting a meager amount at the moment. Again, i'm not saying that having a device that is friendly to the environment is a bad thing, i'm just saying the need isn't what it is made out to be. Nor are the benefits.
And profit came to mean 'any percievable positive impact?' the day that spin was invented. Imagine what Gore and the companies leading this movement will be able to accomplish on their personal agendas if we do make a shift to their designs. To deny ulterior motivations is wishful, at best.
And?
And. . .everyone was saying otherwise. Glad you agree.
If one is taking steps to expedite a process that otherwise might not get done until it's too late, I don't think any attention those steps draw would qualify as "needless" or "baseless."
I agree that it's beneficial to him, I just don't support the circumstantial ad hominem that you seemed to be going for. Just because something is beneficial in one way or another to someone, doesn't make them or their arguments less honest or less genuine.
I don't believe the process will be expedited until something unfortunate happens. I thnk that as a result of this we will barely progress forward and people will see it as a reason to believe every word that comes out of Al Gores mouth while backing companies that are (in some cases) barely making a difference.
Because people and companies very rarely throw money away for altruistic reasons. Or are you trying to say that venture capitalists are actually moral people? Passive systems that reduce CO2 emmisions are beyond the pale as far as cost effectiveness and a good number of active systems are very cost effective, essentially saving comapnies (b)millions of dollars and being applied for that reason. The good PR does go into the analysis, but it is hardly the sole reason.
The only way that the debate might lead to people, other than ad-men, making money is by stricter regulations eventually coming down the pipe making regenerative technologies more cost effective. That won't happen in any serious way until Bush is out of office. Partly because he might try to edge it down with a veto threat, mainly because the Dems don't want him to be able to take credit for a progressive environmental policy.
what?
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I disagree.
I'm still confused as to what you are arguing here. Are you saying that we don't need to do anything in regards to CO2 emission reduction? Or that people will just pay lip service to reducing emissions while really doing nothing?
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
The second one. However, I also believe that our impact on global warming is aggrandized. Although, I've lived in Ohio all my life so I don't see anything wrong with wearing shorts in the morning and a winter coat at night.
New Federal buildings are required to be LEED accredidated (I forget if it's a specific kind, but I believe it's rather broad). There are subsidies to following aspects of LEED for a building, but a building that is LEED platinum, gold, or silver is saving money in comparison to a building which is incapable of meeting those requirements.
The amount of money saved would depend on the particular building, though, so I couldn't give you any numbers. I don't know of any broad estimates either, but you don't have to go all the way to LEED to have a beneficial and cheaper building. Passive systems save money simply by being manifested by the designer. Light shelves, for instance, would lower your need for artificial lighting and if done properly will lower your need for heat in the winter and AC in the summer. They're a piece of wood sticking out of your window, hardly breaking the bank and an easy selling point.
hmm.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
It's the waiting that kills me.
People will still make money? Is this relevant to your point about global warming not being a threat? You need to tie this together, somehow. Does the climate cool as the GDP grows?
Yes, but the words used indicated that the nuclear material itself detonated. I don't doubt it could be bad when the rocket explodes, but I just wanted to make clear that spent nuclear material just does not go boom all by itself. Also, what makes you think that "there's always a risk" of it returning? For instance if it hit the sun, or jupiter? Or if it left the solar system entirely, like the Voyager spacecraft? We're very good at predicting where things will go after we put them into space. The two real problems with the plan are safety while launching and cost. Putting spent nuclear material into space might make it less cost-effective than solar, even. I haven't crunched the numbers, but putting stuff into space is expensive. Not to mention you're burning all kinds of fossil fuels to put it there.
Well we do have a long term plan; it's Yucca Mountain. It's just that people are too busy arguing that the waste should stay in aging, above ground storage locations in populated areas instead of buried in the middle of the desert.
Sigged
Damb we be fucked.
I don't think we as a species will be able to pull it off. Goodbye Shanghai and Manhattan.
How does a priest's touching of little boys affect the importance of his message?
Are you really comparing energy use to child molestation?
*edit* Also, if the message is "Trust the Church over all else," I'd say child molesting priests detract from the message.
So a better comparison would be "How does a priest's touching of little boys affect the importance of his message to not touch little boys?" And the answer, of course, is that it doesn't. Unless you were arguing that we should molest boys because some priests were hypocrites?
This is leaving aside the fact that the smear job in OP has been refuted two or three times in this thread already.
This thread needs to die already.
Sen, the correct response was simply
"You are arguing that we should molest boys?"
Possibly following with "you sick fuck"
Here is the obvious truth. We, as in people, are pretty fucking gawdawful for the environment. We dam rivers, cut down forests, destroy other species and/or their habitats and drive them to extinction. Does that mean we should go down without a fight. No. But it is quite possible that we've already hit the point where the environment can't sustain the existing population. If energy is plentiful and cheap and the threat posed by something like global warming is credible (as I believe it now is) we will spend some of the economic value of that energy to burn it clean. If energy becomes scarce and hence expensive we all know you can fuck that. This suggests to me that a rational person who supports investing in things like Kyoto is an optimist with respect to our energy future and rational person who opposes it is a pessimist. Then again people aren't rational so I guess I'm just spamming the thread.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
It doesn't, at all. If there's a Christian god, you would still go to hell if you left the faith, even if there are child molesting priests.
Got any other poor analogies I can shoot down?
You are arguing that we should molest boys?
You sick fuck.
Wrong person you fucking idiot.
The "submit reply" button must have a hair trigger.