kelpdiver 2 #101 February 28, 2007 QuoteI guess it's okay for me to subscribe to five daily newspapers since I recycle. heh - give the man a cigar for the very apt analogy. Much better than the norm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #102 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuote>no it's not. they paid for the vehicle, they paid for the gas . . . . . . and if they paid for the damage their gasoline usage causes, I'd agree with you. that's one opinion the real solution is to come up with a marketable alternate that's (direct) cost equivalent or better rather than costing more if we build it, they will buy it Bill talked about the problem. It is a problem that consumers generally don't pay the true costs. You're talking about a solution. Yes, given a choice of underpaying or not, people will take option 1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #103 February 28, 2007 What bullshit! Gore is wasting huge amounts of energy. The goal is to reduce energy use and pollution as much as possible, right? Buying available credits/offsets doesn't reduce either. Isn't the purpose of those credits to allow a commercial facility/factory the ability to get below some regulated limit without having to immediately shut down their factory for modifications to the facility and equipment. It still doesn't reduce the amount of energy used or pollution made, but it gives the factory some time to make modifications, but with a financial penalty (buying the credits/offsets), so that the factory still has an incentive to finally make the changes needed to get in compliance with regulations. Those credits/offsets would still be there if Gore didn't buy them, for purchase by an industrial user. Am I completely wrong about the intended purpose of the credits? We hear that Al is now installing solar panels, etc. Seems like he's waited for people to notice his hypocrisy before he did it.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #104 February 28, 2007 >the real solution is to come up with a marketable alternate that's >(direct) cost equivalent or better rather than costing more. Can't always make that happen. There was no cheaper alternative for Freon - but there was a slightly more expensive version that worked almost as well. Those two factors would have guaranteed its failure in a capitalistic society. But since we place a value on not getting skin cancer, we passed a law to (effectively) make the less-desirable coolant more desirable/marketable. We've done similar things with factory pollution and car gas mileage. These laws should be structured so they work within the system as much as possible; the CAFE laws are a good example. But relying on capitalism will not always get you there. Lowest cost is not always best for society, and sometimes it's so bad (slavery, Donora, shirt waist fire) that it has to be regulated by law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #105 February 28, 2007 >Buying available credits/offsets doesn't reduce either. Yeah it does. Take one such organization - the Bonneville Environmental Foundation. The money paid buying credits goes directly into renewable energy programs, like wind, solar and biomass. In 2005, for example, they installed 100kW of solar power in Oregon alone. I do it directly - I put up solar panels, generate power and feed it back. Not everyone can do this. For those who can't, organizations like the BEF will do it for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #106 February 28, 2007 QuoteWhat bullshit! Gore is wasting huge amounts of energy. The goal is to reduce energy use and pollution as much as possible, right? Buying available credits/offsets doesn't reduce either. . Nixon, Bush and Gingrich thought they are a good idea. Sauce for the goose...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #107 March 1, 2007 QuoteNop - the GOP making asses of themselves. Trading pollution credits was OK when Nixon first introduced it in 1974, and when made national in scope by Bush, but if Gore does it, it doesn't count. Ha ha. Again more double talk from you. Funny how Bush's house is Green while Gore claims to be green but jets across the country to tell everyone how green he is. If you can't see the double standard....Well, I think you see it but refuse to admit it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #108 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteNop - the GOP making asses of themselves. Trading pollution credits was OK when Nixon first introduced it in 1974, and when made national in scope by Bush, but if Gore does it, it doesn't count. Ha ha. Again more double talk from you. Funny how Bush's house is Green while Gore claims to be green but jets across the country to tell everyone how green he is. If you can't see the double standard....Well, I think you see it but refuse to admit it. No, no...it's only a double standard or hypocrisy if a REP gets caught doing it...get with the program, man!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #109 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhat bullshit! Gore is wasting huge amounts of energy. The goal is to reduce energy use and pollution as much as possible, right? Buying available credits/offsets doesn't reduce either. Nixon, Bush and Gingrich thought they are a good idea. Sauce for the goose... Are we talking about the viability/value of pollution credits or Al Gore's contribution to global warming? Or is your intent to mix the two to distract from Gore's hypocritical behavior? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #110 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteNop - the GOP making asses of themselves. Trading pollution credits was OK when Nixon first introduced it in 1974, and when made national in scope by Bush, but if Gore does it, it doesn't count. Ha ha. Again more double talk from you. Funny how Bush's house is Green while Gore claims to be green but jets across the country to tell everyone how green he is. If you can't see the double standard....Well, I think you see it but refuse to admit it. I sure think Gore could do better, but he's already doing better than most of us. What difference have YOU made? Does Gore's SUV create more CO2 than Bush's Air Force 1, and the fleet of presidential limos?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #111 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat bullshit! Gore is wasting huge amounts of energy. The goal is to reduce energy use and pollution as much as possible, right? Buying available credits/offsets doesn't reduce either. Nixon, Bush and Gingrich thought they are a good idea. Sauce for the goose... Are we talking about the viability/value of pollution credits or Al Gore's contribution to global warming? Or is your intent to mix the two to distract from Gore's hypocritical behavior? What have YOU done to offset your carbon use?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #112 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat bullshit! Gore is wasting huge amounts of energy. The goal is to reduce energy use and pollution as much as possible, right? Buying available credits/offsets doesn't reduce either. Nixon, Bush and Gingrich thought they are a good idea. Sauce for the goose... Are we talking about the viability/value of pollution credits or Al Gore's contribution to global warming? Or is your intent to mix the two to distract from Gore's hypocritical behavior? What have YOU done to offset your carbon use? What does this have to do with Al Gore's hypocrisy? I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet my "ecological footprint" is about 1/10th of Al Gore's. What's your ecological footprint? Are you too embarassed to post it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #113 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat bullshit! Gore is wasting huge amounts of energy. The goal is to reduce energy use and pollution as much as possible, right? Buying available credits/offsets doesn't reduce either. Nixon, Bush and Gingrich thought they are a good idea. Sauce for the goose... Are we talking about the viability/value of pollution credits or Al Gore's contribution to global warming? Or is your intent to mix the two to distract from Gore's hypocritical behavior? What have YOU done to offset your carbon use? What does this have to do with Al Gore's hypocrisy? Dodging the question? Have YOU bought carbon credits to offset your use? It's the GOP way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #114 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat bullshit! Gore is wasting huge amounts of energy. The goal is to reduce energy use and pollution as much as possible, right? Buying available credits/offsets doesn't reduce either. Nixon, Bush and Gingrich thought they are a good idea. Sauce for the goose... Are we talking about the viability/value of pollution credits or Al Gore's contribution to global warming? Or is your intent to mix the two to distract from Gore's hypocritical behavior? What have YOU done to offset your carbon use? What does this have to do with Al Gore's hypocrisy? Dodging the question? Have YOU bought carbon credits to offset your use? It's the GOP way. More diversionary tactics, by Kallend. What a surprise. I have not bought carbon credits. My ecological footprint is 16/17. What is your's? Do you think Al Gore is being a hypocrite for telling everyone to reduce their energy consumption and painting a picture of eminent doom if we don't cut back, while he pollutes more than about 99% of the world's population? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yjumpinoz 0 #115 March 1, 2007 They can't see the forest through the tree huggers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #116 March 1, 2007 QuoteDo you think Al Gore is being a hypocrite for telling everyone to reduce their energy consumption and painting a picture of eminent doom if we don't cut back, while he pollutes more than about 99% of the world's population? No more than I'd think a priest that regularly molests little boys and girls is a hypocrit if he goes out and uses his inheritance and wealth to then build a children's shelter. and then make a movie about how everyone should build a boy's shelter, and then how the church starts to consider that the priest should be considered for sainthood, and then how all the church members start to make excuses for his perversion because they think boy's shelters are neater than digital watches..... pick a religion, islam, christianity, environmentalism, politics, the members are all the same - human nature prevails - most are reasonable, but the wackjobs just make them all look bad and hypocritical and the reasonable ones will defend the wackjobs for strange reasons ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #117 March 1, 2007 Is that a yes or a no? Please note that I was asking whether or not he is a hypocrite, not if you were okay with his hipocrisy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #118 March 1, 2007 >Bush's house is Green while Gore claims to be green but jets across the >country to tell everyone how green he is. I don't think you want to compare Gore's use of jet fuel to Bush's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yjumpinoz 0 #119 March 1, 2007 But then again we would not want to compare Gore's environmental preaching to Bush's either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #120 March 1, 2007 Kindly explain why buying pollution credits is not an acceptable way to deal with pollution, when successive GOP administrations have embraced the concept.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #121 March 1, 2007 There's a saying about insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over, with the expectation of different outcome. I keep expecting you to honestly answer direct questions, instead of resorting to smarmy diversionary tactics. SSDD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #122 March 1, 2007 QuoteThere's a saying about insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over, with the expectation of different outcome. Which is why I've mostly avoided this conversation. If the conversation was going to be about pollution and energy policy I'd probably join in. But if it's limited to Gore bashing, regardless of the fact that he's doing the same thing that Bush and his predecessors have encouraged, then I'm not interested. I hate to be the one to bring up the name but this reminds me of all the Clinton sex scandal bashing. He was condemned repeatedly for doing precisely what his detractors were guilty of. I wonder if Larry Flynt is interested in this issue Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #123 March 1, 2007 Gore is doing the same thing that Bush and his predecessors have encouraged? Clinton was condemned repeatedly for doing precisely what his detractors were guilty of. ? What are you talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #124 March 1, 2007 Kindly explain why buying pollution credits is not an acceptable way to deal with pollution, when successive GOP administrations have embraced the concept. Or can't you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #125 March 1, 2007 Quote>Bush's house is Green while Gore claims to be green but jets across the >country to tell everyone how green he is. I don't think you want to compare Gore's use of jet fuel to Bush's. why not? One is the President, and the other is a guy who lost trying to become one on too many occasions. Our nation's interests require that Bush be on Air Force One, whereas it would barely notice should Gore's private plane crash. Not only would a commercial jet be more fuel efficient, it is also safer for Gore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
