Buy a Japanese-made car.
...and this is why the American left is dead.
chrizow wrote:that's totally absurd. what about other environmentalists who drive efficient vehicles or don't drive at all? you focus on Gore's SUV ownership in order to justify your own. you apparently don't believe he is a "leading environmentalist" so why, in your words, would you "follow his lead?" :?
like i said i'm not the most green person out there, but that doesn't mean i justify my own failings by pointing to the failings of others. as for what i personally do, i make conscious consumer choices by avoiding unnatural and harmful products, drive an efficient vehicle, live in a small apartment, use efficient appliances and bulbs, don't waste water in the house, minimally use paper products, re-use things, i was an ardent recycler (have gotten lazy since i moved downtown), i support candidates who care about environmental issues, eat no meat and try (unsuccessfully) to not eat or consume other animal products, and on and on.
i can do a lot better and i admit it. i'm not justified in being inefficient because Al Gore is inefficient.
KCMax wrote:Jim Glover gave up his Town Car! Isn't that enough?
nota wrote:I'm not arguing about his SUV ownership. I'm talking about its USE. And I dont' have to justify anything. I'm following his lead because he is setting an example. "Do as I say but not as I do." What's good enough for Al is good enough for me.
lock+load wrote:What are you twelve? Come on. If you make yourself feel good by one-upping Al Gore, well....
Tosspot wrote:Mayoral candidate.
nota wrote:So, do you have anything other than an attack to add to this thread?
KCMax wrote:These things are all nice, but if only I do it, then absolutely no energy is conserved. Those planes will still fly, those goods will still be imported, and those cows will still be around.
DaveKCMO wrote:planes fly and cattle are raised in current volumes because of demand. take away the demand, planes and cattle go bye-bye. and for the india and china cop-outs, those countries are starting to work proactively on the same problems that we've been creating for decades (massive investments in public transportation, carbon taxes, fuel economy standards, etc.). america, on the other hand, continues to debate the existence of global warming and refuses to take action.
while i will not pretend to be the most "green" individual, the mentality represented by these two statements is precisely what is wrong.
there is no question that the growth levels of greenhouse gasses in china and india are troubling and should be addressed. however, even with their growth, the US produces many times more pollutants, esp. per capita, that those two countries. the US is the world leader in producing pollution, so why not be the leader in reducing it? pointing the finger at emerging economies to justify our own excesses is ridiculous.
pittsburghparoyal wrote:I'm in complete agreement with you.
Now, I'll ask you once again: why is the USA allowing over 1M immigrants into the country if we're concerned with cutting down greenhouse gas production? I just want to know how you justify that in your arguments.
pittsburghparoyal wrote:Now, I'll ask you once again: why is the USA allowing over 1M immigrants into the country if we're concerned with cutting down greenhouse gas production? I just want to know how you justify that in your arguments.
chrizow wrote:the rights of oil companies or other industries to strap us to vehicles and petro products and more or less buy and sell our environmental well-being is not such a fundamental liberty IMO.
chrizow wrote:why do we let citizens have more babies?
if a family of 4 wants to come to the US from India or Mexico or Japan, let them. i don't care how many people are in the country. people should have the right to live wherever they want to. immigration is only an environmental issue when additional people are merely adding to the bloated, inefficient, corrupt system. obviously we will never be able to achieve a completely neutral "footprint" in the world, but we can certainly make our technologies and habits more green. there are far more significant (and more expendable) contributors to the US' emissions than immigrants.
don't get me wrong, i encourage population control in the form of sex education, widespread contraceptive use, and the like, but people deserve to move in and out of the US or any other country. to me that is a fundamental liberty that should not be abridged. the rights of oil companies or other industries to strap us to vehicles and petro products and more or less buy and sell our environmental well-being is not such a fundamental liberty IMO.
Kard wrote:(Seriously) How is that related?
More people in the States means higher pollution from the States, but that doesn't matter when we're talking total pollution for the planet.