What can we do for Green. . .

[chingon]

Buy a Japanese-made car. 

...and this is why the American left is dead.

[nota]

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?"   :?

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.

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.

That's my whole point-WE ALL "can do a lot better." And I started this thread with an example of one thing I am going to do and am doing that I wasnt' doing before. Your descriptions of your efforts is pretty generic. I was looking for specifics that we all can do. You know, like maybe do some things that other people are doing that we are not.

A person does not have to do everything on anyone's list. Just make a conscious effort and continue to improve.

[nota]

Jim Glover gave up his Town Car! Isn't that enough?

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but who is Jim Glover?

[Tosspot]

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but who is Jim Glover?

Mayoral candidate.

[lock+load]

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.

What are you twelve?  Come on.  If you make yourself feel good by one-upping Al Gore, well....

[WSPanic]

...and this is why the American left is dead.

Nice pithy response, but far from the truth.

[nota]

What are you twelve?  Come on.  If you make yourself feel good by one-upping Al Gore, well....

So, do you have anything other than an attack to add to this thread?

[nota]

Mayoral candidate.

Is he now driving a Suburban?

[lock+load]

So, do you have anything other than an attack to add to this thread?

This is not an attack, but a legitmate question.  Who really uses Al Gore as a barometer for how they live their life?  It is so ridiculous, it is humorous.

[DaveKCMO]

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.

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.

[nota]

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.

You see, I dont' want us to give up planes and cattle. I want us to learn how to have them but more carbon neutral. I don't want to compare to India and China. At this point, of course they are behind us, but they are becoming aware and starting to work on things.

Do you think Airbus can make a jet that runs on say---jello?

[chingon]

Nice pithy response, but far from the truth.

A thing cannot be both.

[Maitre D]

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.  

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.

[kard]

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.

To pad the pollutants per capita numbers.

[chrizow]

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]

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.

(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.

[Highlander]

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.

I hesitate to even get into this discussion but 1) I certainly do not feel that it is the unalienable right of every person in the world to immigrate to the US and I think we have the right to limit immigration if for no other reason than to preserve our way of life.  2) Oil companies strap you to nothing, they explore, produce, refine, and sell a product that there happens to be a large market for.  To say petro products are evil or bad is just ridiculous, global warming or not, they have made life far more enjoyable in our time than the immense struggle it was even 100 years ago.  In fact, my concern over the eventual, as in even my lifetime, scarcity of oil is far greater than it is for global warming.  The world's population has adjusted to an oil economy, our food production, transportation, distribution of wealth and product, practically everything, depends on it....when it runs scarce we are in for a world of hurt. 

[Maitre D]

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.

I just laughed at your post.

Sorry, but you're so hypocritical on this, I can't believe my eyes.

[Maitre D]

(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.

It's really simple:  people in America use far, FAR more resources than those who live in other nations.  It's only logical to assume a family moving from Mexico to the USA will contribute far more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than if they lived where they were from.

And in fact, the Sierra Club is almost evenly split on the issue.  I tell Sierra volunteers when they come hither, "You know, about population control...."

[chrizow]

my point is that the US, perhaps more than almost any other country, has the technical know-how and expertise to become the most efficient superpower in the world...but we choose not to. 

my point is that if the US pursued more efficient policies and habits, it wouldn't matter if a family from Mexico came to the US and polluted like an American - provided that "American" was a more efficient american. 

population control is a great idea.  closing off the borders isn't the answer to our environmental problems, though.