Some Questions for Opponants of "Going Green"
Its Evolution Baby
Posts: 849
What is the reason you resist? Is it because you don't believe in Global Warming? Is it more of a political issue where going green becomes a victory for the left? Wouldn't conserving oil lesson our dependence on the Middle East for Fuel?
It really confuses me because even if you don't believe in Global Warming, it is a fact we are down on natural resources so hybrid cars, car pooling, recycling, ect are help out in those areas. Plus does anyone drive through any major city inhale the air and think "my god this is healthy". I go to LA once a month and on some days its almost as if I should be waring a mask. To me there is no good reason to not be an Environmentalist, and the Republican Party was the first party of Environmentalism back in the 1900's with Teddy Roosevelt. You would think a "Conservative" would be into CONSERVING precious resources.
So please please explain why you are hesitant so I can better understand your side. And if its because you feel lied to about Global Warming then to me you are missing the whole point.
It really confuses me because even if you don't believe in Global Warming, it is a fact we are down on natural resources so hybrid cars, car pooling, recycling, ect are help out in those areas. Plus does anyone drive through any major city inhale the air and think "my god this is healthy". I go to LA once a month and on some days its almost as if I should be waring a mask. To me there is no good reason to not be an Environmentalist, and the Republican Party was the first party of Environmentalism back in the 1900's with Teddy Roosevelt. You would think a "Conservative" would be into CONSERVING precious resources.
So please please explain why you are hesitant so I can better understand your side. And if its because you feel lied to about Global Warming then to me you are missing the whole point.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Atlanta,GA 1994 1&2
N.Charleston, SC 1996
Greenville, SC 1998
Atlanta, GA 2000
Columbia, SC 2008
EV(2009) - Atlanta 1
I'm all for going green to a extent,one of my concerns is not drilling for oil in parts of our country
but I understand some don't like the idea, me.. I just want it all and I want it now
Godfather.
This is something I've always struggled to understand as well. Thanks for asking the question - I hope people answer.
No one is against saving the world from pollution . . . the problem is you have the elite from all over the world that are living in excess getting together and trying to make Global Laws that we have to follow. First off Americans do not want to be governed by other countries. Second Americans do not want to be taxed by the elite that will leave us so strapped we can barely afford to pay our bills as the elite still use limos, fly private jets around the world, own yachts and live in humongous homes that have to be heated and cooled.
I understand this point of view actually. I don't think any laws should be passed forcing people to do something they want to do. That goes against everything our country was founded on. I'm talking about the general resistance by the right on this subject that has nothing to do with laws. I remember last year that ass hat Sean Hannity complaining that he loves his SUV and doesn't want to stop driving it. And I'm thinking you dolt why don't you by the hybrid SUV that is on the market. He can certainly afford it.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
but how can you not be embarassed byt the fact that nearly every other country has accepted and adopted the Kyoto Protocol, one of the largest agreements on plans to reduce emissions, but the biggest polluter won't sign?
who the hell do we think we are. seriously? we don't have to be told what to do by other countries, but why does it even have to come to that? how about we do the right thing? Then we would have nothing to complain about would we?
I read once how the poor do more for the planet than anyone, buy collecting cans that others just toss out the car. They wear used clothing, they can’t afford electricity so they cook on an open fire. I can’t remember all but it did make me think.
OK ! lowering pollution levels is a must for sure but how do we do it ?
and has pollution really changed the climate ?
lets look back at history, the ice age and the little ice age..no cars no factory's.
the big change that offed 75% of life on earth millions of years ago,was it a meteorite or climate change ?
as far as I know there is NO clear answer.
all throughout out history the climate and ocean levels have been changing and I think it's a great idea to
keep a scientific eye on everything to monitor the inevitable change but...
A $100 BILLION A YEAR IN A STARPED WORLD ECONOMY !!!
So to use a PJTEN member's user name "gimisometruth", what the heck is really going on here ?
and can ANYBODY prove proof positive that climate change is a direct result of pollution.
Godfather.
uhhh ... all i will say is this - yes, global climate change is man made ... your concerns reiterate what many right wing oil backed think tanks put forth to make people skeptic of the science ... i'm a bit tired of explaining it over and over again so ... i'm gonna leave it at that ... but if you truly are interested - there are many credible sources of information ..
as for this topic - i always found it funny that the environment became a political issue because preserving the environment is in the benefit of EVERYONE - just not some big businesses and it appears that those businesses have aligned themselves with the conservatives and thus the current divide ...
in canada - it was also a conservative who took the reigns on this issue but similar to elsewhere - right wing/conservatives now just means puppet to big business ...
Dude, you're missing the point of the OP's subject. There is no proof, but why do Republicans feel the need to fight against having some respect for our environment? That's the question. Why destroy the air quality we breathe in?
And why do some people litter, exactly? Where exactly do they think all that trash is magically going?
don't believe everything you read and hear about something like this that has a dollar sign on the bottom line,
non of us REALLY know and that was my question. btw I don't conceder myself a right wing or anything like that..
just someone that needs to survive and take care of his family,and with false reports and media Lie's
constantly floating around can anybody really say " I know !" and are your creditable source's really credible ?
I read stuff too that is quote credible but I know better than to believe all of it.
Godfather.
I don't know why the Republican's do that, I could only guess, why do the dem's need so much money to even
address the problem, as you said, it starts with us to keep it clean.....new thought..have you paid to go the dump latley ? , that might be part of the issue also.
Godfather.
Godfather.
Why does everything have to be about parties? Not all Republicans fight against respect for the environment. In fact, most I know respect the environment via recycling, conservation, etc. I also know a few liberals who could not give a damn about the environment. Parties have little to do with it. There are people who fight for it and there are people who fight against it. It has nothing to do with respect, but, rather, how we handle the environment and the issues that surround our methods of handling it.
Los Angeles 10.7.2009
you're right - it shouldn't be about parties but for some reason it has become a partisan issue ... these days for some reason (and this is a recent phenomenon) the right can be classified as anti-environment while the left is considered pro-environment ... all relative of course ...
:eh: Actually it is a hybird that he drives. Maybe at that time he didn't ,but he does now.
Now as far as everything else goes. I am not a believer in Man Made Climate Change at all. However, I do think we should be cleaner, nothing wrong with a with that. We should also drill for our own oil. Why not have multiple sources of energy? Why do we have to have one source? We should not depend on any country for our own Energy needs. What may work in one part of the country may not in others.
I am sick of the elite telling me what I have to do and what is "good" for me and the planet when they themselves don't practice it. Anyway one of the biggest issues I have is this type of crap below.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6963482.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=3392178
www.seanbrady.net
http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2009/d ... 0_Spivack/
I am a retired chemist who worked at the GE Global Research Center in (NY Capital Region) for 16 years after teaching chemistry at SUNY Cobleskill for 15 years.
I will confine my comments in this letter to known facts: Not projections or predictions. None of what I am about to say is controversial, it is the simple truth.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a naturally occurring gas that is produced by all air-breathing living things, volcanoes and the weathering of some rocks. It is absorbed by the sea and by green plants. For long periods of time, a balance between production and absorption leads to a steady low concentration of CO2 in the air. This balance can and has been disturbed in the distant past, with the CO2 levels increasing or decreasing in the air as a consequence. In general, times of high CO2 have been warm or hot (think forests at the poles) and times of low CO2 have been cold (think most of Earth covered in ice).
Before the Industrial Revolution, the CO2 content of the air was about 0.028 percent. Since about 1750 it has been rising and the rate at which it is rising is increasing. It is now at about 0.038 percent; that is nearly a 36 percent increase in 150 years after about 10,000 years of remaining nearly constant. Most of that increase has occurred in the last 50 years. The rate of increase coincides with the increasing rate at which humans have been burning fossil fuels. There is no doubt whatever that this increase is being caused by human activity.
Yes, it is true that plants need CO2 to survive. But the growth of all the plants on Earth and the tremendous capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2 have not been able to keep up with the rate we are producing it. About half of what we produce gets absorbed and about half remains in the air.
Consider any object. Pour heat into it and allow heat out. If the heat coming in is equal to the heat going out, then the temperature of the object will not change. If the heat going out is less than the heat coming in, the object will warm up.
The sun is our source of heat. For 10,000 years, the heat coming in from the sun has been balanced by the heat that Earth radiated to space and the temperature of Earth remained fairly constant. When we add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, it traps some of the heat that would otherwise have left Earth and gone into space. Now we have a situation where the heat leaving is less than the heat coming in and Earth must warm up. This is so simple a idea that it cannot be wrong.
Effective heat source
Yes, it is true that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas. That role is played by water vapor. Humans do not directly affect the amount of water vapor in the air. But a cubic yard of CO2 is much more effective at heating up the atmosphere than a cubic yard of water vapor, so the relatively small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a profound effect. As the planet warms due to CO2 additions to the air, the atmosphere holds more water vapor, so we get a double whammy: Warming caused by both gases increases.
Those are the facts. If we do nothing about curbing our fossil fuel burning, the planet will warm up.
We are presently engaged in an uncontrolled experiment with Earth’s climate and the risks are high. Do we take the risk, continuing business as usual because our only concern is our economic recovery? That reasoning would have us ignore the effects we have on the planet and all other living things so that we might increase our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) next quarter.
Moment of opportunity
It also ignores the tremendous economic opportunities that an international agreement on controlling CO2 emissions presents to us. All the world is now clamoring for more efficient machines that use less fuel, and energy sources that are independent of fossil fuels. Who in the world is better than the United States at inventing new devices and methods? This is the economic opportunity of a lifetime; the greatest since the exploitation of petroleum.