great point... Ed's moaning about all the SUV drivers and yet that man has no idea if they are offsetting their carbon... or that they live 70 miles away on a farmstead and they need 4x4... etc etc etc.
Right. My original point was not so much a complaint about the buses, but more of a complaint about his complaint of others when he is doing what I saw.
Yes. Great point, except he didn't name names. It is however safe to assume many are not and many don't.
people shouldnt assume anything... Ed isnt the environmentalist oracle... he doesnt know everything... ergo he shouldnt assume.
think of the carbon emmissions of one SUV that Ed lambasted.
then think of all the carbon used by Ed over the years
tours,
cd manufacturing
vinyl manufacturing
memorabilia and promo materials
lights
travel
etc etc
they maybe offset now but i doubt if they offsetted back in the day of 1 million vinyl sales in a week.
its akin to Bono asking people to help the poor in Africa whilst wearing sunglasses that cost 14986 times the average wage of a miner in the Congo.
ed does raise a valid point... but i think the original poster does as well
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
There are several concerns about biofuels - and particularly including.
* Biodiversity - A fear among environmentalists is that by adapting more land to produce crops for biofuels, more habitats will be lost for animals and wild plants. It is feared for example, that some Asian countries will sacrifice their rainforests to build more oil plantations.
* The food V fuel debate - Another concern is that if biofuels become lucrative for farmers, they may grow crops for biofuel production instead of food production. Less food production will increase prices and cause a rise in inflation. It is hoped that this can be countered by second generation biofuels which use waste biomass - though again, this will impact the habitat of many organisms. The impact is particularly high in developing countries and it is estimated that around 100million people are at risk due to the food price increases.
* Carbon emissions – Most LCA investigations show that the burning of biofuels substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions when compared to petroleum and diesel. However, in 2007 a study was published by scientists from Britain, the USA, Germany and Austria which reported the burning of rapeseed or corn can contribute as much to nitrous oxide emissions than cooling through fossil fuel savings.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
You said don't assume anything and then went on to do a helluva lot of assuming.....hypocrite
there were no assumptions... just facts.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
There are several concerns about biofuels - and particularly including.
* Biodiversity - A fear among environmentalists is that by adapting more land to produce crops for biofuels, more habitats will be lost for animals and wild plants. It is feared for example, that some Asian countries will sacrifice their rainforests to build more oil plantations.
* The food V fuel debate - Another concern is that if biofuels become lucrative for farmers, they may grow crops for biofuel production instead of food production. Less food production will increase prices and cause a rise in inflation. It is hoped that this can be countered by second generation biofuels which use waste biomass - though again, this will impact the habitat of many organisms. The impact is particularly high in developing countries and it is estimated that around 100million people are at risk due to the food price increases.
* Carbon emissions – Most LCA investigations show that the burning of biofuels substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions when compared to petroleum and diesel. However, in 2007 a study was published by scientists from Britain, the USA, Germany and Austria which reported the burning of rapeseed or corn can contribute as much to nitrous oxide emissions than cooling through fossil fuel savings.
So your suggestion will be stop touring then I assume? :rolleyes:
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
So your suggestion will be stop touring then I assume? :rolleyes:
My thought would be that biofuels are not the end all be all that people like to make them out to be. They could be a part of a much bigger puzzle but should not be considered the solution the the puzzle.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
My thought would be that biofuels are the end all be all that people like to make them out to be.
I think they do as much as they can while still touring, a 100% effective solution will be no more touring (Im sure none of us would be very happy with that), the reality is that I don't know one (NOT ONE) person that tries to offset the damage they cause with their big ass HUMMERs and SUVs....
Maybe there is some conscious people out there but we all know that it is not the majority.
I'm sure Ed is aware that there are people that are conscious about it.
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
I think they do as much as they can while still touring, a 100% effective solution will be no more touring (Im sure none of us would be very happy with that), the reality is that I don't know one (NOT ONE) person that tries to offset the damage they cause with their big ass HUMMERs and SUVs....
Maybe there is some conscious people out there but we all know that it is not the majority.
I'm sure Ed is aware that there are people that are conscious about it.
my uncle just traded in his hummer for a honda hybrid. it took awhile, but he realized it just wasn't worth it. we're out there......just around the bend..
the country was built with trucks and SUVs, not minis and hybrids. Not saying that everyone needs to own one, but everyone needs to accept the fact that this country needs those types of autos
I, for one, support global warming. Have you ever lived through a winter in Canada??? Fuck!!
I'll end up alone like I began...
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,777
Just speaking for me...
I'm thinking it's important to put into context WHERE the remarks were made...which city. The Congress gave huge tax breaks to SUV buyers. What about the environmentally conscious who look for better ways? Where are the huge tax breaks for them? Follow the $.
And how many members of Congress ride around in SUVs using gas paid for by us with tax dollars? ...while Exxon has HUGE profits and get subsidized too????
I'm thinking it's important to put into context WHERE the remarks were made...which city. The Congress gave huge tax breaks to SUV buyers. What about the environmentally conscious who look for better ways? Where are the huge tax breaks for them? Follow the $.
you get a tax break for buying a hybrid, or atleast there was a place for it for 2007 filing last April.
in my opinion they should only give tax breaks for buying American Hybrid cars. Why give tax breaks for foreign products when the money is just shipped overseas and out of our economy?
my uncle just traded in his hummer for a honda hybrid. it took awhile, but he realized it just wasn't worth it. we're out there......just around the bend..
I'm sure there is ... your uncle is one example
Unfortunately 6 people out of the 9 in my office drive an SUV and they don't need to, they are all childless people that could be driving something smaller.
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
why does Ed need a tour bus for a solo tour anyways? (or 5?)
I get the equipment needs to be transported, but wouldn't the 'green' thing to do be to fly on commercial flights already flying, and to keep a giant bus off the road? I mean the flights will fly regardless if he is on or not, but he is just a single guy, and there can't be too many guys in the crew..
So your suggestion will be stop touring then I assume? :rolleyes:
didnt we just agree that people shouldnt make assumptions where oh where did i say he should stop touring
no my suggestion will be for Ed to sing songs and not try and convert or preach to people in between those songs... he's a funny guy.. he should tell more funny stories... a 1 minute 5 second rant about SUV's OR a version of Lukin?
hmmmm the choice is easy
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I'm thinking it's important to put into context WHERE the remarks were made...which city. The Congress gave huge tax breaks to SUV buyers. What about the environmentally conscious who look for better ways? Where are the huge tax breaks for them? Follow the $.
And how many members of Congress ride around in SUVs using gas paid for by us with tax dollars? ...while Exxon has HUGE profits and get subsidized too????
I'm no expert and like I said...just speaking for me...but I don't like the current state of affairs and find it indefensible.
"In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000. Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package. Yet Congress did not change the weight-based classification of the vehicles, creating a huge benefit for the largest, least efficient vehicles."
"In October 2004, after the House Ways and Means Committee approved a three-year extension of the $100,000 loophole, a House-Senate conference committee negotiated a roll back in the deduction to its original amount of $25,000 as part of the larger Corporate Tax Bill. While tightening this loophole is certainly noteworthy, it is by no means the end of significant tax breaks for gas-guzzling SUVs. According to an analysis in the Detroit News, besides the $25,000 basic equipment deduction, SUVs will still qualify for "bonus depreciation," an added write off of 30 percent of the purchase price above $25,000. Beyond that, additional costs can be deducted according to regular depreciation rules, or 20 percent in the first year. For example, a business owner purchasing a Hummer H1, with a sticker price of $106,185, would be able to deduct $60,722 in the first year under the revised rules: a $25,000 equipment deduction, $24,356 in bonus depreciation, and $11,366 in regular depreciation."
BUT
"In May 2002, the IRS declared gasoline-electric hybrids eligible for tax deductions as "clean fuel" vehicles under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (PL 103-486). The deduction ceiling began at $2,000, with the tax deduction set to end in 2006, with $500 less available each year as the deduction is phased out."
There is something wrong with this picture ....IMO
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
I'm thinking it's important to put into context WHERE the remarks were made...which city. The Congress gave huge tax breaks to SUV buyers. What about the environmentally conscious who look for better ways? Where are the huge tax breaks for them? Follow the $.
And how many members of Congress ride around in SUVs using gas paid for by us with tax dollars? ...while Exxon has HUGE profits and get subsidized too????
I'm no expert and like I said...just speaking for me...but I don't like the current state of affairs and find it indefensible.
man made global warming is a bunch of bullshit!! it's the fucking SUN!!! all this global warming propaganda crap is too get the lemmings ready for a global tax!!!! it's just another way to rape the have nots!!
we should all be a lot more concerned with Depleted Uranium Munitions that the military is poisoning our planet with (which stays in the environment for BILLIONS of years!!) and is causing respiratory problems globally as well as horrifying birth defects!
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I think what you might have heard running was probably an 8 or 12 kW diesel generator. These generators are on all tour buses and are used to power everything inside such as lights, appliances, air conditioning, etc...
You have to remember all of Ed's crew is traveling inside these buses. They are essentailly moving hotel rooms. I would not expect anyone to sit inside their hotel room with no lights, appliances, or air conditioning.
Most of what the generator would be powering are necessities, excluding TV's and such. I think Ed makes up for his carbon foot-print other ways.
"In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000. Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package. Yet Congress did not change the weight-based classification of the vehicles, creating a huge benefit for the largest, least efficient vehicles."
"In October 2004, after the House Ways and Means Committee approved a three-year extension of the $100,000 loophole, a House-Senate conference committee negotiated a roll back in the deduction to its original amount of $25,000 as part of the larger Corporate Tax Bill. While tightening this loophole is certainly noteworthy, it is by no means the end of significant tax breaks for gas-guzzling SUVs. According to an analysis in the Detroit News, besides the $25,000 basic equipment deduction, SUVs will still qualify for "bonus depreciation," an added write off of 30 percent of the purchase price above $25,000. Beyond that, additional costs can be deducted according to regular depreciation rules, or 20 percent in the first year. For example, a business owner purchasing a Hummer H1, with a sticker price of $106,185, would be able to deduct $60,722 in the first year under the revised rules: a $25,000 equipment deduction, $24,356 in bonus depreciation, and $11,366 in regular depreciation."
BUT
"In May 2002, the IRS declared gasoline-electric hybrids eligible for tax deductions as "clean fuel" vehicles under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (PL 103-486). The deduction ceiling began at $2,000, with the tax deduction set to end in 2006, with $500 less available each year as the deduction is phased out."
There is something wrong with this picture ....IMO
You are comparing apples and oranges... the SUV tax breaks are for businesses, the hybrid breaks are for consumers. There is a big difference in the spending power and needs of those two groups.
Is there some inconsistency in these policies?? yes... but think about the owner of a construction company... why the hell would he need a tax break on hybrid vehicles??? there are no hybrid construction vehicles.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,777
You are comparing apples and oranges... the SUV tax breaks are for businesses, the hybrid breaks are for consumers. There is a big difference in the spending power and needs of those two groups.
Is there some inconsistency in these policies?? yes... but think about the owner of a construction company... why the hell would he need a tax break on hybrid vehicles??? there are no hybrid construction vehicles.
(from the same article)
"Accountants, SUV dealers rush to capitalize
Around the country, auto dealers such as "the Car Guy" Jerry Reynolds in Texas and hundreds of accountants and online tax management sites have been encouraging small business owners such as doctors, lawyers, and realtors to rush out and take advantage of this tax windfall. One advertisement from Dugan & Lopatka, an accounting firm in Wheaton, IL, reads, "Write-Off 100% of Your New SUV? Yes, If It’s Under 100,000!"
I wouldn't necessarily say that Doctors and Lawyers have the imminent need for this type of vehicles.
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
I don't really understand this line of reasoning, to be honest...I don't see anyone here doubting Pearl Jam's committment to these issues and the steps they've taken to curtail their problematic footprint (from issues and initiatives, from my corner Stone really seems to have his hands involved in this issue and seem very committed), and this shows that there is no doubt that PJ has done very good work. However, wasted energy is wasted energy. As a complete hypothetical, let's say I donate 500 dollars in one month to an environmental awareness and climate change prevention program devoted to restoring tropical forests. Does that therefore mean that it's not a completely wasteful thing to run my air conditioner all day for a week, even if I'm not there most of the time? Of course not, wasted energy is wasted energy whether you a constant gas guzzler or not, and steps should be taken to prevent it.
Donating to tropical forest re-establishment and playing benefit concerts is great, but I would think that the best option of all is to not do the damage in the first place. Of course, this isn't limited to Eddie; we all have to commit to this, but that means he like everyone else is not immune from it either. Like someone said earlier, if a friend or acquaintance of mine was running their buses and vans all day needlessly, and if it was gas used in those buses, I would consider it a wasteful use of energy, no matter how much money they'd given away.
Exactly. A reasoned point and exactly what the OP and I have been saying. I love how everyone is saying we were "owned" (what a stupid phrase to begin with) and that we just want to argue. As I said at the end of my last post, I applaud what the band has done, but Ed can be a hypocrite.
Comments
Right. My original point was not so much a complaint about the buses, but more of a complaint about his complaint of others when he is doing what I saw.
people shouldnt assume anything... Ed isnt the environmentalist oracle... he doesnt know everything... ergo he shouldnt assume.
think of the carbon emmissions of one SUV that Ed lambasted.
then think of all the carbon used by Ed over the years
tours,
cd manufacturing
vinyl manufacturing
memorabilia and promo materials
lights
travel
etc etc
they maybe offset now but i doubt if they offsetted back in the day of 1 million vinyl sales in a week.
its akin to Bono asking people to help the poor in Africa whilst wearing sunglasses that cost 14986 times the average wage of a miner in the Congo.
ed does raise a valid point... but i think the original poster does as well
You said don't assume anything and then went on to do a helluva lot of assuming.....hypocrite
There are several concerns about biofuels - and particularly including.
* Biodiversity - A fear among environmentalists is that by adapting more land to produce crops for biofuels, more habitats will be lost for animals and wild plants. It is feared for example, that some Asian countries will sacrifice their rainforests to build more oil plantations.
* The food V fuel debate - Another concern is that if biofuels become lucrative for farmers, they may grow crops for biofuel production instead of food production. Less food production will increase prices and cause a rise in inflation. It is hoped that this can be countered by second generation biofuels which use waste biomass - though again, this will impact the habitat of many organisms. The impact is particularly high in developing countries and it is estimated that around 100million people are at risk due to the food price increases.
* Carbon emissions – Most LCA investigations show that the burning of biofuels substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions when compared to petroleum and diesel. However, in 2007 a study was published by scientists from Britain, the USA, Germany and Austria which reported the burning of rapeseed or corn can contribute as much to nitrous oxide emissions than cooling through fossil fuel savings.
there were no assumptions... just facts.
So your suggestion will be stop touring then I assume? :rolleyes:
I didn't see any assumptions there... just alot of rhetorical questions for the reader to answer for themselves.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
My thought would be that biofuels are not the end all be all that people like to make them out to be. They could be a part of a much bigger puzzle but should not be considered the solution the the puzzle.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
I think they do as much as they can while still touring, a 100% effective solution will be no more touring (Im sure none of us would be very happy with that), the reality is that I don't know one (NOT ONE) person that tries to offset the damage they cause with their big ass HUMMERs and SUVs....
Maybe there is some conscious people out there but we all know that it is not the majority.
I'm sure Ed is aware that there are people that are conscious about it.
my uncle just traded in his hummer for a honda hybrid. it took awhile, but he realized it just wasn't worth it. we're out there......just around the bend..
just my 2 cents
I'm thinking it's important to put into context WHERE the remarks were made...which city. The Congress gave huge tax breaks to SUV buyers. What about the environmentally conscious who look for better ways? Where are the huge tax breaks for them? Follow the $.
And how many members of Congress ride around in SUVs using gas paid for by us with tax dollars? ...while Exxon has HUGE profits and get subsidized too????
a site I stumbled across: http://www.skeptically.org/parwho/id8.html
I'm no expert and like I said...just speaking for me...but I don't like the current state of affairs and find it indefensible.
you get a tax break for buying a hybrid, or atleast there was a place for it for 2007 filing last April.
in my opinion they should only give tax breaks for buying American Hybrid cars. Why give tax breaks for foreign products when the money is just shipped overseas and out of our economy?
I'm sure there is ... your uncle is one example
Unfortunately 6 people out of the 9 in my office drive an SUV and they don't need to, they are all childless people that could be driving something smaller.
I get the equipment needs to be transported, but wouldn't the 'green' thing to do be to fly on commercial flights already flying, and to keep a giant bus off the road? I mean the flights will fly regardless if he is on or not, but he is just a single guy, and there can't be too many guys in the crew..
didnt we just agree that people shouldnt make assumptions
no my suggestion will be for Ed to sing songs and not try and convert or preach to people in between those songs... he's a funny guy.. he should tell more funny stories... a 1 minute 5 second rant about SUV's OR a version of Lukin?
hmmmm the choice is easy
"In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000. Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package. Yet Congress did not change the weight-based classification of the vehicles, creating a huge benefit for the largest, least efficient vehicles."
"In October 2004, after the House Ways and Means Committee approved a three-year extension of the $100,000 loophole, a House-Senate conference committee negotiated a roll back in the deduction to its original amount of $25,000 as part of the larger Corporate Tax Bill. While tightening this loophole is certainly noteworthy, it is by no means the end of significant tax breaks for gas-guzzling SUVs. According to an analysis in the Detroit News, besides the $25,000 basic equipment deduction, SUVs will still qualify for "bonus depreciation," an added write off of 30 percent of the purchase price above $25,000. Beyond that, additional costs can be deducted according to regular depreciation rules, or 20 percent in the first year. For example, a business owner purchasing a Hummer H1, with a sticker price of $106,185, would be able to deduct $60,722 in the first year under the revised rules: a $25,000 equipment deduction, $24,356 in bonus depreciation, and $11,366 in regular depreciation."
BUT
"In May 2002, the IRS declared gasoline-electric hybrids eligible for tax deductions as "clean fuel" vehicles under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (PL 103-486). The deduction ceiling began at $2,000, with the tax deduction set to end in 2006, with $500 less available each year as the deduction is phased out."
There is something wrong with this picture ....IMO
man made global warming is a bunch of bullshit!! it's the fucking SUN!!! all this global warming propaganda crap is too get the lemmings ready for a global tax!!!! it's just another way to rape the have nots!!
we should all be a lot more concerned with Depleted Uranium Munitions that the military is poisoning our planet with (which stays in the environment for BILLIONS of years!!) and is causing respiratory problems globally as well as horrifying birth defects!
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-Depleted-Uranium-DU21apr03.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xjvl1Rk_jE
that wouldn't be Ed though....
but it would be much better.
http://www.myspace.com/lizardkings1
(This Post May Have Been Edited By AT&T)
LMAO!!!!
You have to remember all of Ed's crew is traveling inside these buses. They are essentailly moving hotel rooms. I would not expect anyone to sit inside their hotel room with no lights, appliances, or air conditioning.
Most of what the generator would be powering are necessities, excluding TV's and such. I think Ed makes up for his carbon foot-print other ways.
Don't think so. Let the man tell what he wants. The point is, let's not take it as the Gospel according to Eddie. He's not our fucking messiah!
You are comparing apples and oranges... the SUV tax breaks are for businesses, the hybrid breaks are for consumers. There is a big difference in the spending power and needs of those two groups.
Is there some inconsistency in these policies?? yes... but think about the owner of a construction company... why the hell would he need a tax break on hybrid vehicles??? there are no hybrid construction vehicles.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Hybrid tax breaks fading.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/classifieds/news/automotive/latestnews/stories/063008dnbushybridtaxbreaks.b931a5.html
(from the same article)
"Accountants, SUV dealers rush to capitalize
Around the country, auto dealers such as "the Car Guy" Jerry Reynolds in Texas and hundreds of accountants and online tax management sites have been encouraging small business owners such as doctors, lawyers, and realtors to rush out and take advantage of this tax windfall. One advertisement from Dugan & Lopatka, an accounting firm in Wheaton, IL, reads, "Write-Off 100% of Your New SUV? Yes, If It’s Under 100,000!"
I wouldn't necessarily say that Doctors and Lawyers have the imminent need for this type of vehicles.
Exactly. A reasoned point and exactly what the OP and I have been saying. I love how everyone is saying we were "owned" (what a stupid phrase to begin with) and that we just want to argue. As I said at the end of my last post, I applaud what the band has done, but Ed can be a hypocrite.