I think those who believe in climate change should develop technologies that are actually superior (in a cost /benefit sense) to existing technologies. The problem is when the climate change community tries to force the public away from a cheaper product (in a cost/benefit sense) to a more expensive ( in a cost benefit sense) alternative, in the name of climate change. As I think threads like this point out, not everyone believes or cares much about climate change, and I'm willing to bet that won't change. No amount of saying "I'm right on climate change and you're wrong" will change that. Instead, the way to get "EVERYONE" on board is to make the green products more cost-effective. Make even people who don't agree that climate change exists want to buy the green change products due to market forces (prices).
If this is done effectively, the government should have ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE here. Why? Because the government would only get involved if the product WOULD NOT be the cheaper product (in the cost/benefit sense). Government gets involved to try to alter market forces (subsidies, price controls, taxes, etc), this shouldn't happen with this. Instead, climate change supporters take up making green products more costs effective as their life's mission. That's the only way to get everyone on board.
In my opinion, if you're really passionate about this, you could read book after book on the subject (that will pretty much give you the same perspective you already have) and tout your opinion on a rock band's message board. Alternatively, you could actually start trying to think about how you could play a part in what I mentioned above and do it.... thereby, actually make a difference.
But to your further point. I think it is important to change the focus of the discussion. Right now it seems that there is an attitude that you either "believe" in it or you don't. That doesn't really help push things forward. The term global warming should be stricken from the lexicon...it only confuses those that aren't interested at more than a cursory level. Climate change should have been used from the beginning. There is nothing more annoying than when someone says I don't believe in global warming because it got to negative 15 for a week last year...(live in minnesota...that shit is said daily in the winter especially in january)
The focus of the discussion rather should turn to something as simple as, what can we do about it? What affect can humans have on reversing/changing climate change. Does forcing new light-bulbs on people really change anything when the factories that make them are built and run in countries that do not care about environmental issues...
Right now, from someone who used to be very guilty of it when I was a bleeding-hearted liberal (not that long ago actually), there seems to be the feeling that those who are very adamant about global warming/climate change are so fed up that they are talking down to people who may be on the fence about the importance of CC, and that makes many more people susceptible to manipulation. It is sort of like the old theory that if you tell someone what to do they will say fuck off, if you ask them to do it they will say for how long...I don't know if that makes sense...but it seems that the supporters (generally those on the left) are allowing themselves to be painted as condescending liberal elites. If the pro CC community switched their message from here is what we are all doing wrong, to here is how you can help I think it would go a long way. Tone is critical in discussion and too often ignored.
but as Polaris stated, simple education on the importance of understanding CC (caused by humans or not is secondary) is key.
i used to agree with you on the terminology however, we don't do this anywhere else ... if you have the flu and you die from an infection ... yeah, the infection is what killed you but the flu was the cause ... same thing here ... we've tried to dumb it down so much to appeal to the masses - all we did was make it easier for the spin doctors to confuse ...example: they took our change from global warming to climate change as an indication of our lack of knowledge on the subject and people ate it up ...
i don't think it's so much talking down to as frustration that people continue to believe and post things that have been addressed years ago ... just follow this thread for example ... the consensus is overwhelming and it is obviously frustrating that we are even having this debate ...
yes, we should focus as well on how we can address this which brianlux has pushed but at the same time, if we can't get everyone to agree that there is indeed a problem ... we won't be able to make any progress ...
I think those who believe in climate change should develop technologies that are actually superior (in a cost /benefit sense) to existing technologies. The problem is when the climate change community tries to force the public away from a cheaper product (in a cost/benefit sense) to a more expensive ( in a cost benefit sense) alternative, in the name of climate change. As I think threads like this point out, not everyone believes or cares much about climate change, and I'm willing to bet that won't change. No amount of saying "I'm right on climate change and you're wrong" will change that. Instead, the way to get "EVERYONE" on board is to make the green products more cost-effective. Make even people who don't agree that climate change exists want to buy the green change products due to market forces (prices).
If this is done effectively, the government should have ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE here. Why? Because the government would only get involved if the product WOULD NOT be the cheaper product (in the cost/benefit sense). Government gets involved to try to alter market forces (subsidies, price controls, taxes, etc), this shouldn't happen with this. Instead, climate change supporters take up making green products more costs effective as their life's mission. That's the only way to get everyone on board.
In my opinion, if you're really passionate about this, you could read book after book on the subject (that will pretty much give you the same perspective you already have) and tout your opinion on a rock band's message board. Alternatively, you could actually start trying to think about how you could play a part in what I mentioned above and do it.... thereby, actually make a difference.
Well said.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
it's like you guys say that because its what you want to hear ...
how the heck are we supposed to offer up products if we can't even agree there is a problem ...
i can say right now ... product a costs 3% more than product b but product a will reduce carbon emissions by 25% ... well, if you don't believe in global warming - you're not going to enter that into your equation ...
we need to first have everyone agree there is a problem before there can be meaningful solutions ...
it's like you guys say that because its what you want to hear ...
how the heck are we supposed to offer up products if we can't even agree there is a problem ...
i can say right now ... product a costs 3% more than product b but product a will reduce carbon emissions by 25% ... well, if you don't believe in global warming - you're not going to enter that into your equation ...
we need to first have everyone agree there is a problem before there can be meaningful solutions ...
No, in fact, we don't have to have everyone agree for YOU to find meaningful solutions if you think it's a problem...
YOU could stop posting here and YOU could go out and try to make a green product cheaper. YOU can make it into a product that's more cost/effective than the non-green alternative. I'm saying stop blaming everyone else for not 100% seeing the world exactly like you do (because, truth be told they never will). Instead, go make it so their market incentives are to purchase the products you want them to.
That's lasting change... that's what you SHOULD want.
No, in fact, we don't have to have everyone agree for YOU to find meaningful solutions if you think it's a problem...
YOU could stop posting here and YOU could go out and try to make a green product cheaper. YOU can make it into a product that's more cost/effective than the non-green alternative. I'm saying stop blaming everyone else for not 100% seeing the world exactly like you do (because, truth be told they never will). Instead, go make it so their market incentives are to purchase the products you want them to.
That's lasting change... that's what you SHOULD want.
i'm not asking anyone to see it 100% the way I do ... you think keynesian economics is causing all the problems - shouldn't your goal to be trying to convince everyone? ... that way people can be on the same page with solutions??
again - which you've ignored ... if part of my cost / benefit formula includes something you don't concern yourself with ... how am i gonna get anywhere? ...
you want us to come up with products/solutions that are more cost effective than conventional ones but won't allow us to factor the reason why we need to come up with it in the first place ...
i'm not asking anyone to see it 100% the way I do ... you think keynesian economics is causing all the problems - shouldn't your goal to be trying to convince everyone? ... that way people can be on the same page with solutions??
I respectfully disagree. I think you are trying to get them to see it the way you do.
As for your point on economics, I don't agree there. Here's why: I can't do squat about Keynesian economics, even if I got a lot of people to agree with me. I don't work for the FED and I'm not a politician. I can't practice Keynesian economics, myself. I play no role in it. It's 100% practiced by government.
You, on the other hand, can do something to change what you consider to be Climate Change. I explained how.
again - which you've ignored ... if part of my cost / benefit formula includes something you don't concern yourself with ... how am i gonna get anywhere? ...
I'm saying that that's all well and good, but I think if you're honest, you'd admit not everyone has your cost benefit formula. Hence, my point. The most credible way to get everyone on board is market mechanisms. If your products work well and are cheaper, people will buy it. Simply get your green products cheaper and effective (or maybe even a bit more expensive, but show they are more effective)... I'll buy them from you.
you want us to come up with products/solutions that are more cost effective than conventional ones but won't allow us to factor the reason why we need to come up with it in the first place ...
I don't agree. I want those of your ilk to use market based approaches to solve your own issues. Stop forcing your exact views down everyone's throats by demanding government sponsor your products; a lot of folks don't agree on every iota of Climate Change. Instead, improve your products so they are more competitive and don't need government assistance. If the product is good and there's a purpose for it, and it's not too pricey.... people/companies will buy it. Then the world will be greener. If the goal was a greener world, that's where your energy should be placed.
But to your further point. I think it is important to change the focus of the discussion. Right now it seems that there is an attitude that you either "believe" in it or you don't. That doesn't really help push things forward. The term global warming should be stricken from the lexicon...it only confuses those that aren't interested at more than a cursory level. Climate change should have been used from the beginning. There is nothing more annoying than when someone says I don't believe in global warming because it got to negative 15 for a week last year...(live in minnesota...that shit is said daily in the winter especially in january)
The focus of the discussion rather should turn to something as simple as, what can we do about it? What affect can humans have on reversing/changing climate change. Does forcing new light-bulbs on people really change anything when the factories that make them are built and run in countries that do not care about environmental issues...
Right now, from someone who used to be very guilty of it when I was a bleeding-hearted liberal (not that long ago actually), there seems to be the feeling that those who are very adamant about global warming/climate change are so fed up that they are talking down to people who may be on the fence about the importance of CC, and that makes many more people susceptible to manipulation. It is sort of like the old theory that if you tell someone what to do they will say fuck off, if you ask them to do it they will say for how long...I don't know if that makes sense...but it seems that the supporters (generally those on the left) are allowing themselves to be painted as condescending liberal elites. If the pro CC community switched their message from here is what we are all doing wrong, to here is how you can help I think it would go a long way. Tone is critical in discussion and too often ignored.
but as Polaris stated, simple education on the importance of understanding CC (caused by humans or not is secondary) is key.
i used to agree with you on the terminology however, we don't do this anywhere else ... if you have the flu and you die from an infection ... yeah, the infection is what killed you but the flu was the cause ... same thing here ... we've tried to dumb it down so much to appeal to the masses - all we did was make it easier for the spin doctors to confuse ...example: they took our change from global warming to climate change as an indication of our lack of knowledge on the subject and people ate it up ...
i don't think it's so much talking down to as frustration that people continue to believe and post things that have been addressed years ago ... just follow this thread for example ... the consensus is overwhelming and it is obviously frustrating that we are even having this debate ...
yes, we should focus as well on how we can address this which brianlux has pushed but at the same time, if we can't get everyone to agree that there is indeed a problem ... we won't be able to make any progress ...
I mean no offense to those who are skeptical about global warming but it is true- the vast consensus by well studied, well respected scientists is that global warming is real and it is mostly being human generated. You can argue this... but why? It's a fact, not something polaris_x or me or anyone else here made up. Unless it's just about winning an argument, why resist seeing the facts AND why not help do something positive to clean up out world? It's the only planet any of us are going to get to live on.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
ok ... agree to disagree here ... it's a catch-22 and two sides of a different coin ...
i think the market based approach is what got us here and yet you want me to come up with solutions within that context but in the end they aren't solutions ... because to you - there isn't a problem ...
how can you help an alcoholic if they don't know they've got a problem!??
until we recognize global warming as a problem ... your market based approach makes no sense because the value in green products is irrelevant ...
ok ... agree to disagree here ... it's a catch-22 and two sides of a different coin ...
i think the market based approach is what got us here and yet you want me to come up with solutions within that context but in the end they aren't solutions ... because to you - there isn't a problem ...
how can you help an alcoholic if they don't know they've got a problem!??
until we recognize global warming as a problem ... your market based approach makes no sense because the value in green products is irrelevant ...
Fair enough, but just to elaborate my points here...
Part of this post is exactly it in a nutshell and why someone, such as myself who's skeptical about global climate change, has such issues with the whole discussion. To me, this shows why climate change supporters and socialism seem inherently linked. Some "green" people are so anti-market that they would rally against market-based solutions, even if they could help address the very "green" problem that they are screaming about.
You said "I think the market based approach is what got us here and yet you want me to come up with solutions in that context". To reiterate, yes, I wanted to you to come up with your GREEN solutions in that context. That would be better for CC and economic growth. In other words, in that context, there would be more jobs, and more prosperity, yet a cleaner environment.
Yet, you don't want that. I just find that ironic.
I think those who believe in climate change should develop technologies that are actually superior (in a cost /benefit sense) to existing technologies. The problem is when the climate change community tries to force the public away from a cheaper product (in a cost/benefit sense) to a more expensive ( in a cost benefit sense) alternative, in the name of climate change. As I think threads like this point out, not everyone believes or cares much about climate change, and I'm willing to bet that won't change. No amount of saying "I'm right on climate change and you're wrong" will change that. Instead, the way to get "EVERYONE" on board is to make the green products more cost-effective. Make even people who don't agree that climate change exists want to buy the green change products due to market forces (prices).
If this is done effectively, the government should have ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE here. Why? Because the government would only get involved if the product WOULD NOT be the cheaper product (in the cost/benefit sense). Government gets involved to try to alter market forces (subsidies, price controls, taxes, etc), this shouldn't happen with this. Instead, climate change supporters take up making green products more costs effective as their life's mission. That's the only way to get everyone on board.
In my opinion, if you're really passionate about this, you could read book after book on the subject (that will pretty much give you the same perspective you already have) and tout your opinion on a rock band's message board. Alternatively, you could actually start trying to think about how you could play a part in what I mentioned above and do it.... thereby, actually make a difference.
Fossil fuel costs...Add all the subsidies, cost of wars to secure to the them (trillion + in the last 10 years or so), costs to our health (both literally and financially), costs to clean up the spills, accidents, meltdowns, etc., storing the waste, and I think we will find solar panels and windmills, etc. look a hell of a lot more competitive.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Fair enough, but just to elaborate my points here...
Part of this post is exactly it in a nutshell and why someone, such as myself who's skeptical about global climate change, has such issues with the whole discussion. To me, this shows why climate change supporters and socialism seem inherently linked. Some "green" people are so anti-market that they would rally against market-based solutions, even if they could help address the very "green" problem that they are screaming about.
You said "I think the market based approach is what got us here and yet you want me to come up with solutions in that context". To reiterate, yes, I wanted to you to come up with your GREEN solutions in that context. That would be better for CC and economic growth. In other words, in that context, there would be more jobs, and more prosperity, yet a cleaner environment.
Yet, you don't want that. I just find that ironic.
i'm not anti-market as i am anti-free market ... i can easily come up with solutions but if you disallow the motive behind my solutions as part of the benefit - then you are arbitrarily putting restrictions and conditions on my solutions ...
let's go back to my example ... Product A cost more than Product B by 5% but Product A reduces emissions by 25% ... if you don't value the impact in emission reductions - then Product A will fail to Product B ... hence, the importance of acknowledging Global Warming is a problem ...
Renewable energy is being dismissed by people such as yourself because they only factor in the cost based on the current market conditions ... which is ultimately what got us here in the first place ... if we paid the true cost of energy (which i would think guys like yourself would support) then this would be a no-brainer ...
i'm not anti-market as i am anti-free market ... i can easily come up with solutions but if you disallow the motive behind my solutions as part of the benefit - then you are arbitrarily putting restrictions and conditions on my solutions ...
let's go back to my example ... Product A cost more than Product B by 5% but Product A reduces emissions by 25% ... if you don't value the impact in emission reductions - then Product A will fail to Product B ... hence, the importance of acknowledging Global Warming is a problem ...
Renewable energy is being dismissed by people such as yourself because they only factor in the cost based on the current market conditions ... which is ultimately what got us here in the first place ... if we paid the true cost of energy (which i would think guys like yourself would support) then this would be a no-brainer ...
Even if we accept your rationale, most people can't afford that extra 5% even if they wanted to. So, now what? The rich will get blamed for hording all the good stuff. It doesn't matter what we believe. If the economics don't make sense for the broad majority, it will never take flight.
Though, if you truly found something that cost 5% more today, but saved 20% over the next 10 years, you might have something. Then a smart entrepeneur can come in and follow the cell phone model to serve the greater good AND make a profit. So, even in this scenario, your free market helps get you to your goal.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I mean no offense to those who are skeptical about global warming but it is true- the vast consensus by well studied, well respected scientists is that global warming is real and it is mostly being human generated. You can argue this... but why? It's a fact, not something polaris_x or me or anyone else here made up. Unless it's just about winning an argument, why resist seeing the facts AND why not help do something positive to clean up out world? It's the only planet any of us are going to get to live on.
This is the entire point of the thread! But the sad thing is... some people are only on here to argue and (hope to) win the argument. That's why we keep going around in circles. When people actually stop and realize what's going on, (and there's so much proof, it's ridiculous), hopefully we'll collectively start doing things that actually save energy rather than spending it. I'm tired of arguing this topic, because I'm convinced that the deniers simply insist on spending their time on the argument, rather than admitting they could do things that would not only help the environment but also save themselves energy and money. That's right, it's not about spending more money on green products, it's about using and consuming less in general. It makes a person and the earth far more richer.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
I mean no offense to those who are skeptical about global warming but it is true- the vast consensus by well studied, well respected scientists is that global warming is real and it is mostly being human generated. You can argue this... but why? It's a fact, not something polaris_x or me or anyone else here made up. Unless it's just about winning an argument, why resist seeing the facts AND why not help do something positive to clean up out world? It's the only planet any of us are going to get to live on.
This is the entire point of the thread! But the sad thing is... some people are only on here to argue and (hope to) win the argument. That's why we keep going around in circles. When people actually stop and realize what's going on, (and there's so much proof, it's ridiculous), hopefully we'll collectively start doing things that actually save energy rather than spending it. I'm tired of arguing this topic, because I'm convinced that the deniers simply insist on spending their time on the argument, rather than admitting they could do things that would not only help the environment but also save themselves energy and money. That's right, it's not about spending more money on green products, it's about using and consuming less in general. It makes a person and the earth far more richer.
Jeanwah, you make a good point here I've hesitated to state outright:
"I'm convinced that the deniers simply insist on spending their time on the argument, rather than admitting they could do things that would not only help the environment but also save themselves energy and money."
I think the same thing sometimes and I hope I'm wrong because if this is just a practice in arguing we're wasting our time. For those of you who have differing opinions on global warming than mine I want you to know this: I'm not here just to argue. This isn't about ego for me and I do not have a personal bias against you. I am against global warming and the powers that continue to ignore the problem but I am not against you personally. Just last night my wife and I had dinner with a friend who told me for the hundreth time, "global warming is a farce- yes "farce"- that was her word. We may never agree on this issue but I would never turn my back on her- ever. She is one of my very best friends.
Let's get off the endless debate. If you really don't believe the earth is warming at least give those of us who do credit for trying to do something to clean up the planet so your kids and grandkids will have a planet worth living on rather than a hot stinking junk yard of a planet gasping for air. Every good thing you do for this earth will help.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
regardless of global warming that i cannot explain I have an alternate argument about action
IF YOU DONT THINK YOUR CAR POLLUTES, GET A HOSE and get your fumes inside your car instead of into the air..... SEE HOW LONG YOU LAST MORON
we all know we pollute
our cars
our energy
our packaging
our industries
Im sick of af these fuckers who go on about economy
fuck the economy, fuck the idea that you need to have more , make more, do more
this planet will squash us all eventually , then cycle on back around.
JUST A SIDE NOTE
years ago when this debate started about global warming, around the time when al gores movie came out. there was a massive political push to do somthing.
what changed
The economy, what happened to that
well the people who stood to make more $$$$ in the status quo, caused a financial crisis that changed the populations thoughts on fixing our enviroment to
FUCK I NEED A JOB TO PAY MY BILLS. FUCK THE ENVIROMENT
AND LIKE FUCKING SHEEP they all go BAA bAAA
see how easy it is to control you
YOU KNOW WHATS WIERD>.....Obama hasnt taken a strong approach at all regarding Global Warming! HMMMM
Wonder why?
I dont see him taking initiative or beginning a new push! I dont see any new plans! I dont see Obama going to Europe and Asia in talks with them about Global Warming! I find that funny because all of Obamas best friends are Global Warming advocates! Just sees fishy to me!
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
YOU KNOW WHATS WIERD>.....Obama hasnt taken a strong approach at all regarding Global Warming! HMMMM
Wonder why?
I dont see him taking initiative or beginning a new push! I dont see any new plans! I dont see Obama going to Europe and Asia in talks with them about Global Warming! I find that funny because all of Obamas best friends are Global Warming advocates! Just sees fishy to me!
because as I said before, al ot of americans are finding it hard to look after themselves , let alone the enviroment. and as such your political masters reflect that
Jeanwah, you make a good point here I've hesitated to state outright:
"I'm convinced that the deniers simply insist on spending their time on the argument, rather than admitting they could do things that would not only help the environment but also save themselves energy and money."
I think the same thing sometimes and I hope I'm wrong because if this is just a practice in arguing we're wasting our time. For those of you who have differing opinions on global warming than mine I want you to know this: I'm not here just to argue. This isn't about ego for me and I do not have a personal bias against you. I am against global warming and the powers that continue to ignore the problem but I am not against you personally. Just last night my wife and I had dinner with a friend who told me for the hundreth time, "global warming is a farce- yes "farce"- that was her word. We may never agree on this issue but I would never turn my back on her- ever. She is one of my very best friends.
Let's get off the endless debate. If you really don't believe the earth is warming at least give those of us who do credit for trying to do something to clean up the planet so your kids and grandkids will have a planet worth living on rather than a hot stinking junk yard of a planet gasping for air. Every good thing you do for this earth will help.
I believe me and another member of the board have been the ones making the point - who cares about the global warming argument, let's just find a way to stop the obvious damage whether it's causing global warming or not. Yet, you 2 continue that argument and go further saying WE want the argument. Too funny. You should read yourself sometime. It's quite amusing.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
regardless of global warming that i cannot explain I have an alternate argument about action
IF YOU DONT THINK YOUR CAR POLLUTES, GET A HOSE and get your fumes inside your car instead of into the air..... SEE HOW LONG YOU LAST MORON
we all know we pollute
our cars
our energy
our packaging
our industries
Im sick of af these fuckers who go on about economy
fuck the economy, fuck the idea that you need to have more , make more, do more
this planet will squash us all eventually , then cycle on back around.
STOP SHITTING IN YOUR NEST.
Very good points. However, ignoring the economics of the issue is foolish. The fact is, folks are stuggling. So, even thinking about spending an extra dollar today to help anything other than their daily lives has nothing to do with not wanting to help, but just surviving. I guess you could argue the 1% (since that has now entered our lexicon) should do more. But, even Al Gore is paying someone else to offset his foot print. So, how can you expect anyone else to listen?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Even if we accept your rationale, most people can't afford that extra 5% even if they wanted to. So, now what? The rich will get blamed for hording all the good stuff. It doesn't matter what we believe. If the economics don't make sense for the broad majority, it will never take flight.
Though, if you truly found something that cost 5% more today, but saved 20% over the next 10 years, you might have something. Then a smart entrepeneur can come in and follow the cell phone model to serve the greater good AND make a profit. So, even in this scenario, your free market helps get you to your goal.
firstly ... you missed my example ... i said cost 5% more but had a 25% reduction in emissions ... so, the overall benefit of product A exceeds product B but only if you consider emission reductions important ...
to your first point ... people pay a premium every day now ... we have 3 tiers of gas - if it was unreachable, everyone would pay for the cheapest ... also, sure you can use the product that is cheaper but long term it is going to cost you ... in your health ... example is fast food ... why not eat taco bell every day? ... it's the cheapest ... most people don't because they consider taste and their health ... that's all i'm saying here ... in developing green solutions - you need to factor in the benefit of why we want it green ... so, until we all acknowledge global warming to be a problem ... it doesn't get factored into the equation ...
firstly ... you missed my example ... i said cost 5% more but had a 25% reduction in emissions ... so, the overall benefit of product A exceeds product B but only if you consider emission reductions important ...
to your first point ... people pay a premium every day now ... we have 3 tiers of gas - if it was unreachable, everyone would pay for the cheapest ... also, sure you can use the product that is cheaper but long term it is going to cost you ... in your health ... example is fast food ... why not eat taco bell every day? ... it's the cheapest ... most people don't because they consider taste and their health ... that's all i'm saying here ... in developing green solutions - you need to factor in the benefit of why we want it green ... so, until we all acknowledge global warming to be a problem ... it doesn't get factored into the equation ...
I didn't miss it. I was saying IF you could say 20% long term savings. I know you were talking about benefit to the environment.
To you last points - I pay for Premium gas because a) my car performs better when I use it (I have tried cheaper stuff) and b) I can afford it.
Your fast food example is a great sample - if you haven't noticed we have an obesity problem. It's not caused by people eating expensive fruit. It's caused by cheap foods - rice, beans, and yes, fast foods. So, folks are damaging their own environment (their bodies) to eat cheaply. You don't get obese by eating Filet Mignon (you could in theory, but you'd have to be extremely rich).
So, that actually highlights the other points - it's cheaper to be fat. Make Filet's cheaper, and maybe you'd have your solution. Instead the idea being floated is tax soda. I'm fine with that. But, again, why not find a way to make healthy living cheaper. And, of course, all this goes back to education. There are ways to be healthy cheaply. But telling me I'm a tub 'o lard (screaming about global warming) is not going to solve the problem.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
well ... you said ... no one can afford a 5% premium ...
back to me food example ... we pay a little more to eat healthier because there are long term benefits ... my point is simply if you don't allow for environmental benefits than i'm at a disadvantage ... you wouldn't disallow the health benefits - why disallow the environmental?
well ... you said ... no one can afford a 5% premium ...
back to me food example ... we pay a little more to eat healthier because there are long term benefits ... my point is simply if you don't allow for environmental benefits than i'm at a disadvantage ... you wouldn't disallow the health benefits - why disallow the environmental?
I agree that your biggest problem is folks don't agree with your global warming premise. Nobody denies that being obese is unhealthy.
And that's where this gets interesting - 90% (I made this up, you're welcome to adjust it) of people agree obesity is bad and it's a problem. Yet, it's growing. Part of the problem is education. Part of the problem is it's cheaper financially to eat unhealthy.
Now, those last 2 arguments fit your discussion, as well. But, now throw in the fact that maybe 50% (I'd say lower, but let's say it's that) of people don't believe global warming is a problem to their lives. Much tougher challenge. So, why not eliminate THAT added problem and make things more efficient to do the way you want to do them? All this is exacerbated by a failing economy where doing this stuff is a pipe dream.
I am not disallowing the health benefits. I think I've said repeatedly - it's clear smoke coming out of tailpipes is not good for us. Doesn't matter if I think it's causing warming. So, why make the latter your focus? Everyone knows tailpipes are bad. Make that better and more efficient. But, you cannot on one hand say - there aren't enough jobs and only 1% of people can afford anything and on the other say those 99% should spend more of their disposable income (if they have any) on this stuff that doesn't impact them today.
Make it more efficient, and everyone will buy in (pun intended).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Now, those last 2 arguments fit your discussion, as well. But, now throw in the fact that maybe 50% (I'd say lower, but let's say it's that) of people don't believe global warming is a problem to their lives. Much tougher challenge. So, why not eliminate THAT added problem and make things more efficient to do the way you want to do them? All this is exacerbated by a failing economy where doing this stuff is a pipe dream.
hence my assertion that we need to educate people on global warming ... we didn't always know certain foods were bad ... but education brought us here now ... you gotta remember that your 50% number is only true in the USA ... that number is significantly higher everywhere else in the world ...
if we educate people on global warming ... my opportunity for success rises significantly ... so, why handicap myself right from the get go when the primary reason for my solutions is to combat the problem i speak of?
Now, those last 2 arguments fit your discussion, as well. But, now throw in the fact that maybe 50% (I'd say lower, but let's say it's that) of people don't believe global warming is a problem to their lives. Much tougher challenge. So, why not eliminate THAT added problem and make things more efficient to do the way you want to do them? All this is exacerbated by a failing economy where doing this stuff is a pipe dream.
hence my assertion that we need to educate people on global warming ... we didn't always know certain foods were bad ... but education brought us here now ... you gotta remember that your 50% number is only true in the USA ... that number is significantly higher everywhere else in the world ...
if we educate people on global warming ... my opportunity for success rises significantly ... so, why handicap myself right from the get go when the primary reason for my solutions is to combat the problem i speak of?
I don't want to keep arguing points here, because quite frankly it's getting to be an old argument. And I've said it before, global warming is not the primary issue of today: poll after poll show, people care most about the economy. Global warming isn't even in the top five. But, I digress.
But, I do have one thought: You want to educate people on global warming, right? Let's think about this for a moment. Right now, you're on a left-leaning rock band's message board. You spend most of your time in that left-leaning rock band's political section of their forum. The heavy majority in that forum already agree with you on this issue (let's say 75%, for arguments sake, but I'd say that's really at least 90%) due to the fact that it's a left-leaning rock band, and rock band's in general have left-leaning audiences. However, there's several who do not, and have made their points as to why they do not. So, most likely those few who do not see eye to eye with you.... won't regardless of what you do.
So, you spend your time arguing with those who do not to try to "educate"? I got to say... I don't see it that way. I see it as arguing. Due to what I mentioned above, I see what you are doing as a gargantuan waste of time if you're really trying to educate. If you wanted to really educate, you wouldn't be surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals, talking to the 75% who already believe what you are preaching.
I don't want to keep arguing points here, because quite frankly it's getting to be an old argument. And I've said it before, global warming is not the primary issue of today: poll after poll show, people care most about the economy. Global warming isn't even in the top five. But, I digress.
But, I do have one thought: You want to educate people on global warming, right? Let's think about this for a moment. Right now, you're on a left-leaning rock band's message board. You spend most of your time in that left-leaning rock band's political section of their forum. The heavy majority in that forum already agree with you on this issue (let's say 75%, for arguments sake, but I'd say that's really at least 90%) due to the fact that it's a left-leaning rock band, and rock band's in general have left-leaning audiences. However, there's several who do not, and have made their points as to why they do not. So, most likely those few who do not see eye to eye with you.... won't regardless of what you do.
So, you spend your time arguing with those who do not to try to "educate"? I got to say... I don't see it that way. I see it as arguing. Due to what I mentioned above, I see what you are doing as a gargantuan waste of time if you're really trying to educate. If you wanted to really educate, you wouldn't be surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals, talking to the 75% who already believe what you are preaching.
dude ... this conversation started with Brianlux asking how I would tackle this issue ... my first action was education ... that's when you guys piped in ... i think i have made a decent case as to why education is important ...
but i get it ... you feel outnumbered here because of the like-mindedness of many of PJ's fans ... and you feel you need to reiterate it and discount our time we commit here discussing ...
I don't want to keep arguing points here, because quite frankly it's getting to be an old argument. And I've said it before, global warming is not the primary issue of today: poll after poll show, people care most about the economy. Global warming isn't even in the top five. But, I digress.
But, I do have one thought: You want to educate people on global warming, right? Let's think about this for a moment. Right now, you're on a left-leaning rock band's message board. You spend most of your time in that left-leaning rock band's political section of their forum. The heavy majority in that forum already agree with you on this issue (let's say 75%, for arguments sake, but I'd say that's really at least 90%) due to the fact that it's a left-leaning rock band, and rock band's in general have left-leaning audiences. However, there's several who do not, and have made their points as to why they do not. So, most likely those few who do not see eye to eye with you.... won't regardless of what you do.
So, you spend your time arguing with those who do not to try to "educate"? I got to say... I don't see it that way. I see it as arguing. Due to what I mentioned above, I see what you are doing as a gargantuan waste of time if you're really trying to educate. If you wanted to really educate, you wouldn't be surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals, talking to the 75% who already believe what you are preaching.
dude ... this conversation started with Brianlux asking how I would tackle this issue ... my first action was education ... that's when you guys piped in ... i think i have made a decent case as to why education is important ...
but i get it ... you feel outnumbered here because of the like-mindedness of many of PJ's fans ... and you feel you need to reiterate it and discount our time we commit here discussing ...
It's a forum. People pipe in and out, that's how it works.
I don't think you're wrong that education (in your context of the word) is important to advance a cause. That said, I think my point in claiming that your "education" attempts here are a waste of time was also really valid and should be read by all supporters of this cause as such.
For your last point, my viewpoint is outnumbered here. It's not some "feeling", it's reality. And that's OK, I'm still here, aren't I? But, to pretend that it's not, is silly. I've said it before, this place is not a sample of the real world. It's heavily tilted to one side. Those who think otherwise are lying to themselves.
Now, those last 2 arguments fit your discussion, as well. But, now throw in the fact that maybe 50% (I'd say lower, but let's say it's that) of people don't believe global warming is a problem to their lives. Much tougher challenge. So, why not eliminate THAT added problem and make things more efficient to do the way you want to do them? All this is exacerbated by a failing economy where doing this stuff is a pipe dream.
hence my assertion that we need to educate people on global warming ... we didn't always know certain foods were bad ... but education brought us here now ... you gotta remember that your 50% number is only true in the USA ... that number is significantly higher everywhere else in the world ...
if we educate people on global warming ... my opportunity for success rises significantly ... so, why handicap myself right from the get go when the primary reason for my solutions is to combat the problem i speak of?
We didn't know soda was bad for you? Then why did they bother inventing DIET Coke? Seems like a colosal marketing misstep. We didn't know fast food was bad for you?
These fact were widely known. And the problem is getting worse. Not better. And, to me this is a bigger problem than the other stuff. Who cares if the planet exists if we're all sitting around like the folks on The Axiom (the mother ship from Wall-E)? How can you expect people to care for the environment when they don't even care for themselves?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Comments
If this is done effectively, the government should have ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE here. Why? Because the government would only get involved if the product WOULD NOT be the cheaper product (in the cost/benefit sense). Government gets involved to try to alter market forces (subsidies, price controls, taxes, etc), this shouldn't happen with this. Instead, climate change supporters take up making green products more costs effective as their life's mission. That's the only way to get everyone on board.
In my opinion, if you're really passionate about this, you could read book after book on the subject (that will pretty much give you the same perspective you already have) and tout your opinion on a rock band's message board. Alternatively, you could actually start trying to think about how you could play a part in what I mentioned above and do it.... thereby, actually make a difference.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i used to agree with you on the terminology however, we don't do this anywhere else ... if you have the flu and you die from an infection ... yeah, the infection is what killed you but the flu was the cause ... same thing here ... we've tried to dumb it down so much to appeal to the masses - all we did was make it easier for the spin doctors to confuse ...example: they took our change from global warming to climate change as an indication of our lack of knowledge on the subject and people ate it up ...
i don't think it's so much talking down to as frustration that people continue to believe and post things that have been addressed years ago ... just follow this thread for example ... the consensus is overwhelming and it is obviously frustrating that we are even having this debate ...
yes, we should focus as well on how we can address this which brianlux has pushed but at the same time, if we can't get everyone to agree that there is indeed a problem ... we won't be able to make any progress ...
Well said.
how is this remotely well said!??
it's like you guys say that because its what you want to hear ...
how the heck are we supposed to offer up products if we can't even agree there is a problem ...
i can say right now ... product a costs 3% more than product b but product a will reduce carbon emissions by 25% ... well, if you don't believe in global warming - you're not going to enter that into your equation ...
we need to first have everyone agree there is a problem before there can be meaningful solutions ...
No, in fact, we don't have to have everyone agree for YOU to find meaningful solutions if you think it's a problem...
YOU could stop posting here and YOU could go out and try to make a green product cheaper. YOU can make it into a product that's more cost/effective than the non-green alternative. I'm saying stop blaming everyone else for not 100% seeing the world exactly like you do (because, truth be told they never will). Instead, go make it so their market incentives are to purchase the products you want them to.
That's lasting change... that's what you SHOULD want.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i'm not asking anyone to see it 100% the way I do ... you think keynesian economics is causing all the problems - shouldn't your goal to be trying to convince everyone? ... that way people can be on the same page with solutions??
again - which you've ignored ... if part of my cost / benefit formula includes something you don't concern yourself with ... how am i gonna get anywhere? ...
you want us to come up with products/solutions that are more cost effective than conventional ones but won't allow us to factor the reason why we need to come up with it in the first place ...
I respectfully disagree. I think you are trying to get them to see it the way you do.
As for your point on economics, I don't agree there. Here's why: I can't do squat about Keynesian economics, even if I got a lot of people to agree with me. I don't work for the FED and I'm not a politician. I can't practice Keynesian economics, myself. I play no role in it. It's 100% practiced by government.
You, on the other hand, can do something to change what you consider to be Climate Change. I explained how.
I'm saying that that's all well and good, but I think if you're honest, you'd admit not everyone has your cost benefit formula. Hence, my point. The most credible way to get everyone on board is market mechanisms. If your products work well and are cheaper, people will buy it. Simply get your green products cheaper and effective (or maybe even a bit more expensive, but show they are more effective)... I'll buy them from you.
I don't agree. I want those of your ilk to use market based approaches to solve your own issues. Stop forcing your exact views down everyone's throats by demanding government sponsor your products; a lot of folks don't agree on every iota of Climate Change. Instead, improve your products so they are more competitive and don't need government assistance. If the product is good and there's a purpose for it, and it's not too pricey.... people/companies will buy it. Then the world will be greener. If the goal was a greener world, that's where your energy should be placed.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
i think the market based approach is what got us here and yet you want me to come up with solutions within that context but in the end they aren't solutions ... because to you - there isn't a problem ...
how can you help an alcoholic if they don't know they've got a problem!??
until we recognize global warming as a problem ... your market based approach makes no sense because the value in green products is irrelevant ...
Fair enough, but just to elaborate my points here...
Part of this post is exactly it in a nutshell and why someone, such as myself who's skeptical about global climate change, has such issues with the whole discussion. To me, this shows why climate change supporters and socialism seem inherently linked. Some "green" people are so anti-market that they would rally against market-based solutions, even if they could help address the very "green" problem that they are screaming about.
You said "I think the market based approach is what got us here and yet you want me to come up with solutions in that context". To reiterate, yes, I wanted to you to come up with your GREEN solutions in that context. That would be better for CC and economic growth. In other words, in that context, there would be more jobs, and more prosperity, yet a cleaner environment.
Yet, you don't want that. I just find that ironic.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Fossil fuel costs...Add all the subsidies, cost of wars to secure to the them (trillion + in the last 10 years or so), costs to our health (both literally and financially), costs to clean up the spills, accidents, meltdowns, etc., storing the waste, and I think we will find solar panels and windmills, etc. look a hell of a lot more competitive.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
i'm not anti-market as i am anti-free market ... i can easily come up with solutions but if you disallow the motive behind my solutions as part of the benefit - then you are arbitrarily putting restrictions and conditions on my solutions ...
let's go back to my example ... Product A cost more than Product B by 5% but Product A reduces emissions by 25% ... if you don't value the impact in emission reductions - then Product A will fail to Product B ... hence, the importance of acknowledging Global Warming is a problem ...
Renewable energy is being dismissed by people such as yourself because they only factor in the cost based on the current market conditions ... which is ultimately what got us here in the first place ... if we paid the true cost of energy (which i would think guys like yourself would support) then this would be a no-brainer ...
Even if we accept your rationale, most people can't afford that extra 5% even if they wanted to. So, now what? The rich will get blamed for hording all the good stuff. It doesn't matter what we believe. If the economics don't make sense for the broad majority, it will never take flight.
Though, if you truly found something that cost 5% more today, but saved 20% over the next 10 years, you might have something. Then a smart entrepeneur can come in and follow the cell phone model to serve the greater good AND make a profit. So, even in this scenario, your free market helps get you to your goal.
This is the entire point of the thread! But the sad thing is... some people are only on here to argue and (hope to) win the argument. That's why we keep going around in circles. When people actually stop and realize what's going on, (and there's so much proof, it's ridiculous), hopefully we'll collectively start doing things that actually save energy rather than spending it. I'm tired of arguing this topic, because I'm convinced that the deniers simply insist on spending their time on the argument, rather than admitting they could do things that would not only help the environment but also save themselves energy and money. That's right, it's not about spending more money on green products, it's about using and consuming less in general. It makes a person and the earth far more richer.
"I'm convinced that the deniers simply insist on spending their time on the argument, rather than admitting they could do things that would not only help the environment but also save themselves energy and money."
I think the same thing sometimes and I hope I'm wrong because if this is just a practice in arguing we're wasting our time. For those of you who have differing opinions on global warming than mine I want you to know this: I'm not here just to argue. This isn't about ego for me and I do not have a personal bias against you. I am against global warming and the powers that continue to ignore the problem but I am not against you personally. Just last night my wife and I had dinner with a friend who told me for the hundreth time, "global warming is a farce- yes "farce"- that was her word. We may never agree on this issue but I would never turn my back on her- ever. She is one of my very best friends.
Let's get off the endless debate. If you really don't believe the earth is warming at least give those of us who do credit for trying to do something to clean up the planet so your kids and grandkids will have a planet worth living on rather than a hot stinking junk yard of a planet gasping for air. Every good thing you do for this earth will help.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
IF YOU DONT THINK YOUR CAR POLLUTES, GET A HOSE and get your fumes inside your car instead of into the air..... SEE HOW LONG YOU LAST MORON
we all know we pollute
our cars
our energy
our packaging
our industries
Im sick of af these fuckers who go on about economy
fuck the economy, fuck the idea that you need to have more , make more, do more
this planet will squash us all eventually , then cycle on back around.
STOP SHITTING IN YOUR NEST.
years ago when this debate started about global warming, around the time when al gores movie came out. there was a massive political push to do somthing.
what changed
The economy, what happened to that
well the people who stood to make more $$$$ in the status quo, caused a financial crisis that changed the populations thoughts on fixing our enviroment to
FUCK I NEED A JOB TO PAY MY BILLS. FUCK THE ENVIROMENT
AND LIKE FUCKING SHEEP they all go BAA bAAA
see how easy it is to control you
Wonder why?
I dont see him taking initiative or beginning a new push! I dont see any new plans! I dont see Obama going to Europe and Asia in talks with them about Global Warming! I find that funny because all of Obamas best friends are Global Warming advocates! Just sees fishy to me!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
because as I said before, al ot of americans are finding it hard to look after themselves , let alone the enviroment. and as such your political masters reflect that
I believe me and another member of the board have been the ones making the point - who cares about the global warming argument, let's just find a way to stop the obvious damage whether it's causing global warming or not. Yet, you 2 continue that argument and go further saying WE want the argument. Too funny. You should read yourself sometime. It's quite amusing.
Very good points. However, ignoring the economics of the issue is foolish. The fact is, folks are stuggling. So, even thinking about spending an extra dollar today to help anything other than their daily lives has nothing to do with not wanting to help, but just surviving. I guess you could argue the 1% (since that has now entered our lexicon) should do more. But, even Al Gore is paying someone else to offset his foot print. So, how can you expect anyone else to listen?
firstly ... you missed my example ... i said cost 5% more but had a 25% reduction in emissions ... so, the overall benefit of product A exceeds product B but only if you consider emission reductions important ...
to your first point ... people pay a premium every day now ... we have 3 tiers of gas - if it was unreachable, everyone would pay for the cheapest ... also, sure you can use the product that is cheaper but long term it is going to cost you ... in your health ... example is fast food ... why not eat taco bell every day? ... it's the cheapest ... most people don't because they consider taste and their health ... that's all i'm saying here ... in developing green solutions - you need to factor in the benefit of why we want it green ... so, until we all acknowledge global warming to be a problem ... it doesn't get factored into the equation ...
I didn't miss it. I was saying IF you could say 20% long term savings. I know you were talking about benefit to the environment.
To you last points - I pay for Premium gas because a) my car performs better when I use it (I have tried cheaper stuff) and b) I can afford it.
Your fast food example is a great sample - if you haven't noticed we have an obesity problem. It's not caused by people eating expensive fruit. It's caused by cheap foods - rice, beans, and yes, fast foods. So, folks are damaging their own environment (their bodies) to eat cheaply. You don't get obese by eating Filet Mignon (you could in theory, but you'd have to be extremely rich).
So, that actually highlights the other points - it's cheaper to be fat. Make Filet's cheaper, and maybe you'd have your solution. Instead the idea being floated is tax soda. I'm fine with that. But, again, why not find a way to make healthy living cheaper. And, of course, all this goes back to education. There are ways to be healthy cheaply. But telling me I'm a tub 'o lard (screaming about global warming) is not going to solve the problem.
back to me food example ... we pay a little more to eat healthier because there are long term benefits ... my point is simply if you don't allow for environmental benefits than i'm at a disadvantage ... you wouldn't disallow the health benefits - why disallow the environmental?
I agree that your biggest problem is folks don't agree with your global warming premise. Nobody denies that being obese is unhealthy.
And that's where this gets interesting - 90% (I made this up, you're welcome to adjust it) of people agree obesity is bad and it's a problem. Yet, it's growing. Part of the problem is education. Part of the problem is it's cheaper financially to eat unhealthy.
Now, those last 2 arguments fit your discussion, as well. But, now throw in the fact that maybe 50% (I'd say lower, but let's say it's that) of people don't believe global warming is a problem to their lives. Much tougher challenge. So, why not eliminate THAT added problem and make things more efficient to do the way you want to do them? All this is exacerbated by a failing economy where doing this stuff is a pipe dream.
I am not disallowing the health benefits. I think I've said repeatedly - it's clear smoke coming out of tailpipes is not good for us. Doesn't matter if I think it's causing warming. So, why make the latter your focus? Everyone knows tailpipes are bad. Make that better and more efficient. But, you cannot on one hand say - there aren't enough jobs and only 1% of people can afford anything and on the other say those 99% should spend more of their disposable income (if they have any) on this stuff that doesn't impact them today.
Make it more efficient, and everyone will buy in (pun intended).
hence my assertion that we need to educate people on global warming ... we didn't always know certain foods were bad ... but education brought us here now ... you gotta remember that your 50% number is only true in the USA ... that number is significantly higher everywhere else in the world ...
if we educate people on global warming ... my opportunity for success rises significantly ... so, why handicap myself right from the get go when the primary reason for my solutions is to combat the problem i speak of?
I don't want to keep arguing points here, because quite frankly it's getting to be an old argument. And I've said it before, global warming is not the primary issue of today: poll after poll show, people care most about the economy. Global warming isn't even in the top five. But, I digress.
But, I do have one thought: You want to educate people on global warming, right? Let's think about this for a moment. Right now, you're on a left-leaning rock band's message board. You spend most of your time in that left-leaning rock band's political section of their forum. The heavy majority in that forum already agree with you on this issue (let's say 75%, for arguments sake, but I'd say that's really at least 90%) due to the fact that it's a left-leaning rock band, and rock band's in general have left-leaning audiences. However, there's several who do not, and have made their points as to why they do not. So, most likely those few who do not see eye to eye with you.... won't regardless of what you do.
So, you spend your time arguing with those who do not to try to "educate"? I got to say... I don't see it that way. I see it as arguing. Due to what I mentioned above, I see what you are doing as a gargantuan waste of time if you're really trying to educate. If you wanted to really educate, you wouldn't be surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals, talking to the 75% who already believe what you are preaching.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
dude ... this conversation started with Brianlux asking how I would tackle this issue ... my first action was education ... that's when you guys piped in ... i think i have made a decent case as to why education is important ...
but i get it ... you feel outnumbered here because of the like-mindedness of many of PJ's fans ... and you feel you need to reiterate it and discount our time we commit here discussing ...
It's a forum. People pipe in and out, that's how it works.
I don't think you're wrong that education (in your context of the word) is important to advance a cause. That said, I think my point in claiming that your "education" attempts here are a waste of time was also really valid and should be read by all supporters of this cause as such.
For your last point, my viewpoint is outnumbered here. It's not some "feeling", it's reality. And that's OK, I'm still here, aren't I? But, to pretend that it's not, is silly. I've said it before, this place is not a sample of the real world. It's heavily tilted to one side. Those who think otherwise are lying to themselves.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
We didn't know soda was bad for you? Then why did they bother inventing DIET Coke? Seems like a colosal marketing misstep. We didn't know fast food was bad for you?
These fact were widely known. And the problem is getting worse. Not better. And, to me this is a bigger problem than the other stuff. Who cares if the planet exists if we're all sitting around like the folks on The Axiom (the mother ship from Wall-E)? How can you expect people to care for the environment when they don't even care for themselves?