I hate to say that Ed is a hypocrite, but...

Smellyman wrote:

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

What are the disadvantages of biofuels?

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.

dunkman wrote:

What are the disadvantages of biofuels?

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:

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

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.

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

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..

I, for one, support global warming. Have you ever lived through a winter in Canada??? Fuck!!

Kat wrote:

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 $.

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?

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..

Kat wrote:

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????

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.

---

"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

dunkman wrote:

no my suggestion will be for Ed to sing songs and not try and convert or preach to people in between those songs...

that wouldn't be Ed though....