Yeah. Only in San Francisco. (Well, maybe in the USSR too, if it were still around)
In San Francisco, the Bay Area Quality Management District's board of directors has approved a new tax. On Pollution.
This new tax will be for "factories, power plants, oil refineries and other businesses that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases."
Now, apart from the myth that carbon dioxide, a gas that animals expell and plants require in order to make energy (and oxygen), causes global warming, let's just look at the tax itself.
This tax is going to charge 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide. This tax doesn't exist on its own, but is setting the way for more hype-based taxes. Per the article:
The modest fee -- 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide -- probably won't be enough to force companies to reduce their emissions, but backers say it sets an important precedent in combating climate change and could serve as a model for regional air districts nationwide.
Now, to ensure that this move only impacts businesses, and not actual voters (like illegal immigrants), this tax will not apply to vehicles. Just evil businesses....
Of course, The University of California in Berkeley, the liberal hotbed that it is, thinks this is a great idea. After all, college professors at Berkeley have always been known to be such good conservative voices, out for the good of the United States.
My reaction? I guess the Bay Area doesn't need factories, power plants or oil refineries. I don't ever remember reading about job shortages (unemployment), Power supply issues (Rolling blackouts) or high gas prices in California.
Hey business leaders from any business affected by this insane tax: Come to Oklahoma, we just voted to increase our property taxes so that the state could buy the GM plant.... and shortly before that, voted a sales tax in so that a pro basketball team didn't have to pay taxes for 15 years.
Come to Oklahoma, we'll take you. Leave the cesspool of California's socialistic tax code behind.
That is a great blog lancekates. Im going to look more into this. Im surprised i never heard about it in the news or on current tv. The next question is: when will they tax the air we breath
Why not? Colorado Springs CO passed a tax to tax you because it rains.
They made a tax that you pay, based on the impervious coverage of your lot, because rainwater drains into the streets and into the sewers.
Didn't it have something to do with large, paved driveways, from which water runs off? Or am I thinking of something else?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
well, impervious coverage is paved areas and structures.
The city of Colorado Springs added a tax based on the percentage of your lot that is covered.
Now, keep in mind, your propery taxes go to infrastructure such as sewer, but that wasn't enough tax for the city.
They wanted more.
Sorry. I didn't read your comment carefully. I totally missed the impervious coverage bit.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Actually, there are already similar measures in place federally. Currently, businesses are regulated nationwide on the amount of sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) they are allowed to emit. Every SO2 producing business gets a certain amount of pollution credits. With these credits, they are allowed to either pollute as much as the credits allow for, buy more credits to pollute more, or dock their pollution and sell the credits to other businesses who aren't as able to control their pollution.
Chicago has enacted a similar program for CO2 emissions, and California as a whole passed a similar law for Carbon Dioxide as well.
Sorry to burst your "ripping into San Francisco" bubble.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
SO2, unlike CO2, actually IS a pollutant.
CO2 is not.
As for Chicago, they have a cap on emissions and you can 'buy' the ability to have more emissions, from other companies.
That is different from a straight tax on CO2, a non pollutant that humans exhale and plants use.
Many cities have 'pollution caps' for which you must stay below or enter into a contract with a business to buy their extra ability to pollute, but the Bay Area is the first to have an outright tax on ALL CO2 emissions.
Frankly, it is just a bunch of hype to get more money for city/county/state agencies. CO2 does not cause global warming and anyone who thinks we ARE having global warming is welcome to explain why across the united states, we had one of the colder winters on record, AND why it was snowing in APRIL across much of the midwest. (and, it isn't just here. Germany posted a colder than normal winter as well)
You can't blame everything on 'global warming' . . . especially if there isn't any warming across the globe.
But that doesn't stop people from adding a tax for it. After all, we just need to be clueless and let The Government run our lives, eh?
we had one of the colder winters on record,
While I'm not defending the global warming idea, I need to point out the flaw in your logic. Global warming is a climatological term. It refers to the earth's climate, not the weather of individual years. Years aren't even a pixel-width on the climate change charts that cover millenia. The temperatures in one year aren't going to have the much effect on the climate. Now, if those temperatures and conditions start showing a pattern, then yes, one can start considering climate change.
For example, I live in an area that sees both rather extreme colds (I've seen as low as -30 or so in the day time) and rather extreme highs (110). No, they are not the world record-breaking temperatures, but I know that for about a week in July, the temperature will reach over 100 and for a few days in January or so, I'll have to make sure I wear 4 layers of clothing and cover every inch of my body if I want to dare going outside. I know these conditions are very likely because of the climate of the area, which are patterns over decades (specific temperatures and time of year), centuries (rainfall levels and humidity), or millenia (general temperatures - July = hot)..
One year, in and of itself, isn't indicative of climate change.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Very true, and yet the global warming crowd still can't answer to how, if we are facing global warming, our global temperatures were among the lowest in the last umpteen years. (I believe this last winter was the 65th coldest on record.... yet somehow we're facing global warming?)
The patterns has been getting colder as well. That is, however, ignored. No one can profit from Global Warming by discussing a drop in temperature.
Once again, while we are facing calls for us to buy carbon credits (to profit Al Gore) or pay taxes based on our CO2 emissions, the temperatures are getting no warmer. There was a call that over the last few centuries we MIGHT have risen a TINY fraction of a degree on average... But that has been found to be inaccurate.
Global Warming just isn't happening. It is bunk. When you and I were kids, the scare was Global Cooling... using the same stats. That was as much bunk then as Global Warming is now.
It is the height of arrogance to suggest that tracking weather for about a century gives us the ability to not only say what the climate was like thousands of years ago, but also predict what the climate will be in coming centuries.
Like I said, I wasn't defending global warming, I was simply pointing out the flaw in the statement "last winter was the coldest ever" (or whatever along the lines it was) because an individual year is not indicative of climate change in general, whether for the warmer or colder. I agree with you, though, the whole "global warming" scare (and climate change scares in general) is a sham.
I wish I could find the climate chart that I found a couple of weeks ago. It showed the general temperature throughout earth's history. You could see where the major ice ages where and about how long they lasted. Interestingly enough, earth's climate for the vast majority of its life has been significantly warmer than what we're in now. Historically, ice ages hit rather suddenly and only lasted a few thousand years and they were pretty obvious (like 5000 years of temperatures that fell into one particular color band). More recently, though, the chart showed mini ice ages that might have lasted a thousand years, followed by times of warmer temperatures, followed by another mini ice age, but even during the warm times, it's still not as warm as it used to be (such as when the dinosaurs lived). Now, obviously, there's more, more accurate data for the more recent years than there is for the years prior to the time when vertebrates emerged, so it's not totally accurate, but the more recent years certainly show a trend that isn't really like the trends in the past.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You seem quite convinced that the science is completely mistaken on carbon dioxide and because neither of us are scientists, I will not argue with you on that point.
Here's my question: Do you think a citizen-directed tax on emissions OR a cap-trade system gives businesses and communities more incentive to reduce emissions?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
ACTUAL science agrees with me. Propaganda that Al Gore uses does not.
I'll take science over propaganda any day.
I do not believe that it is the government's job to levy taxes on anyone based on junk science. I'd even go further and suggest that were the universe in a condition in which the junk science was true science, I still wouldn't support taxes to reduce pollution. It isn't the job of the government to reduce pollution through taxes.
Thank you for answering the question.
You're not a scientist. The science in the IPCC reports that went under scrupulous peer-review by anyone who questioned the "junk" for years before it was sent out to the publishing house gives you less certainty than a site like this (http://www.carbonbelchday.com/109/pledge.asp?RID=&PID=)?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Yeah... I don't suppose it matters much to you that many of the scientists who's work was used in that most-famous IPCC report were upset and wanted their part removed from the report as their work and findings were twisted to fit the pre-determined view of the commission?
Nah, probably not.
I don't suppose it matters much to you that the majority of scientists who actually study global climate patterns say that there is either no 'global warming' or that 'it may exist, but is not man made'?
Nah, probably not.
I don't suppose it matters much to you that even a large group of those who believe that global warming DOES exist and IS man-made now understand that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming?
Nah, probably not.
Besides, why should the actual science of it matter when there are rich people that you can soak for more money by government mandate, right?
I find it interesting that you claim to 'not be a scientists' and acknowledge that I am not, yet even as someone who is 'not a scientist' (under the pretense of being openminded to listen to what the actual experts have to say) you ignore anything that does not support your own pre-determined agenda.
A pre-determined, new world order that benefits govt. control and the United Nations. Gotcha. My mind is wide open.
It's a good thing that regardless of climates, there are some of the same things that "alarmists" are calling for that need propelling anyways so that we can live more healthy lives on this planet.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
And just why is it the job of the Government to tell us how healthy we are to live?
Is there nothing you believe the individual is responsible for?
So, you would rather we destroy ourselves and our planet for the sake of "personal freedom"? Because that's exactly what's happening right now. If it weren't for the "alarmists" and government that you look down upon so much, we'd still be spewing out all sorts of garbage into the water we drink, food we eat, and air we breathe because that produces a better bottom line than researching cleaner ways of doing things.
Is everything the government does right? No. Is the government efficient at what it does? Not really. Whether you want to believe it or not, our government doesn't usually try to get involved as much as it's currently doing with the "green" legislation unless nothing else is working. And considering technologies such as electric and biofuel cars, and residential solar power have been around for decades, yet remained too expensive or too underdeveloped and underutilized until legislation was passed giving companies and consumers incentives to use them over traditional technologies (and where the incentives don't work, such as cleaning up the manufacturing process, penalties have started).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
No, we're not. You SAY that you don't buy into the ManMade Global Warming crap, but then you spew its largest talking point.
No, we really wouldn't. That is, however, the point of view that movies have pushed for a couple decades. It doesn't reflect reality, however. Yes, there are companies that do things like that. However, they are not the norm and they generally are so poorly run that they run themselves out of business. The wisdom of stewardship is something that is quick to identify and is a hallmark of lasting companies.
When money or power is involved, the government has never shied away from claiming it.
Yeah, they're not as good as you think. Electric cars still use fossil fuels. Except for Dams and some windmil power plants, the vast VAST majority of electricity is made via coal. All we're doing is shifting from one type of fossil fuel to another. That has no ACTUAL net change in the burning of fossil fuels, it just changes where they are burned.
As for biofuel, we're using our food for fuel... where do we get food? Putting that MAJOR oversight aside, biofuel is less effective, leading to less gas mileage, costs more (it is also subsidized, in addition to this higher cost) and is bad on your engine.
Hydrogen? That's the new hopeful energy source. The perfect green solution as it produces water when burned. Until they's an accident. Then, instead of a wreck, you have a crater. Hydrogen is violently reactive. Comparing hydrogen to gasoline is like comparing a missile to a bottle rocket.
You want a viable non-fossil fuel vehicle? So do I. Join with me in booting the enviro-weenies in the butt, kicking out the Democrats and building nuclear powerplants in all 50 states. Then, and only then, are electric cars a viable alternative. The left has fought any attempt at making nuclear power plants, citing 10 mile island. They don't even know what happened (or, specifically, what didn't happen) at 10 mile island, but they'll misuse it anyway. France is mostly nuclear.... we can be too. The government, once again, is standing in the way of the solution.
Yet you want to give it more power.
Don't you realize how horrifying that is? Where do the 'penalties' end? Who decides that?
You and others rant about the government 'abusing the constitutional right to privacy' . . . but you're willing to let the government decide your daily choices regarding what you drive, what kinds of lightbulbs you can use and how much carbon dioxide (which has never been proven to be related to global warming, every attempt to do so is debunked) you're allowed to expell?
Be Consistant.
No, we're not. You SAY that you don't buy into the ManMade Global Warming crap, but then you spew its largest talking point.
I don't buy into it and I wasn't talking about it to begin with. Destroying the environment does not equal man made global climate change. Think about it. We're on our way to depleting one of three fossil fuels, in the process of destroying not just the rainforests, but all forests. Poor farming techniques have turned part of America's Breadbasket into the Dustbowl. Companies routinely dump things like raw sewage or overheated water (read - heat pollution; raises the temperature of the water, making it too warm for the wildlife living in the area around the dump site) into nearby rivers, ponds, or other bodies of water. People hunt animals to extinction for either sport (Dodos) or just because they feel the animal is "bad" (wolves). And we do this without ever once touching the climate.
And no, believe it or not, I don't follow the big groups for the "green revolution." What I have to say comes from my own observations, things I learned in school, and various documentaries and research that I've done for other topics.
No, we really wouldn't.
You forget how much the general public are sheep to the media. The alarmists, believe it or not, do have a role in society -- they generate awareness by creating media attention.
However, they are not the norm and they generally are so poorly run that they run themselves out of business. The wisdom of stewardship is something that is quick to identify and is a hallmark of lasting companies.
I beg to differ. If that was the case, then Home Depot would be going out of business in the near future, considering that their treatment of employees company-wide is extremely unethical.
Also, not all people in all companies know that any given behavior is actually not only harmful or unethical, but potentially extremely dangerous. For example, CRT monitors can contain upwards of 5 pounds of lead. The solder used in electronics also contains about 40% lead, as well. So, as you can see, simply throwing electronics in general (and specifically the larger ones and especially CRTs) is not a good thing (and in some places, throwing away more than two CRTs by one entity is considered hazardous waste and is subject to hazmat laws), yet many people either don't know that, or can't afford to pay the fees to recycle them (when you're talking about 30 or 40 monitors and that fee comes out of your already tight IT budget, even a $5 fee can add up).
So yes, a company can do things that can harm the environment without getting run out of business.
When money or power is involved, the government has never shied away from claiming it.
Except when the industry in question has a richer competitive industry and supporting one loses the support of another. Do you really think that the fossil fuel industries don't have at least some influence on government support of alternative fuels of any kind, especially when those fuels will directly impact the success of the companies currently in place if they don't adapt?
You know as well as I do that decreasing our dependency on foreign oil (and oil in general in the long run) would give us a significant amount of leverage against the OPEC nations because right now, our entire economy is at the mercy of the gas prices, primarily set at the manufacturing level (yes, the governments increase it by a certain amount because of taxes, but considering the importing countries have started to tell OPEC "no, you're not going to price gouge," and OPEC has been posting record profits, it's not as much the importers as you might think).
As for biofuel, we're using our food for fuel... where do we get food? Putting that MAJOR oversight aside, biofuel is less effective, leading to less gas mileage, costs more (it is also subsidized, in addition to this higher cost) and is bad on your engine.
Okay, first of all, if you're putting more than 5% Ethanol in your gasoline engine, you're an idiot. Ethanol isn't like gasoline and it will burn up your engine. It's alcohol, it burns hotter. Duh. That's why they make special vehicles that support the use of Ethanol.
Biodiesel, on the other hand, does not require modifications to a diesel engine and can actually make it run better when used (it actually keeps the system cleaner than petroleum). Diesel engines were originally built with using vegetable oil-based fuel in mind (the inventor only had that type of fuel).
Also, biodiesel production makes 4 times more efficient use of fossil fuels than petroleum diesel production. No, it's not perfect, but it's a start until other forms are developed and perfected.
As for the whole "it cuts into our food stock!" argument, that's as much of a sham as man made global climate change for a number of reasons.
First, people are being stupid about it and using corn and soy which are only the least efficient oil producing crops in the country. Algae, on the other hand, is not only not a food crop, but can also grow in nearly any environment, has about 30 times the oil yield of soy, if not more. Even if you don't use algae as a fuel stock, sunflowers have a better yield than soy. Use anything but soy or corn and we'd still be better off.
Second, overproduction is the bane of the agricultural industry. The government has to pay farms to not produce more than a certain amount of crops so that prices can stay in a profitable range. In other words, as long as we don't completely rely on corn and soy for fuel stock, it would help the agricultural industry more than it would hurt it and it would decrease government involvement in the industry because they wouldn't have to intervene to keep all the farms from going under because of rock bottom produce prices.
For more information, check out here, here, and here.
Yeah, they're not as good as you think. Electric cars still use fossil fuels.
Actually, all it would take is a little more research and development for increases in horsepower and it wouldn't be that hard to have a self-sustaining electric vehicle. Use the axles as turbines to charge power cells and use the power cells to power the car. Depending on the details, solar panels could be used if the mechanical power generation to usage results in too large of a net loss of power (I work with electronics and computers, not cars, so I don't know the details that would be involved, I do know, however that solar power has been done on small vehicles such as go-karts).
Hydrogen? That's the new hopeful energy source. The perfect green solution as it produces water when burned. Until they's an accident. Then, instead of a wreck, you have a crater. Hydrogen is violently reactive. Comparing hydrogen to gasoline is like comparing a missile to a bottle rocket.
Hydrogen is Bush's little pet project. Not only does it have the major disadvantages you've mentioned, but it is also so far behind every other alternative that it's unfeasibly expensive and if it came down to Hydrogen or Petro, we'd be better off with Petro.
You want a viable non-fossil fuel vehicle? So do I. Join with me in booting the enviro-weenies in the butt, kicking out the Democrats and building nuclear powerplants in all 50 states.
While I'm not adverse to nuclear power, your idea would be quite some time in the making before it was fully seen through. In the meantime, we'd still need other things to replace fossil fuels.
Also, I never have and never will advocate any power source as the be-all-end-all of power, because to rely completely on one source for power is a surefire way to get into deep, deep trouble (see: oil industry and it's current effect on the economy).
Now, as far as your political point of view goes, considering the ideas of the Dems and GOP switch every few decades or so, I don't really care whether they're Dem or GOP, "Left" or "Right" or none of the above as long as they are willing to do what it takes to clean things in general (government, economics, you name it) up and put it back to the way the government was when the Constitution was first written.
And to be honest, the whole idea of "The Right" or "The Left" or even the Dems and GOP is lunacy, in my opinion. It's just yet another way to divide the country. What happened to "United we stand, divided we fall"? I agree with Washington, political parties are overrated and destructive.
The left has fought any attempt at making nuclear power plants, citing 10 mile island. They don't even know what happened (or, specifically, what didn't happen) at 10 mile island, but they'll misuse it anyway.
First of all, it's Three Mile Island, not 10. If you're going to insult a group of people, you might want to make sure your facts (especially names of historic events and places) are correct.
The accident happened for a number of reasons, not the least of which being design flaws and errors made by the people working there. Also, it coincidentally happened shortly after the film The China Effect was released, which raised "awareness" on the supposed dangers of nuclear power. This didn't help the cause of the nuclear industry. Once again, you see the media influencing the flock of sheep that is the general public. It's not "The Left" or "The Right," it's everyone.
Also, you have to keep in mind that Three Mile Island isn't the only thing that comes to people's minds when they hear the word "nuclear." The events at Hiroshima and nuclear war in general also spring to many people's minds, greatly coloring their view on the technology. The general populace equates that kind of destructive force with anything nuclear.
Regardless of what did or didn't happen to cause the accident, it happened, and because it happened, it has raised a number of "what ifs." What if that did happen again? The workers of TMI were lucky that they didn't get caught in that accident and that no one was killed. But what would happen if people were caught in it? What would happen to the surrounding environment if something happened?
Disaster recovery, regardless of the field, starts with prevention. In order to prevent a disaster, you have to first know what that "worst case scenario" is, how it's caused (or most likely to be caused), and what you as the disaster recovery team can do to make sure that the chances of it happening are minimized. So, to ignore the questions above would dangerous, to say the least.
Also, for a more pressing question. Nuclear reactors produce quite a bit of radioactive waste. The nuclear power plants that are in operation don't know what to do with the expended cores they have. So, what do we do about waste disposal? We can't just keep burying it forever and "hope it goes away." The fuel and product have halflives that number into the millenia. That's also something that needs to be solved before nuclear power reaches the scale that you're hoping for.
You and others rant about the government 'abusing the constitutional right to privacy' . . . but you're willing to let the government decide your daily choices regarding what you drive, what kinds of lightbulbs you can use and how much carbon dioxide (which has never been proven to be related to global warming, every attempt to do so is debunked) you're allowed to expell?
Like I said before, the general public hasn't done a good job with self-regulating outputs of that sort. Think about it, companies have had to put "get out and play" commercials on to try to get kids to actually go outside once in a while. The government had no hand in what kids did or didn't do with their time, so they can't be blamed for child obesity levels. In this case, it's the general public (and specifically, parents) to blame. What do you do then?
If you're looking at situations in which people are left with no choice not because of the government, but because of the economic system, in which continuing the trend would be likely to be detrimental general health and/or safety of the citizens or the condition of the environment (be it soil, water, air, or any other resource), then yes, the government should step in because there is obviously something desperately wrong with the economic system.
Take, for example, foods. There's a big debate going on about foods that are grown with a number of different chemicals and hormones, genetically modified foods, and organic foods. In the first category, the question is whether or not the chemicals used to grow the foods are safe for consumption. The second questions whether the food itself is safe for consumption and what effects the modifications will have not only on the food, but on the plants themselves (GM corn, for example, will not grow after two or three growing seasons in the same soil without certain fertilizers, even after crop rotation). The third mostly has economic concerns in that it's generally more expensive. So, you have three types of food available to you. You know that the organic food (and yes, we're talking truly organic; in the case of meat, this would be free range, appropriate vegetable diet, humane slaughtering, etc; for plants, there's no artificial fertilizers or other chemicals) is better for you. It's been grown the way it should be, it doesn't have the chemicals, and so on. The organic food also tastes better. However, it costs half again as much as the other two. The GM and "standard-grown" food you know have the chemicals and modifications and so on, but it's more affordable. You're living on a financial budget, after all, food isn't the only thing you need to do with that money.
Now, the question is, do you buy the organic and be physically healthier, though perhaps strapped for cash and can barely pay the bills? Or do you buy the standard or GM food and be able to pay the bills, but put yourself at risk of the potential ramifications of eating such foods?
Even better, should you even be in a position like that?
Economically speaking, standard/GM foods will win out in the end because most people weight the pros and cons and choose the less expensive food unless the organic is able to bring its prices down. If the organic industry isn't big enough, though, it risks going under before prices get low enough to increase demand.
The government, once again, is standing in the way of the solution.
Perhaps it's our different points of view as to who's actually to blame for the lack of nuclear power development, but how, exactly, is the government standing in the way of the solution?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Oh, quite true, but we aren't doing that. If you want to point your finger, head a bit East. China would be a good place to start.
Nope, we're actually starting to discover dried up oil fields becoming replenished. Turns out that there's more oil than we thought. The only thing that is being depleted is our ability to drill our own oil on our own land or in our own gulf. We'll let China and India do it, but we're not allowed to. The Democrats and enviro-weenies won't let us. Of course, while they do that, the same people also rant about our dependence upon foreign oil. . . . surely you see, understand, and rail against such hypocrisy in the liberals?
Nope, in fact (just in the united states, alone) we have more trees now than we did when the explorers first mapped out the nation. We plant more trees, generally of the same type, than we cut down. Lumbermills have done this for decades and decades. Only anti-business propaganda and enviro-weenies try to teach you otherwise, primarily through unsupported false rumors and teleivion/movies.
Nope, in fact, much of the midwest is just as useable for farmland as ever before. We're having to import flour (for the first time EVER) not because the midwest is a dustbowl (an interesting term, as it applies to the parts of Oklahoma that border the deserts of Texas), but because we're dedicating so much of our farmland to grow food that (instead of feeding us) gets turned into government subsidized ethanol (which is still very expensive, even after subsidization, not to mention that you get less mpg from it and it damages your engine).
This year's harvest is looking so good that there are ALREADY cries about not having enough workers to harvest everything. Once again, you're buying into the hype without having direct knowledge.
More socialism showing through on your part. This may happen from time to time, but it is an illegal act and it found and stopped. You're always going to have some people do damaging and evil things, but you can't point those examples out as the norm. The norm is not what you describe. I would put forth that you have a problem with private enterprise and either do not realize its influence on your perceptions, or realize it and just do not care.
First, hunters did no make the Dodo extinct. Yes, humans brought hogs and other animals to the dodo's habitat that ended up being a predator, but to blame hunters for the extinction of the dodo is beyond dishonest and below you. Here's one quote in particular from a wiki page on dodos:
Although there are scattered reports of mass killings of dodos for provisioning of ships, archaeological investigations have hitherto found scant evidence of human predation on these birds.
Evidently, the dodo tasted really bad, so the people who did the most killing of them just killed them for their feathers for their rituals.
Second, hunting serves a very important purpose in nature. Hunters take animals to reduce populations to that which the local environment can support. 100,000 people taking 1 deer each ensures that the local deer population will be able to survive the winter. Also, hunters give more money to help the environment than anyone else, primarily through the hunting license, which is the primary funding source for any states department of natural resources (whatever name each state gives is).
Alarmists like Al Gore don't believe what they say. If they did, they'd have already changed their lives, and they'd be over in china demanding that the chinese communist government change their ways. Of the Industrialized nations, we are (per capita) one of the LOWER polluters. The calls for 'pollution legislation' like this cap and trade crap.... it isn't about saving the environment, it is about taking control.
I used to work for Home Depot. What exactly do you find to be extremely unethical? (Keep in mind, I used to work for them, so I have no problem using my experiences to rebut your suggestions if they are of the same propaganda hype as that of those who rail against Walmart)
Nope, we're actually starting to discover dried up oil fields becoming replenished. Turns out that there's more oil than we thought.
Are you expecting it to last forever? It's still a finite non-renewable resource. It will be depleted. Finding new fields or deeper reservoirs only delay the inevitable.
Nope, in fact (just in the united states, alone) we have more trees now than we did when the explorers first mapped out the nation.
Sources, please. I find that exceedingly hard to believe for one simple reason -- there is less space for said trees. Only one object can occupy any given space at any given time. A forest cannot exist where a metropolis is (unless said metro is the forest, but that only exists in books).
This isn't the "enviro-weenies" and "The Left," this is personal observation.
Nope, in fact, much of the midwest is just as useable for farmland as ever before. We're having to import flour (for the first time EVER) not because the midwest is a dustbowl (an interesting term, as it applies to the parts of Oklahoma that border the deserts of Texas), but because we're dedicating so much of our farmland to grow food that (instead of feeding us) gets turned into government subsidized ethanol (which is still very expensive, even after subsidization, not to mention that you get less mpg from it and it damages your engine).
I addressed Ethanol the first time around. Perhaps you should reread it.
And the farmland is usable now, thanks to chemical fertilizers and soil additives. That wasn't the case about a century ago and was part of the factors that led to the Great Depression (crop failures due to depleted soil).
This year's harvest is looking so good that there are ALREADY cries about not having enough workers to harvest everything. Once again, you're buying into the hype without having direct knowledge.
I live in one of the largest corn/soy states. Hopefully the flooding that results from the storm system that is currently running through doesn't destroy half of the harvest.
This may happen from time to time, but it is an illegal act and it found and stopped.
The damage is still done, and "stopping" is in the form of a slap on the wrist from the government.
Second, hunting serves a very important purpose in nature.
Interesting that you were so adamant about pointing out my error of the Dodo (I had forgotten that most of their demise was not due to hunting, but because of species introduced by humans), but said nothing about the wolf population.
Interestingly enough, if we hadn't hunted wolves to near extinction, we wouldn't have nearly the deer population problems we have today.
I used to work for Home Depot. What exactly do you find to be extremely unethical?
I used to work for them as well, I also know many people that do or have worked for them, that's why I used them as an example to begin with. They treat their employees like crap, and it goes high enough up the ladder that it's obvious that it's not isolated to one store.
Did you work for them while Nardelli was CEO (2000 - 2006)? From what I've seen, he overhauled the company (for both good and bad) and it's completely different from what it was before that.
So the solution is cap and trade legislation, which not only keeps those fees in place, but adds additional taxes? How does that help a company be more 'green' ? It doesn't, in fact it only increases the temptation to do things illegally. If you wanted corporations to be friendlier to 'green ways' then one would need to make a recycling program that did not charge the corporations (After all, recycling programs profit from selling the recycled materials, so there is no actual need to charge those who are being forced to recycle, as is the case with CRTs, flourescent lights, etc)
CRTs, like I said before, contain 5 pounds of lead. When held in quantities of more than two or so (it varies, since some of the laws affecting the number are state and municipality level, but I've seen it as low as more than one), they're considered hazmat and are subject to hazmat regulations. As a result, recycling CRTs are not always profitable and, in fact, can actually be quite costly. So no, it's not just a matter of "opening a place that recycles CRTs for free," because it doesn't work that way with them.
Nope, quite the opposite. Devon energy, for example, has been trying to get the government to let them push oil shale and 'coal-to-oil' programs
Wait, let me make sure I have this right. You don't think that the fossil fuel companies find competition in the alternative fuel companies because they encourage changing the form of the fossil fuels? Oil is a fossil fuel. Coal is a fossil fuel. Therefore, coal-to-oil is still using fossil fuels! Of course the coal industry is going to support that, because they become a vendor on top of a provider.
Naval ships have been using nuclear power for a LONG time and they do not produce much waste
While a Naval ship is the size (both physically and population-wise) of a city, the scale you're proposing is state-size. Bigger = more waste volume (though the proportions would stay the same or even decrease). It's simply a matter of scale here.
Now, who do YOU blame for our dependence on OPEC?
Everyone. Finger-pointing has gotten us nowhere, and that's all the Republicans have done, instead of focusing their efforts on raising awareness about the fact that nuclear power is, in fact, safe. The media is equally to blame because they, too, have not put efforts to change those views. And the general public, the individuals, are too lazy to actually do a little research on the matter before screaming NIMBY.
You, uh, know why they call it E85, right? 15% gasoline, 85% ethanol. Subsizided, still expensive, less mileage, bad for your engine...
You missed my point. You can't just put Ethanol into any engine. It's like putting jet fuel in your car. That's why flex-fuel cars are made. They are designed to better handle Ethanol. Again, is it perfect? No. But neither were Petro cars when they were in their infancy.
Very true, but veggie oil is more expensive than gas, per gallon. people who largely use it now have a filtering system that they use before it gets to their engine. I looked into it for a diesel truck I had. I like the idea, but I don't think it'll last long before the government gets into taxing it. In fact, there have already been stories of state governments sending people bills to the tune of a few thousand dollars for not 'paying their fair share' of gas tax (They didn't buy gas, they didn't pay tax, that's fair to me, but not to the government.)
I agree with you about the "gas tax" crap. I think they're crossing the line there. It'd be like taxing people for growing their own food. It's stupid.
As for biodiesel, again, veggie oil isn't needed. The system that you're talking about sounds more like using Straight Veggie Oil for fuel, which is actually different from biodiesel. Biodiesel is an accredited, official form of diesel fuel of roughly equal grade to that of diesel. It can, however, be made from veggie oil, but it's not recommended to be done with unused, primarily for price reasons. Waste Veggie Oil, however, can be obtained fairly cheaply from restaurants and other places that use large quantities of veggie oil and would otherwise throw that out (this is what many of the "residential" processors use, if I'm not mistaken).
Nope, the land that used to be used for food is now being used to make crops for ethanol production. That is why, for the first time ever, we've had to import flour. Look it up.
Did you even read past what you quoted? I explained why we're having that issue -- producers are being stupid and use the lowest yield crops for stock, instead of using...well...anything else.
As for using axels as turbines, all that does is take the energy you've spent and rather than turning it into power against the road to go forward, it converts it into stored energy. That just reduces your efficiency ratio.
Fair enough. Like I said, I don't know much about cars. I've heard that idea kicked around by more than a few people, though, so while the specific form that I proposed may not work, it wouldn't surprise me to see someone come up with an alternative.
Why not look up the history of using hydrogen to power vehicles before you blame President Bush. The push for Hydrogen came LONG before he was President.
Okay, let me rephrase that, since it was my fault that the point didn't get across on that one.
Bush has, until recently, been advocating Hydrogen as an alternative fuel over other, currently more viable, solutions. From what I've seen, this seems to be his "favored" alternative fuel source, despite its unfeasibility. Hence, his "pet."
They're not 'switching'
Not currently, no, but it is a clear historical trend. The fact that your beloved GOP is getting more liberal should tip you off that it will eventually switch (even if it's not in your lifetime). This is why I find them to be irrelevant at best, and dividing in general.
I'm out of time at the moment. I'll be back to finish this response.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Oh, I agree. I do not, however, think that the solution is to steal profit from Oil companies (yes, they make billions in profit, but as a profit margin, they make less profit than retail shops do. Yet there are no calls to steal profit from retail stores).... Oil companies are not really 'oil companies' anymore. They are energy companies and have their hands in many forms of energy production. Rather than stealing their profits, we ought to encourage them to continue their current investments in alternative sources of energy.
However, it is never framed that way. Instead what we hear from the Democrats is "Look at all the profits from Oil companies! Billions! That's not fair to you! Therefore, the government ought to 'tax winfall profits'!" . . . that's just stealing profit from a business to further fund an ever-growing government that can't even write a balanced budget. It does nothing to break our dependence of oil, it only continues to fatten a fat government.
Far less of the US is metropolis than you seem to think. Here's a link: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/2056946
As for trees:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/earthday.htm
(about halfway down)
There are 49 other states, many of them grow crops too. Last year we had the horrible flooding that destroyed half the crops. It is a cycle. Life moves on.
the wolf issue is really not important. We have alot of wolves, many of each type. Yes, there are some wolf species that are endangered, but Polar Bears are also now considered endangered, despite growing numbers (to the point that there are more now than ever before).... so their endangered status shouldn't be the measure.
Also note that wolves are killed so as to protect cattle and sheep and people. Are you going to suggest that a wolf has more of a right to eat my cattle than I do? Are you going to suggest that a wolf shouldn't be defended against? I would imagine not.
Yeah, we would. Wolves don't take nearly as many deer as one might think. What really kills deer each year is not having food to eat in the winter. They all suffer and many slowly die of starvation.
It'd be cruel to allow that to continue for the sake of encouraging wolves to grow in number. (Why, by the way, is it ok for a wolf to kill and eat a deer, but somehow evil for man to do it? And please don't use the 'we have a choice in what we can eat' argument, it is old and too easily deflected as the same scorn can be applied to man with whatever he chooses to eat. In fact, there are groups in europe now calling for 'civil rights' for plants. Yes, that's correct.)
Welcome to Retail, but please explain the vast unethical treatment by Home Depot. You seemed to miss that part of the request. They pay well, offer good benefits, have a very good policy about arranging schedules around school and even offer tuition assistance and stock purchase plans, plus an insane attention to safety after they had issues with employees doing unsafe things and getting hurt. Of the retail employers I had, they were the best in terms of corporate policy and issues. My complaint WAS treatment on the store level.
As for working there timewise, I worked there in the late 90's and in 2001 I believe (Don't have my resume on hand).
Bullhonkey. I used to work as a computer technician for a company that sold alot of junk systems to a guy who did that kind of recycling. He BOUGHT them from us and still made a profit selling off the metals in the monitors, which more than made up for the cost of having to deal with the government's Hazmat people.
They're also starting up programs to put up windmills on your property to help generate electricity. They also are workin with developing natural gas, they also are working on developing electric engines that are more viable.
You know what is standing in their way? Regulation from the government.
Regardless, the amount of waste per unit produced is much different now than in the power plants we built decades ago. It really just is. Don't fight it just because the idea is coming from me. Look it up yourself.
Hell, FRANCE is 80% nuclear power....
Republicans? They're the ones shouting "Drill Here, Drill Now!" You blame the Republicans and the Media... who is it that you forgot to mention? The Democrats.
So, since E85 is 85% ethanol, are you going to help me buy a brand new flex-fuel car so that I don't damage my engine with that crap? Or are you going to suggest that *I* pay for it? (where's the welfare to help me get free stuff?)
I understood your point perfectly well and what you say is one of the reasons why I find the government mandate on ethanol to be a horrible idea founded in ignorance on behalf of the government.
I agree. One good reason to support smaller government. And to support those who support smaller government.
Yup, and for now. Soon if enough people do it, restaurants will start to charge... and just wait until the government gets involved.
Uh, he also has pushed for hybrid cars, requesting more tax breaks for those who buy them. The same done for many other energy saving things. President Bush has done far more for the 'green effort' than they will ever give him credit for. They're too busy demonizing him.
As the rest of my comment, which you didn't quote, said, they're not switching. They are BOTH moving to the left. The Democrats are not going to embrace conservatives. They're pandering to communists, socialists and marxists.
The DNC will marginalize itself and the Republicans will be dominant. Then, after half a dozen elections, there will be a new conservative party to compete with a liberal Republican party.
"Stealing profits"? Could you please explain what you mean?
Also, unless I'm mistaken, OPEC is still an oil company, which is the main company I disagree with (not just because of prices, but also the fact that it's a cartel, which would be illegal if it was based in the US, so our involvement with them is, in a word, hypocritical).
Welcome to Retail...
You must have worked in some crappy work environments, then, because even the retail places that I've worked treated their employees better than Home Depot has. And the fact that you mention benefits such as health insurance and stock options as if they are something that are rare for a large company that's gone public seems to also imply that your luck with retail and business (as an employee) in general isn't all that great, considering that, in my experience at least, health insurance, stock options, tuition assistance are actually pretty standard, especially if you're full-time. Hell, I've been interviewing for public (regarding stock) and private companies that offer those and profit sharing, and (for a non-monetary one) lactation rooms for nursing mothers, and fitness centers, and art galleries. Now, granted, the positions are what would be considered "corporate" level in the retail ladder, but such perks are awarded to all employees.
That's not to say that all retail stores treat their employees like kings, but generally the treatment doesn't come from corporate and is isolated to a given store or manager.
As for working there timewise, I worked there in the late 90's and in 2001 I believe
That explains our different points of view on the company, then. Home Depot took a bit of a nose dive when Bob Nardelli took over. If you did, in fact, leave in 2001, then you probably didn't see a lot of the changes yet (like I said, he made changes for both the good and the bad, however, stockholders decided the bad outweighed the good and his $100 million salary wasn't really justified), since he only started in December of 2000. From what I have heard, Home Depot was a different world before that.
I understood your point perfectly well and what you say is one of the reasons why I find the government mandate on ethanol to be a horrible idea founded in ignorance on behalf of the government.
I actually didn't realize that the government was mandating E85. Last I heard, it was just tax breaks to alt fuels in general. And no, I don't agree with mandating its use. On a scale like this, encouraging, yes (they're not like DVDs, where any given company will sell a few million while the format contest is still up in the air). Mandating, no. And no, you don't get it for free, it's not a necessity. If you can't afford it, take the bus like all the rest of us poor folk. =P
Yup, and for now. Soon if enough people do it, restaurants will start to charge
Hopefully by then, the industry will either have made better use of resources (ie - don't be stupid and use the least efficient means possible) and make biodiesel stations more plentiful in all areas (half the issue right now, too, is that there simply aren't that many biodiesel stations) and/or there are other sources of car fuel available (and the cars to go with them).
You know what is standing in their way? Regulation from the government.
Ironically enough, it's also the government that's providing incentives for homeowners to make use of residential solar power kits.
Bullhonkey. I used to work as a computer technician for a company that sold alot of junk systems to a guy who did that kind of recycling. He BOUGHT them from us and still made a profit selling off the metals in the monitors, which more than made up for the cost of having to deal with the government's Hazmat people.
I currently work as a computer technician and the companies I work for are currently facing the problem of disposing not just a handful of CRTs as they break down, but dozens of them as they are replaced by LCDs. Also, like I mentioned before, the costs (as well as the income, for that matter) vary by state. We live in different states, so the prices that you see aren't necessarily going to be the prices that I see.
Republicans? They're the ones shouting "Drill Here, Drill Now!" You blame the Republicans and the Media... who is it that you forgot to mention? The Democrats.
You seemed to have covered the blame of the Dems quite thoroughly and found it redundant to include them, as well. I was simply presenting what I felt to be the other portion of the picture as a whole.
We have alot of wolves, many of each type. Yes, there are some wolf species that are endangered
Not just endangered, though. Extinct from certain areas. And it doesn't matter whether it's wolves or polar bears or mosquitoes or fish. Each animal plays a particular part in the local (and in some cases, global) ecosystem. Wiping out any one of them will cause havoc with it.
Also note that wolves are killed so as to protect cattle and sheep and people. Are you going to suggest that a wolf has more of a right to eat my cattle than I do? Are you going to suggest that a wolf shouldn't be defended against?
Why, by the way, is it ok for a wolf to kill and eat a deer, but somehow evil for man to do it? And please don't use the 'we have a choice in what we can eat' argument, it is old and too easily deflected as the same scorn can be applied to man with whatever he chooses to eat.
Do you so easily forget my stance on hunting for food? I have no objection to hunting for food. So no, I'd have no objection to hunting deer for food.
I also don't object to killing any animal if it is actively being a direct threat to me, my family, or (if I had any) my farm animals. However, that is not what happened to the wolves in the northeastern US. If it was, then the wolf population would have gotten small enough to survive on other sources of food (just like what the deer do, when they start overpopulating, they go after the corn fields). No, wolves were kill on sight, regardless of the situation. They also were not used for food. They had been demonized, people feared them, so they killed them.
And where are you getting your information that wolves don't kill nearly as many deer as I might think? Large game is the staple of their diet. The wolf packs in Canada go after game as large as bison, moose, and caribou.
Or are you referring simply to the population difference between wolves and deer and that wolves can't kill them faster than the deer reproduce? If that's the case, then you do have a point. However, the wolves would also pick off the ones that are suffering from disease and starvation, so many of them wouldn't suffer as much as you might think.
And no, I'm not saying that we should stop hunting deer so that there would be more food for the wolves, nor did I ever say that. I said that we should never have hunted wolves to localized extinction to begin with because it would have, in fact, mitigated the problems we now face with overpopulation of deer.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Certainly. Winfall profits tax.
An oil company, by nature of being HUGE, has alot of profit in terms of dollar amount.... but not in terms of margin. In terms of margin, retail and many other sectors do MUCH better than oil companies... they just don't have the size.
Rather than frame it in reality, people like Hillary Clinton and Obama talk about how evil it is for these oil companies 'to get fat' off of the profits they make. Their solution is to steal that profit (making it legal by calling it a tax), so that the government, rather than a business, gets profit.
It is less evil, to the left, for the government to make insane profits off of things they did nothing for than for a business that worked hard to profit from their efforts.
Uh, OPEC isnt' an oil company. It is a group of nations that produce crude oil, banded togeter to act as one force in the world markets. Apart from selling oil to the united states, they have no connection to us.
They are the governments of the countries that make it up (You see, over there, they have socialism. The government owns the oil companies and the oppression spreads.)
They are no more a 'company' than the United Nations is.
So if I go work as a CSR in your retail company, rather than up on the corporate level where you apparently are, I get full use of the lactation rooms and all of the same benefits that you do in terms of health insurance right away, profit sharing right away, 401k right away, etc?
You are not representing retail. Corporate side of retail REALLY is not the same as store side. I've worked for small retail shops and giant international retail shops. Home Depot was the best run, with the best treatment of employees.
I do wonder why you picked Home Depot.... do you, per chance, work for Lowes?
So you don't have an issue with a government deciding which fuel you can use then, because it damages your car, saying "well, you'll have to buy a new one on your own or just take the public transportation system."
Once again, government has created a problem by overinvolvement.
Here in Oklahoma they just passed a law saying that if you have ethanol in your gas you are required to post a sticker saying so, but that law doesn't come into power for another few weeks.
Yes, but not enough to make a big difference. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars to make a home green, to save a couple grand in taxes.
That's as much of a slap in the face 'Let's do something to look good to the voters" as the proposed 'gas tax holiday'
What a great market you're in then! You could EASILY make a company that broke down the monitors and sold the precious metals located therein. Include old computers in your company and you're set for life!
Gold is well over 1,000 bucks an ounce... copper is so high that people are stealing air conditioners to get the tubing.... Embrace the chance yourself rather than demanding the government do it for you (and charge YOU for the 'pleasure of doing business' with them)
Yes, one person discussing the democrats REALLY balances the THOUSANDS of bloggers and talking heads on TV that only blame President Bush and the Republicans. Be honest. Please.
Yes, but that pack of 4-6 feeds on ONE animal, then doesn't need to eat for a few days, if not a couple weeks.
There is no such thing as 'localized extinction' . .. that is an alarmist phrase. Yes, there are areas where wolves no longer are where they once were, but the term extinction means something VERY specific and to couple it with the term 'localized' only makes it dishonest.
"How healthy we are to live"? That makes no sense to me. When did I say anything about the government telling us how healthy we are? I'm talking about the planet's homeostasis.
Individuals, I believe have an incredible responsibility in our culture. Conservation cannot be achieved without the proactiveness and the piety that you and I demonstrate. In fact, I've never really understood how people can call for the type of conscious capitalism that's necessary for sustainability unless we achieve a bit of it in our personal lifestyles.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Yup. Total goalpost shifting.
I'm done talking with you. You do not wish actual honest debate.
Perhaps you're right. If an honest debate means being effectively characterized and stereotyped as a personal who can not think for themselves, who relies on government for each and every solution, and who does not believe in the importance of individuality.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
More shifting and mischaracterization.
Further proof that you are not here to discuss, just push your pet cause of socialism.
Goodbye. I do not wish to converse with you. Any further replies will be utterly ignored so as to deny you the attention that you crave.
For those who would like to see what socialism REALLY thinks of the individual, look up the following words, made famous by a socialist party once:
Arbeit Macht Frei
See what a nationalized socialist party does to the individual when you will not conform to the laws and regulations that they set for you.
Good luck. He has a tendency to ignore your points once you push a button he doesn't like.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
So I've noticed. He asked a question about individualism. I answered it simply enough with conservation because I wanted to see where that discussion would lead us to and he decided to attack what I said in the previous paragraph.
I'm all for a healthy debate. Let's talk about conservation and the importance of the individual. Let's stick to the issues. Throwing out a red-haring like 'socialist' isn't exactly productive.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
LOL... yeah, that's it.
That evil conservative guy..... let's blame him....
What am I "blaming" you for?
You have a very "us against them" mentality, it's that simple. You also do have a tendency to shut out the viable arguments against your own cause and only point out the ones you can argue against. You've done it numerous times with me and I've seen you do it numerous times with others.
I'd love to see you get into a theological argument with blackout or Darwin's Beagle.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Uh, Yeah... you do remember that blackout is percivale, right?
They and I have had MANY 'discussions' in the past.
And I have no desire to get into theological discussions with those who just like to sit back and take pot shots at christianity. Pearls before Swine... that sort of thing.
As for the tendency to "shut out the viable arguments" . . . I don't quite know what you're talking about. I seem to be pretty consistant with my posts in that if it looks like a socialist program, smells like a socialist program and sounds like a socialist program, I'm going to call it out as being a socialist program.
I understand that a socialist and I may have some similar goals when it comes to things like making the world safer, helping the environment and raising our children in a better world.... however, I see from history that socialism, communism and liberalism do none of those and have a history of making things much worse. (I'd quote to the testimony of 100 million russians, but they couldn't be reached for comment.... turns out that my long distance phone call policy doesn't cover area codes in the afterlife.)
Here is an excellent example. There is a call to cap and trade.
What this means is that if you pollute 'too much', then you have to pay more taxes. People on the left like you and Green Underbelly (who apparently sees fit to create a post to just whine and seethe about being called on being a socialist... ) may support such legislation as your hope is that it would 'reduce pollution'
It would do no such thing. If you wanted to reduce pollution because these pollutants are so deadly..... ban them.
Uranium is dangerous, and I'm not allowed to have it, because of the radiation pollution. . . . make it so for fossil fuels.
No, instead the liberals and socialists call for the Democrat-controlled congress to create legislation by which the government profits from such pollution.
In a post in this thread you suggested that corporations can't be trusted because they'd pollute for the sake of profit. Tell me how that is different from the government profiting from pollution.
Yet here I am, defending my ire at such things as cap and trade. In other threads I've also had to defend the rich (of which I am not) from having to pay even MORE taxes. It doesn't matter that the top 50% of wage earners pay over 93% of income taxes.... to the left it isn't 'enough' . ..
Don't you find it odd and kind of shallow and hypocritical to demand that someone, by force, use someone else's money to do what you want to do? Yet that is what all of this legislation is. It is a call from the left to demand that the government take money from the companies and from the rich to fund the current fad.
If fighting pollution was so important, why is Al Gore, the poster child of the current environmentalist movement (Even a nobel prize winner, to boot!) one of the most wasteful people in existance? (Second MAYBE to the current Speaker of the House, who demands gas-guzzling jets be at her beck and call at all times, in case she wants to fly somewhere)... Why is it that, time and time again, people defend their policies when even THEY do not live by what they want you or I to live by.
These are the same people who are surrounded by armed security telling us that we'd be safer if we were disarmed, and you expect me to believe them when it comes to their 'let's fight pollution' legislation?
Time and time again the federal government is shown to be a bloated entity that is a horrid steward of our money, yet those on the left keep trying to give it more power and more money.
..make a post (not comment), detailing what it is, exactly, that you would do to make changes and what changes would be made to our society if you had the power (not necessarily political, just power in general) to enact such changes.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'll think about it, but now is not the time.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not a liberal. I just happen to not be as conservative as you on some matters. I actually sit smack dab in the middle of liberal and conservative. Some of my beliefs mesh with one side, some mesh with the other. Neither side really likes me, but neither are all the appealing to me, anyway.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
The Middle Of The Road....
That's where one gets hit by a car.
Only if you don't know how to dodge.
:)X
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
It's good to be critical. I don't respect much of what Al Gore does. He doesn't exactly walk the walk. And you're right, there are plenty of local spokesman for sustainability who do a much better in assessment and implementation. I do dig how his house (though large) has many bright photovoltaics.
I don't support it unless it sets specific uses for the collected funds (i.e. redistributes money from polluters to conservation programs and renewables energy research) and auctions off the credits. Cap-and-trade as it is drawn up, like you point out, is a bit ineffective without the specifics. We can't just discourage, I believe--a carrot at the end of the stick gig.
You can uncover yer ears. The whining rant is over. :)
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
I would like to point out that Carbon Dioxide is, in fact, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases, by definition, have the ability to absorb and re-emit infra-red radiation. Infra-red radiation tends to also carry with it heat.
The question then remains as to whether or not there is a high enough concentration of Carbon Dioxide (or other greenhouse gases, for that matter) for it to actually affect the climate and/or what would be the required concentration to affect the climate.
Just thought I'd clear that up.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Uh, OPEC isnt' an oil company.
Oye, semantics... organization. It's still a cartel, and if it was North America, instead of the Middle East, it would be considered illegal for the United States to take part in it. It's hypocritical in the fact that we are supporting that which we as a nation consider to be bad. Not only are we supporting the cartel as a whole, but we're giving money to the "evil people" that run half the countries that make up OPEC.
So if I go work as a CSR in your retail company, rather than up on the corporate level where you apparently are, I get full use of the lactation rooms and all of the same benefits that you do in terms of health insurance right away, profit sharing right away, 401k right away, etc?
Actually, yes, or within a few months, like everyone else. I described it as "corporate" level because my particular position is in an office, instead of a sales floor. As far as the lactation rooms, that would depend on if your particular location has it, but it would still be available to you because you are an employee of the company.
Most of the benefits I mentioned came from Progressive Insurance, and those benefits do, in fact, extend to the line level employees. That is, the CSRs.
Team Fishel offers the profit-sharing, which again, is applicable to all employees, including the ditch-diggers.
For retail examples, Best Buy, Circuit City (while it's still functioning), and yes, even Wal-Mart offer health insurance and 401(k). Best Buy and Circuit also offer stock options. I'm not sure if Wal-Mart does, because I never worked there and it's not advertised. So, like I said before, the "great benefits" you mentioned aren't anything out of the norm.
I do wonder why you picked Home Depot.... do you, per chance, work for Lowes?
This is what I was talking about when I said that you start ignoring things people say when you get it in your head that someone is a certain stereotype or says something that you don't like.
I don't work for Lowes, nor have I ever worked for them. My opinion of Home Depot comes from my experience working for Home Depot as well as the experience of several others who I know that not only worked in different stores, but also different districts and regions.
I could have also picked Circuit City for the way they treat their people (and their actions in general), considering I also worked there and know many people who used to work there and left (or got "downsized") because of the crap going on. However, they have already succeeded in running themselves into the ground and therefore were not a good example of the point I was making.
So you don't have an issue with a government deciding which fuel you can use then, because it damages your car, saying "well, you'll have to buy a new one on your own or just take the public transportation system."
Again, do you even read what I have to say, or do you just pick out the things that you think incriminate me? I already told you that I didn't know that they were mandating the use of E85 and now that I do know that, I do not agree with it.
Also, what I said about using public transportation...yeah, that's what they call a joke. Hence the smiley.
And once again, if you're stupid enough to knowingly put E85 in your Petroleum engine, you're an idiot who deserves to have his vehicle ruined. Putting E85 in a Petrolium engine is like putting Diesel in it (or putting gasoline in a diesel vehicle).
Yes, but not enough to make a big difference. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars to make a home green, to save a couple grand in taxes.
I can't find the information online, because I've only seen the TV commercials for it a few times and don't remember the website, but from what I've gathered from the commercials, said incentives can be as much as free for the equipment for making a home's electricity come entirely (or nearly entirely) from solar energy. I'll have to get the website next time I see the commercial.
What a great market you're in then! You could EASILY make a company that broke down the monitors and sold the precious metals located therein. Include old computers in your company and you're set for life!
Then why don't you do it, if it's so lucrative? I'm sure you can find people to give you their old CRTs.
A little quick math and a few numbers:
Pounds per ton of recycled material from circuit boards, value per unit, and total value.
Copper -- 286lbs; $3.50/lb; $1001
Gold -- 1lb; $900/oz; $7200
Silver -- 1lb; $17/oz; $136
Estimated total per ton of computer equipment - $8337 for listed items, ~$9000 for everything (most value at about $50 per ton).
So, assuming you already have the equipment paid for, you still have the operating costs of the facility (rent, electricity, etc) and any employees you might have. As long as those operating costs do not exceed $9000 or so and you process at least one ton of circuit boards (not one ton of CRTs, since most of the metals come from the boards, not the units) per month, you could make a profit. However, you'd hardly be set for life as a startup business. Now, if you manage to grow large enough to process, say, 100 tons per month, then yes, you would be doing pretty well, even after operating expenses and business growth expenses. Keep in mind, though, that, just like any business, you will more likely be in debt for the first few years, even if you do manage to process at least a ton a month, because you have to obtain a place to do all this, and buy the equipment and have it installed in said place.
Yes, one person discussing the democrats REALLY balances the THOUSANDS of bloggers and talking heads on TV that only blame President Bush and the Republicans. Be honest. Please.
I don't watch TV, for one. And the extent of my blogging consists of ProU, where you're actually the only one I read that screams "[insert party name here] is bringing about the demise of society!" and my personal blog on LiveJournal, where politics simply don't come up in my little circle there.
I have no interest in dealing with politics in the manner of "[insert party] is destroying everything!" because like I said before, it does nothing but give people someone else to blame instead of realizing what they, themselves are doing and working to fix that, and divide us instead of doing what we need to do an (*gasp!*) work together to solve these issues.
So, despite the fact that you seem to have me firmly pegged as a Bush-hating, conservative-bashing liberal, I am, in fact, being honest in the fact that I was simply countering you. The fact that you feel like the world is out to get you is your own problem.
Yes, but that pack of 4-6 feeds on ONE animal, then doesn't need to eat for a few days, if not a couple weeks.
And, yet again, it's evident that you didn't actually read everything I've said and simply cherry-pick things. Otherwise, you would have known that I had already addressed the matter of wolf population and pack size to deer population.
Pack sizes range from 5-9 wolves but can grow to as many as 20. They can also eat up to 22 pounds of food at a time.
Also, there have been no reported cases of attacks on humans by healthy, wild wolves (ie - not rabid and born and raised in the wild).
If you're going to continue cherry-picking, then I'm done with this conversation. I find it pointless to talk to a brick wall.
There is no such thing as 'localized extinction'
Localized (adj.) - confined or restricted to a particular location
Extinction - no longer in existence
Combine the two, and you get "no longer in existence in a particular location." It's not "an alarmist term." Gray Wolves used to live in about 2/3 of the continental United States. They now only occupy parts of less than half a dozen states. They no longer exist in a particular location, hence they are locally extinct.
Dishonest - deceptive or fraudulent; disposed to cheat or defraud or deceive
To say that wolves are extinct in a particular area is actually far from being dishonest because "local" is an adjective. An adjective is a descriptive word. "Local" describes the fact that its discriptee, "extinct," pertains to a specific area.
It would be dishonest to say that gray wolves are extinct (without the adjective), because that's not true. They still exist in some areas.
And no, I'm not just using rhetoric or "buzzwords." Like I said, I don't pay attention to those on the far end of either spectrum. I come up with it using my own logic. If it happens to be something that you've seen, well, that's not my problem.
Seek and you will find.
On a side note, I found something I thought you might enjoy. (Click to enlarge.)
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Right, but if it were a company, we would have a say in how things are done. All we can do with COUNTRIES is negotiate.
Now, one other VERY important thing to note is that most of our oil does NOT come from OPEC. It comes from Canada and Mexico. Yet, we don't rail against them. Just OPEC and american oil companies.
Talking to the wrong guy. You need to be directing that to Congress, as they're the ones who believe it is a great thing.
There's a federal cap on the grants and tax breaks for such things. Some states also have an additional grant. 'Free' would make me think that they create monthly payments that match those yearly grants and tax credits.
I might, but that shouldn't affect you doing it rather than supporting government mandation.
HALF a ton a month is around 50 grand a year. One ton a month is around 108 grand. Doing it yourself to lower labor costs, on your own land to lower rent costs (buy a home with a few acres outside of town, and a pickup to haul the stuff)
Not a "Get rich quick" scheme, but you'd be set for life.
It isn't 'easy money' . .. . but it is good work in a niche market.
22 WHOLE Pounds? heh. Do you know how much meat you get from a deer? a buffalo?
Oh come on, be real. The word 'extinct' is used to bring out feelings of alarm and calls for people to 'do something!" . . . . HUMANS are locally extinct in parts of the Southwest (namely the desert) and in parts of Africa (like the Sahara). . .. 'Localized Extinction' means 'they don't live there anymore'
Please stop buying into and spreading that hype.
Or else I'll bring up stories about PETA.
Your logic is flawed, if you're unwilling to see that, well, that's not my problem.
HALF a ton a month is around 50 grand a year. One ton a month is around 108 grand. Doing it yourself to lower labor costs, on your own land to lower rent costs (buy a home with a few acres outside of town, and a pickup to haul the stuff)
Not a "Get rich quick" scheme, but you'd be set for life.
It isn't 'easy money' . .. . but it is good work in a niche market.
Indeed, assuming you can get the amounts you need to be able to pay off the start up costs without going bankrupt (which is the problem with most startups, not just this kind).
22 WHOLE Pounds? heh. Do you know how much meat you get from a deer? a buffalo?
Not sure about the deer in your area, but the ones around here are about 100-200 lbs. So one deer might feed a pack of 5 or 10, and they'll probably have to hunt again within a day or two. Now, yes, a moose or bison would be substantially more, but the problems we're having now is not with them, it's with deer.
Your logic is flawed, if you're unwilling to see that, well, that's not my problem.
Then point out the flaws in my logic, don't accuse me of falling into liberal, conservative-hating, alarmist hype, because that's not where it's coming from, despite the fact that you might think it mirrors it.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Eh, your information says that the PACK eats 22 pounds of meat.
Which is much more realistic than a 30 pound wolf eating nearly its entire weight in meat in one sitting.
That your points DO mirror and repeat the enviro-weenie hype is the flaws in your logic.
That you'd rather hold on to them rather than distance yourself from them (and the horridly oppresive policies that they lead to) is also not my problem.
Until those policies become reality, then they are the problem of all of us.
a typical adult wolf requires a minimum of 1.1 kg (2.5 lb) of food each day for sustenance, and approximately 2.2 kg (5lb) to reproduce successfully.[27] Wolves rarely eat each day, but compensate by eating up to 10 kg (22 lb) at a time.[27]
Try again. An individual wolf requires up to 5lbs of food a day. Since they don't eat every day, they compensate. It's not uncommon in the wild for animals to eat nearly their own weight in food. Some even consume as much as ten times their own weight.
That you'd rather hold on to them rather than distance yourself from them (and the horridly oppresive policies that they lead to) is also not my problem.
Pot, meet kettle.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Yes, a wolf may eat 22 pounds at a sitting.... I will admit that I misread the wording of the article you linked to.... however, this does not invalidate anything I've said:
They're eating maybe once every 4 or 5 days. Which is EXACTLY what I said.
A deer provides around 100 to 150 pounds of meat, depending on the deer.
So, 5 wolves can eat one deer a week.
I believe that is all precisely what I've been saying.
Don't worry Folks!
If you're not able to live in San Fran, but still want to fight the evil corporations' pollution, you can do it by buying "Carbon Offset Chocolate"
Yes, that's right.... because these propaganda fiends have no limits.... Carbon Offset Chocolate:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080606124814.0v9ui667&show_artic...
Tell you what folks. If you all get together and send me 80 thousand dollars, I will stop driving an SUV, stop smoking cigars and pipes (Even though the doctors tell me to control my tourettes that way) and I'll even plant a tree next Earth Day.
That'll be more effective than buying a 'carbon offset chocolate' from New Zealand.
If you're serious and have the 80 thousand dollars, send me a message. Upon receipt of payment I'll send you a receipt and a picture of me throwing away my pipe and pipe tobacco.