Fear

[bobbob1313]

There is most assuredly a political agenda behind global warming. You just happen to agree with the politics of the agenda, so you are okay with it.

[isadorah]

I think most Americans would serioulsy overthrow the government if you took away their high fructose corn syrup.

 

so so true. hmmm, wait you might be onto something that would end all this squabbling.

 

actually i'm all for keeping it in things that need it to exist, like soda, but crackers and baby food, not so much.

[Gobias Industries]

Oh look, blue car.

 

SLUGBUG!

[fatheadfred]

so so true. hmmm, wait you might be onto something that would end all this squabbling.

 

actually i'm all for keeping it in things that need it to exist, like soda, but crackers and baby food, not so much.

 

cane sugar, but then it would cost more as we have to import

[Party @ the Moontower]

so so true. hmmm, wait you might be onto something that would end all this squabbling.

 

actually i'm all for keeping it in things that need it to exist, like soda, but crackers and baby food, not so much.

 

 

plain old 100% raw sugar beats it anytime. I don't think it needs to be on this planet. Poor sluggish kids! Me and my husband spent 10 minutes the other day looking for hamburger buns without High Fructose Corn Crap in it. Impossible journey that one!

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I took it more along the lines of JUDE finding it ridiculous to say that EVERYONE that believes terrorism is a legitimate threat is doing so only to perpetuate American imperialism in the middle east. OR something.

There is a major difference between the two, if nothing else, than in results of actions towards either issue.

 

We're nearly seven years post 9/11, and the government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on an anti-terrorism agenda that has proven large ineffective -- everything from TSA, searching inbound containers, air passenger/cargo, to the fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and the next gig on the War on Terror Tour. Policies have tortured, imprisoned people without charges or means to legally defend themselves, eroded our civil liberties -- and we are no safer. McCain was caught in his own gaff, saying a terrorist attack would boost the Republicans' chances.

 

Already the rising price of gas has brought down usage, efforts no matter how materialistic over altruistic, still have positive outcomes.

 

That said this whole thread got started on a shaky premise. Hanging on "global warming" is missing the point of positive environmental benefits of any green approach. In either case, the approach to solving the problem has to be sound, funded and carried out.

 

We've seen the poor results of planning and executing efforts to fight terrorism (from both sides of the aisle). I struggle to see a logical reason to be jaded about a green approach, as long as no one anticipates a snake oil solution.

 

I'm trying to shift focus away from the greater motives that we neo-cons universally share, i.e., just generally shitty behavior.

[sweetheart-mine]

There is most assuredly a political agenda behind global warming. You just happen to agree with the politics of the agenda, so you are okay with it.

wrong. i couldn't care less about the politics of the agenda. if bush, cheney, or babar the elephant started championing the idea of taking care of the planet, i'd be cheering them all the way and calling myself at least half-neocon, or an elephant, whichever fits.

[bobbob1313]

We've seen the poor results of planning and executing efforts to fight terrorism (from both sides of the aisle). I struggle to see a logical reason to be jaded about a green approach, as long as no one anticipates a snake oil solution.

 

That's my main concern. It does have to be well planned and executed if we are going to make wholesale changes to our infrastructure like many want, and it seems like a lot of it is just talking points by democratic politicians to gain political points. Their support of a product like ethanol just shows how little substantive work is being done on a large scale.

 

I'm all for people doing their part on a small scale, but I don't see how anyone can deny that the democratic party is using environmentalism for political gain, when they don't have many (if any) realistic, large scale plans.

 

Hell, even Bush was talking the talk a few years back in his state of the union when he talked about Hydrogen fuel cells. Where are they? He hasn't mentioned them since, because he's a politician, and politicians will say whatever they can to get votes. I think it's pretty funny that many on here truly do believe the democratic party is, on the whole, immune to this. If they were, there would be no democratic party.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

You want to ignore the fact that there are plenty of people exploiting the environmentalist mood in our country, fine. But don't try to make it seem like they aren't, and don't try to make someone else out to be a bad guy for doing the exact same thing on an issue you don't happen to agree with.

Can you help me understand how people are "exploiting the environmental mood in our country."? Specific instances where there is a broader harm inflicted on our citizens, or foreign citizens, our economy, your pocket -- or harm vs. benefit?

 

I'm being serious because I hear what you're saying, I just see the upside of environmentally sensitive efforts -- regardless of motives -- beyond quibbling over whether we call it "green," "fighting global warming," or "Giving Mr. Woody, Al Gore, a reason to shut up."

[bobbob1313]

Can you help me understand how people are "exploiting the environmental mood in our country."? Specific instances where there is a broader harm inflicted on our citizens, or foreign citizens, our economy, your pocket -- or harm vs. benefit?

 

I'm being serious because I hear what you're saying, I just see the upside of environmentally sensitive efforts -- regardless of motives -- beyond quibbling over whether we call it "green," "fighting global warming," or "Giving Mr. Woody, Al Gore, a reason to shut up."

 

I think I've used ethanol as an example a lot in this thread, but it really is a pretty terrible product that has been pushed an marketed as green despite evidence to the contrary. The effects of this are being felt in the price of food and gas, and it has also (in my opinion) done little to move us off of foreign oil and has probably had detrimental effects in finding real ways to get off natural gas.

[Guest Jules]

Let us not lose sight of the fact that there is a 14-year old conservative in our presence. There is hope.

[JUDE]

Can you help me understand how people are "exploiting the environmental mood in our country."? Specific instances where there is a broader harm inflicted on our citizens, or foreign citizens, our economy, your pocket -- or harm vs. benefit?

 

I'm being serious because I hear what you're saying, I just see the upside of environmentally sensitive efforts -- regardless of motives -- beyond quibbling over whether we call it "green," "fighting global warming," or "Giving Mr. Woody, Al Gore, a reason to shut up."

 

Well, he has been pointing out the Ethanol, as it is being used today, could be argued is causing harm to our citizens, it is causing an increase in food costs, uses huge amounts of water in it's production, takes quite a bit of energy to produce and is relatively inefficient as far as btu content is concerned.

[embiggen]

Let us not lose sight of the fact that there is a 14-year old conservative in our presence. There is hope.

 

 

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

That's my main concern. It does have to be well planned and executed if we are going to make wholesale changes to our infrastructure like many want, and it seems like a lot of it is just talking points by democratic politicians to gain political points. Their support of a product like ethanol just shows how little substantive work is being done on a large scale.

 

I can't agree or disagree with " a lot of it is just talking points by democratic politicians to gain political points," because without specific examples, I can't say, "you're right" or "gimme some of what you're smoking."

 

Ethanol and corn syrup have both been raised, and they're both viewed as a bipartisan swindle. The ag lobby is awful. But, on the other hand, their products convert CO2 into oxygen. Environmentally, their feet should be held to the fire to stop using their fields as a chemistry experiment.

 

I'm all for people doing their part on a small scale, but I don't see how anyone can deny that the democratic party is using environmentalism for political gain, when they don't have many (if any) realistic, large scale plans.

 

Hell, even Bush was talking the talk a few years back in his state of the union when he talked about Hydrogen fuel cells. Where are they? He hasn't mentioned them since, because he's a politician, and politicians will say whatever they can to get votes. I think it's pretty funny that many on here truly do believe the democratic party is, on the whole, immune to this. If they were, there would be no democratic party.

 

Hydrogen powered cars are a joke, but it's still worth exploring options.

 

I think evidence that can shape an argument for or against environmentally sensitive approach can only advance the cause.

 

As far as your comments about the democratic party, the answer to any concerns is not couching absolutes -- the Republicans use terrorism for their own cause, the Democrats use environmentalism. Neither is true on its face. Some within each party of blatantly guilty of these generalities, but neither side scores any points by clinging to its stance in order to call out the other side.

 

I think I've used ethanol as an example a lot in this thread, but it really is a pretty terrible product that has been pushed an marketed as green despite evidence to the contrary. The effects of this are being felt in the price of food and gas, and it has also (in my opinion) done little to move us off of foreign oil and has probably had detrimental effects in finding real ways to get off natural gas.

I don't believe you can say the Democrats are the sole cause of the use of ethanol. It is a bipartisan cash cow.

[plasticeyeball]

The effects of this are being felt in the price of food and gas, and it has also (in my opinion) done little to move us off of foreign oil and has probably had detrimental effects in finding real ways to get off natural gas.

 

I know this was a typo. You meant gasoline & deisel for which we need other peoples oil to produce. We don't want to get off natural gas, we want to get on natural gas since it's the only viable alternative fuel. We already have (and have had for 20 years) the technology for this. Hydrogen fuel cells are so far out that i'll be retired before that technology is affordable.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I know this was a typo. You meant gasoline & deisel for which we need other peoples oil to produce. We don't want to get off natural gas, we want to get on natural gas since it's the only viable alternative fuel. We already have (and have had for 20 years) the technology for this. Hydrogen fuel cells are so far out that i'll be retired before that technology is affordable.

Actually studies cited in California's efforts to require trucks serving the ports of L.A. and Long Beach (the nation's largest container ports) to use LNG vehicles and fuel efficient vehicles have found that the LNG vehicles are just as pollutant, if not more so.

[bobbob1313]

I've also read Ethanol is just as pollutant as well.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I've also read Ethanol is just as pollutant as well.

You are right. It is no better. But I think both parties have held up ethanol more for its value in avoiding dependance on foreign oil. I know I heard it in a McCain ad on TV.

[ikol]

what doesn't make sense to me is why we don't re-evaluate our food in light of ethanol putting a dent into the food supply. perfect opportunity to get High Fructose Corn Syrup out of things it really has no business being in. Like the majority of food products most people eat.

 

But to do that, we'd have to get rid of oppressive tariffs on cane sugar.

[bobbob1313]

Well, when ethanol was introduced to the American market, most people didn't know much about it, so it was kind of able to be everything to everyone, and here is where my problem with that comes in. It was marketed as a green product when it so obviously isn't...

[JUDE]

I think the time may be near for my rickshaw company to launch.

 

Anyone want in?

[Party @ the Moontower]

hemp.

[JUDE]

I'd prefer cash investors, but thanks anyway.

[Party @ the Moontower]

I think the time may be near for my rickshaw company to launch.

 

Anyone want in?

 

 

naked rickshaw drivers?

[plasticeyeball]

Actually studies cited in California's efforts to require trucks serving the ports of L.A. and Long Beach (the nation's largest container ports) to use LNG vehicles and fuel efficient vehicles have found that the LNG vehicles are just as pollutant, if not more so.

 

I'm refering to cng, not hot gas lng.