OT: Live Earth

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:22 pm

[quote="greggsand"] Hell, if the next Republican candidate actually believes in science over "hocus pocus & one-on-one talks with Jesus", I'd probably give him a long look.[ /quote]

So would I. I would give ANYONE a long look that did the following:
-a commitment to reducing our dependance on oil
-a commitment to improving our heath care system
-left religion completely out of their politics
-left "non big gov't issues" like abortion, gay rights, etc to the state laws.
-showed a high level of intellegence & competence
-showed a desire to improve the overall view of the US to the rest of the world.
-showed a desire to help improve our own country and people before wasting billions overseas.
-showed the desire to effectively fight terrorism without only tanks and guns

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:23 pm

Jared wrote:True...like I think you (or someone else said before) electrons are electrons, and that energy will still be used. But Gore is purchasing the energy from these green companies. If Gore (and others) don't pay a premium for green energy (since it's more expensive), there won't be a demand for it and companies won't have incentive to build. So the individual electrons may be from other non-green sources, but he's paying green companies, and helping them make a profit (for example, if no one is paying the premium for green energy, those companies will take a hit and it'll discourage similar projects or sink current green energy projects).

Ah, but don't forget that Al's GIM company invests in green companies. So when Al buys power from green companies, he will indirectly benefit financially. Stockpiling cash probably isn't Al's main reason for buying green power, but it's a nice byproduct of which I'm sure he's well aware.

Jared wrote:Well, I disagree in that his carbon-energy purchasing is well-below average (considering that he is paying for green energy...and yes, you and others disagree about this, but I think it's an effective way to support carbon-neutral companies).

Again, when those carbon-neutral companies in which GIM invests prosper, so does Al. A lovely tie-in. A Convenient Truth.

I guess I would be a lot less strident about my negative views of those who worship at the pine bough-laden altar of Al Gore if they admitted that there is a LARGE financial incentive for his green push. But few do, instead trotting out his great contribution to society, carbon credits. Yeah, the same carbon credits that will trickle down into some fat padding for his personal bank account.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:27 pm

JackB1 wrote:So would I. I would give ANYONE a long look that did the following:
-a commitment to reducing our dependance on oil
-a commitment to improving our heath care system
-left religion completely out of their politics
-left "non big gov't issues" like abortion, gay rights, etc to the state laws.
-showed a high level of intellegence & competence
-showed a desire to improve the overall view of the US to the rest of the world.
-showed a desire to help improve our own country and people before wasting billions overseas.
-showed the desire to effectively fight terrorism without only tanks and guns

Pigs can't fly, Jack. Pigs can't fly.

I second your idealism, man, but the above scenario NEVER will happen in the caustic, partisan cauldron of American politics, circa 2007.

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:51 pm

pk500 wrote:
JackB1 wrote:So would I. I would give ANYONE a long look that did the following:
-a commitment to reducing our dependance on oil
-a commitment to improving our heath care system
-left religion completely out of their politics
-left "non big gov't issues" like abortion, gay rights, etc to the state laws.
-showed a high level of intellegence & competence
-showed a desire to improve the overall view of the US to the rest of the world.
-showed a desire to help improve our own country and people before wasting billions overseas.
-showed the desire to effectively fight terrorism without only tanks and guns
Pigs can't fly, Jack. Pigs can't fly.

I second your idealism, man, but the above scenario NEVER will happen in the caustic, partisan cauldron of American politics, circa 2007.

Take care,
PK

Well, for now, i would settle for just this one:
-showed a high level of intellegence & competence
The rest would all be a bonus

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:56 pm

DivotMaker wrote:
JackB1 wrote:The smarter folks stay out of it because they see how these discussions never turn into anything worthwhile.
The smarter folks stay out of it? Whoa....there are some pretty damn sharp folks that have commented in this thread, so I don't know where you get off with comments like that.

You are right. That's not what I meant. Certainly, there are plently of smart folks that DO post in these types of threads. I also unwittingly put myself into the "non-smart" group

What I meant to say was that there are some that think it's smart to stay out of these types of conversations and sometimes I can see why they think that.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:02 pm

ScoopBrady wrote: How we treat the planet has no correlation with how we treat each other. We've treated each other like s*** way before we started to mess with the environment.

You don't think that shrinking resources like food and oil and overpopulation don't have an impact on crime and war? Maybe
you'll see the correlation some day.

BigAl · Post by **BigAl** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:04 pm

JackB1 wrote:Maybe you'll see the correlation some day.

How many other poster's intelligence are you going to call out in this tread?

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:06 pm

BigAl wrote:How many other poster's intelligence are you going to call out in this tread?

He called out mine...now I'm dangling from a noose...I just can't figure out how to kick the chair out from under me. This killing yourself stuff is harder than it looks.

But hey...at least he's right sticking himself in the "not" category.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:10 pm

JackB1 wrote:Well, for now, i would settle for just this one:
-showed a high level of intellegence & competence
The rest would all be a bonus

That would be a HUGE step above the incumbent, no doubt.

Take care,
PK

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:14 pm

I just can't figure out how to kick the chair out from under me. This killing yourself stuff is harder than it looks.

I'd gladly fly out to California and give you a push, but I can't afford the carbon credits this month.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:16 pm

kevinpars wrote:
I just can't figure out how to kick the chair out from under me. This killing yourself stuff is harder than it looks.
I'd gladly fly out to California and give you a push, but I can't afford the carbon credits this month.

I've got a few you can borrow. I just can't go...on. F*ck...there goes the chair. Peace.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:16 pm

JackB1 wrote:
ScoopBrady wrote: How we treat the planet has no correlation with how we treat each other. We've treated each other like s*** way before we started to mess with the environment.
You don't think that shrinking resources like food and oil and overpopulation don't have an impact on crime and war? Maybe
you'll see the correlation some day.

Jack:

A drunk 32-year-old smashed his boat into another boat Sunday night on a lake 6 miles from my house, killing two innocent, non-drunk occupants of that boat.

How did shrinking resources factor into that crime? Did global warming force that 32-year-old guy to pound more than a dozen beers all day and night with his buddies and then decide to drive home in that boat, committing a crime?

So am I correct, or smart enough, to assume that if everyone was fed and used green fuels, there'd be no war or crime?

Wow -- I thought Don Quixote stopped tilting at windmills a long time ago.

Take care,
PK

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:24 pm

JackB1 wrote:
ScoopBrady wrote: How we treat the planet has no correlation with how we treat each other. We've treated each other like s*** way before we started to mess with the environment.
You don't think that shrinking resources like food and oil and overpopulation don't have an impact on crime and war? Maybe
you'll see the correlation some day.

I think you're misconstruing your own remarks, which were:

You fail to see how our neglect towards the environment has a direct correlation with crime, poverty and most of the things you mentioned. If we respected the planet, we would respect each other more as human beings and if we only took what we needed from Mother Earth, something tells me we wouldn't be taking what didn't belong to us from each other.

Aside from all that, who decides how much each person 'needs' from mother earth? You? Al Gore?

There's so much non-scientific (and frankly human history defying) ideology being thrown around in a quote like that I don't even know where to begin.

Jimmydeicide · Post by **Jimmydeicide** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:24 pm

What was that movie Quest for fire? Plenty of aggro in that.

Im guessing it hurts to get speared with a Mammoth tusk whislt out on your sunday stroll with the kids.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:53 pm

JackB1 wrote:
ScoopBrady wrote: How we treat the planet has no correlation with how we treat each other. We've treated each other like s*** way before we started to mess with the environment.
You don't think that shrinking resources like food and oil and overpopulation don't have an impact on crime and war? Maybe
you'll see the correlation some day.

And you dare question the intelligence of the rest of the boards? That's a pretty weak argument. You said treat the planet better and we'll treat each other better. I'm saying we treated each other the same way we do now before there were any environmental concerns. If there was plentiful food and plentiful oil people would fight about something else. They always have. Quit putting the planet in front of the people living on it.

Let's take a quick look at your list for things you want in a presidential candidate:

So would I. I would give ANYONE a long look that did the following:
-a commitment to reducing our dependance on oil
To save the planet or because your wallet is taking a hit filling up your car and motorcycle?
-a commitment to improving our heath care system
Nothing to do with the planet.
-left religion completely out of their politics
Nothing to do with the planet.
-left "non big gov't issues" like abortion, gay rights, etc to the state laws.
Nothing to do with the planet.
-showed a high level of intellegence & competence
Nothing to do with the planet
-showed a desire to improve the overall view of the US to the rest of the world.
Nothing to do with the planet
-showed a desire to help improve our own country and people before wasting billions overseas.
Nothing to do with the planet, just anti-war sentiments
-showed the desire to effectively fight terrorism without only tanks and guns
More anti-war sentiments

You just listed what you want out of the next president and not one of the things you mentioned had anything to do with the environment that didn't have an impact on your wallet. Are you sure you're a tree hugger? You didn't seem to be one until you watched a concert. I didn't see a thread asking if you should be an environmentalist though so I suppose it is likely that you felt this way before joining the forums.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:06 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:I didn't see a thread asking if you should be an environmentalist though so I suppose it is likely that you felt this way before joining the forums.

HAHAHAHAHAHA...f'n hilarious.

Post by **Jared** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:12 pm

BigAl wrote:
JackB1 wrote:Maybe you'll see the correlation some day.
How many other poster's intelligence are you going to call out in this tread?

My God Jack. I'm certain that you don't realize what you're saying half the time....but again. When you say inflammatory things, people will respond. People will respond with sarcasm, and with barbs against you. And that leaves my hands tied.

There's a big difference between someone picking a fight in a forum (uncalled for insults, bringing up old forum feuds, etc) and people responding to being insulted. The former can and will be punished with bans, the latter is usually let go to an extent. I'll only punish the retaliator if they go over the line.

IF people on these forums think that my general policy on this is unfair or problematic or whatever, please PM me. I know Jack's feeling on this (though Jack, you're more than welcome to expound on what you think), but if others think I give too much leeway on these forums, I'd like to hear about it.

Post by **Jared** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:19 pm

pk500 wrote: I guess I would be a lot less strident about my negative views of those who worship at the pine bough-laden altar of Al Gore if they admitted that there is a LARGE financial incentive for his green push. But few do, instead trotting out his great contribution to society, carbon credits. Yeah, the same carbon credits that will trickle down into some fat padding for his personal bank account.

I think the financial incentive is a good thing, as long as what's being supported has a positive effect. If there's a financial incentive for doctors to come up with a cure for cancer, then it's going to push them and others to work towards it. If there's a financial incentive for Gore to support green energy (and again, Gore's company doesn't invest in carbon credit companies, so he's not making profit off that), then that's wonderful.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:24 pm

deleted (double post)

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:27 pm

I'm just waiting for this to somehow turn into an iPhone thread so I can be included.

Is the iPhone environmentally friendly?

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:35 pm

Naples39 wrote:
Aside from all that, who decides how much each person 'needs' from mother earth? You? Al Gore?

"Need" is subjective, but I guess a good rule of thumb would be that if the resource can eventually replenish itself, then you are good. If it is running out, you are taking too much.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:39 pm

ScoopBrady wrote: You said treat the planet better and we'll treat each other better. I'm saying we treated each other the same way we do now before there were any environmental concerns. If there was plentiful food and plentiful oil people would fight about something else. They always have. Quit putting the planet in front of the people living on it.

You are taking what I said too literally and blowing it out of proportion. I am just saying they go hand and hand with each other. Who do you think would more likely mug you in a dark alley....person #1, who could care less about the environment and the world around him, or person #2, who treats the planet and the world around him with respect?

You are taking what I said to the extreme just for the sake of winning your argument. I was just making a general point. You seem like you are just looking to win an argument.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:40 pm

So, are we really running out of oil?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16288769/site/newsweek/

I agree that it would be good, for the environment and politically, for the U.S. to wean itself from fossil fuels. But it doesn't appear that we're going to run out of oil any time soon.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:44 pm

JackB1 wrote:You are taking what I said too literally and blowing it out of proportion. I am just saying they go hand and hand with each other. Who do you think would more likely mug you in a dark alley....person #1, who could care less about the environment and the world around him, or person #2, who treats the planet and the world around him with respect?

Are you kidding, Jack? Someone is less likely to commit crimes because they don't litter and put their recycling bin at the curb every week?

Then how do you explain the damage caused by eco-terrorist groups in the U.S. like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front?

Take care,
PK

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:51 pm

Spooky wrote:I'm just waiting for this to somehow turn into an iPhone thread so I can be included.

Is the iPhone environmentally friendly?

In the part of the show I watched the other day(I could not watch it too long as I was losing brain cells and I don't have any to spare) they showed a solar IPOD charger you could buy for I believe 80 bucks.... Freaking hilarious.