OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[XXXIV]

As for this organization being a scam because they have employees making a 6-figure salary, well it's probably true of a lot of non-profits, charities, NGOs, etc.

To raise a lot of money, you need professionals, not people taking vows of poverty. Even if the salary expectations are modest, these people still have families to feed as well.

Yes!

People making under $100,000 are unprofessional morons.

It does take a very special man to handle something as complex as a carbon credit.

[fsquid]

If you need a carbon credit you can stick your nose up my ass and get one for free.

[XXXIV]

If you need a carbon credit you can stick your nose up my ass and get one for free.

Is that like a Pez dispenser for saps?

[fsquid]

If you need a carbon credit you can stick your nose up my ass and get one for free.

Is that like a Pez dispenser for saps?

well played

[bdoughty]

If you need a carbon credit you can stick your nose up my ass and get one for free.

Mine is Sheryl Crow approved as you cut down on toilet paper usage and clear your carbon guilt at the same time.

[Jackdog]

Oh and the continued animosity towards a voluntary program set-up by a for-profit is beyond me. Tax deductible? If that is the first thing that jumps into your head here then we really are looking at this from two entirely different perspectives. Honestly I don't care how and/or what you spend your money on but don't criticize other people who are trying to do something honorable with theirs. That is pretty darn "scroogey" to me.

First off I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it. It's nothing personal.

Secondly, the honorable thing too do would be not to fly at all if you really believe that your f****ng up the earth. Seriously,do vegans pig out at Burger King then buy some "Cholesterol Credits" to ease their minds over the beef they just ate? Hell no, because they aren't hypocrites. They believe in what they stand for. Buying a "Carbon Credit" to ease your own mind for the damage you think your causing too the planet is a joke. It's not honorable. It's a cop out for people with money to burn.

[Jackdog]

If you need a carbon credit you can stick your nose up my ass and get one for free.

Mine is Sheryl Crow approved as you cut down on toilet paper usage and clear your carbon guilt at the same time.

I'll donate for that bumper sticker.

[macsomjrr]

First off I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it. It's nothing personal.

Secondly, the honorable thing too do would be not to fly at all if you really believe that your f****ng up the earth. Seriously,do vegans pig out at Burger King then buy some "Cholesterol Credits" to ease their minds over the beef they just ate? Hell no, because they aren't hypocrites. They believe in what they stand for. Buying a "Carbon Credit" to ease your own mind for the damage you think your causing too the planet is a joke. It's not honorable. It's a cop out for people with money to burn.

I also respect your opinion and I enjoy reading the different perspectives that the guys on DSP have on topics like this.

I'm having trouble following your logic on this. People need to fly as there isn't a viable alternative. Isn't it therefore justifiable to try and offset the environmental damage caused by flying by alternative means (i.e. this whole wacky carbon credit idea)? If visiting your family or your job requirements means traveling thousands of miles then you're pretty much limited to a plane flight.

Criticizing animal agriculture is completely different. People can live healthy, happy lives without eating any animal products whatsoever so I could see why you might get upset about people criticizing concentrated animal farm organizations (CAFOs or factory farms) and then cruising over Jack in the Box for a hamburger.

[Jackdog]

First off I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it. It's nothing personal.

Secondly, the honorable thing too do would be not to fly at all if you really believe that your f****ng up the earth. Seriously,do vegans pig out at Burger King then buy some "Cholesterol Credits" to ease their minds over the beef they just ate? Hell no, because they aren't hypocrites. They believe in what they stand for. Buying a "Carbon Credit" to ease your own mind for the damage you think your causing too the planet is a joke. It's not honorable. It's a cop out for people with money to burn.

I also respect your opinion and I enjoy reading the different perspectives that the guys on DSP have on topics like this.

I'm having trouble following your logic on this. People need to fly as there isn't a viable alternative. Isn't it therefore justifiable to try and offset the environmental damage caused by flying by alternative means (i.e. this whole wacky carbon credit idea)? If visiting your family or your job requirements means traveling thousands of miles then you're pretty much limited to a plane flight.

Criticizing animal agriculture is completely different. People can live healthy, happy lives without eating any animal products whatsoever so I could see why you might get upset about people criticizing concentrated animal farm organizations (CAFOs or factory farms) and then cruising over Jack in the Box for a hamburger.

That may have been a bad example......it was late and I had just got back from a party,and it wasn't a cake and ice cream party. My point is paying for your sins to mother earth by buying Carbon Credits doesn't put the "Genie back into the Bottle" IMO. If someone is truly convicted to their beliefs like Ed Bagley Jr. He has shown up at Hollywood events on his bicycle. I tend to respect his opinion much more than someone that thinks their money can absolve them from the damage they do. I do not respect Al Gore in the lest bit on this issue. He wants me and mine to do as he says not as he does. I veiw him as a huckster. I view Ed Bagley as a true Environmentalist because he practices what he preaches.

As far as travel goes,here's an idea from Ed on long distance travel.

Take the Train

If you are traveling greater distances, see if a train is available. Trains are fast and comfortable and give off dramatically fewer emissions than airplanes or even buses. Many people argue that, since the train will be making the trip with or without you, the individual emissions responsibility is zero. Whether you agree with this or not, the train is a one of the most earth friendly means of travel around.

Granted some people don't have time to do this every time they travel but if they really believe in the cause they would make the effort. Al Gore has time to schedule his engagements. So he could travel this way most of the time,yet he chooses a private jet. IMO this and the quote below makes him a hypocrite.

The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . .

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management--he buys stocks. . . ."

[matthewk]

I'm having trouble following your logic on this. People need to fly as there isn't a viable alternative. Isn't it therefore justifiable to try and offset the environmental damage caused by flying by alternative means (i.e. this whole wacky carbon credit idea)? If visiting your family or your job requirements means traveling thousands of miles then you're pretty much limited to a plane flight.

Criticizing animal agriculture is completely different. People can live healthy, happy lives without eating any animal products whatsoever so I could see why you might get upset about people criticizing concentrated animal farm organizations (CAFOs or factory farms) and then cruising over Jack in the Box for a hamburger.

Here's where I always have a problem with those who want to tell me how to live my life while not living theirs the same way they are preaching.

Who can't live a healthy, happy life without flying? So now flying is ok because YOU deem it neccessary. Well, for me, driving my car is a need. I have to get to work and visit my family too. A lot of people around these parts drive those evil SUVs and trucks. We also have 3 feet of snow on the ground, so getting around some days requires one of these to get through the snow safely.

Anyone who says we are in danger of destroying the planet within our lifetimes and doesn't live in a cave wearing leaves is a hypocryte.

[FatPitcher]

I think Glenn Reynolds said it best: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."

For now, I see it as just another way to keep the peasants in line, while the rich can do whatever they want. Scare the rabble and tell them they need to give you power and money or doom awaits, like medieval priests selling modern-day indulgences. Energy efficiency is a goal we should strive for, but not because of charlatans spouting gibberish about doomsday to get a buck and a vote.

[macsomjrr]

Here's where I always have a problem with those who want to tell me how to live my life while not living theirs the same way they are preaching.

Who can't live a healthy, happy life without flying? So now flying is ok because YOU deem it neccessary. Well, for me, driving my car is a need. I have to get to work and visit my family too. A lot of people around these parts drive those evil SUVs and trucks. We also have 3 feet of snow on the ground, so getting around some days requires one of these to get through the snow safely.

I think the reaction to the message is honestly worse than the message itself. Most pro-environmentalists that I've discussed this aren't yelling and screaming that if you don't immediately walk down to your local Prius dealer and trade in your F-150 for a environmentally friendly hybrid (yes I'm aware of the environmental impact production of those lil' cars is having, but you get the point) you are a bad bad person. Instead the message is "do what you can, when you can." If you're living in an area with heavy snowfall or any other extenuating circumstances then no one but the most ardent environmental wacko's is going to tell you to give up your ride.

Flying is a necessity for many people. Sure you could come up with a million other ways to get from point A to point B but in today's seconds count society its almost impossible to live a normal life without taking a quick plane flight. If planes were the number one cause of damage to our environment I'd probably be singing a different tune but the reality is they aren't. Do they contribute? Yes. Although I haven't compared the numbers, and I'm not even sure if they exist, the emissions produced by planes must be seriously outmatched by those produced by cars or areas of concentrated industrial production. I remember reading somewhere that the levels of methane produced by beef cow feedlots is pretty substantial as well (methane traps heat more effectively than other atmospheric gases).

If I flew more often (I hate flying) then I'd probably look into this more but I don't and I have other things I've got to worry about. I do what I can when I can (like I'm sure you do as well) but I don't pretend the problem doesn't exist.

Anyone who says we are in danger of destroying the planet within our lifetimes and doesn't live in a cave wearing leaves is a hypocryte.

C'mon seriously? It is never OK to criticize something unless you're going to the utmost extreme to battle against it? I promise you every single person on this board falls under your definition of the moniker "hypocrite."

[matthewk]

I promise you every single person on this board falls under your definition of the moniker "hypocrite."

Everyone who criticizes others on harming the planet is a hypocrite to some level. That was my point.

[Jared]

Going back a few days in the thread...

First, about the Who Really Cares study (that contends that conservatives are more generous than liberals), yes, you can find people on the internets that criticize just about anything. However, with regards to that study, there are some clear problems. First, it's folly to just take two really large groups and just take the straight-up comparison as indicative of some sort of point. For example, if people that are over-represented in liberal/conservative groups are really the drivers of the effect, then it doesn't have anything to do with liberal/conservative, but rather has to do with another factor. That's why you have to do regression analyses to tease these things apart. Funny, the book has regression models, and they show (although the author tries to fudge the data around the point) that liberals give significantly more than moderates, whereas conservatives don't.

As for carbon credits, it seems like the arguments in this thread have been pointing out that some companies aren't utilizing the money received for carbon credits properly; therefore, carbon credits are bad. I think it's great that there are people really looking into whether money that is paid for carbon credits is spent properly. However, you can utilize the same argument against carbon credits as for charitable giving, as there are many charitable organizations that have been found to have high overhead and not pay out much to the actual charities.

Then, I really don't understand the whole "if you believe in global warming, don't ever fly/go live in a cave" argument. Stopping or severely limiting flying would destroy the economy, and (believe it or not) most environmentalists don't want to kill the economy. The whole point is trying to make changes, balancing the need to curtail global warming with the need to maintain a strong economy. If environmentalists want to make changes, they're criticized for trying to destroy the economy, but if the changes are moderate taking into account the needs of a modern economy, they're criticized for not being honorable and living in a cave. There's a middle ground, which is what most environmentalists are proposing.

(Oh, and my guess is that lots of environmentalists are big on the expansion of train travel. I, for one, use the train often and would love to see bullet trains as an alternative to plane and car travel for lots of medium-length travel.)

And finally, Glenn Reynolds is an idiot. To expound on that, environmentalists don't need to take up a "crisis" mentality, because the whole idea is that if we act early and preventatively, we won't need crisis-type measures. It's the concept of doing preventative care instead of doing nothing, and then being forced to take radical measures.

[XXXIV]

There's a middle ground,

Only in theory. I dont see that from anyone.

Especially in these threads.

Everything I see is either all or nothing ...or total bullshit like carbon credits.

[bdoughty]

As for carbon credits, it seems like the arguments in this thread have been pointing out that some companies aren't utilizing the money received for carbon credits properly; therefore, carbon credits are bad. I think it's great that there are people really looking into whether money that is paid for carbon credits is spent properly. However, you can utilize the same argument against carbon credits as for charitable giving, as there are many charitable organizations that have been found to have high overhead and not pay out much to the actual charities.

I think many non-profit organizations are scams. This is nothing new. Carbon Credits take to a completely different level, as it is a scam to begin with. Profit or Non-Profit.

[bdoughty]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008 ... enate.html

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.

Shortly after Obama's Nov. 4 victory, Burris made known his interest in an appointment to the Senate but was never seriously considered, according to Blagojevich insiders. But in the days following Blagojevich's arrest, and despite questions over the taint of a Senate appointment, Burris stepped up his efforts to win the governor's support.

Though he is 71, Burris has said that Obama's replacement should be able to win re-election and he has noted that despite a string of primary losses in races ranging from Chicago mayor to governor and U.S. senator, he's never lost to a Republican.



Now for extremely creepy picture

[Feanor]

Wow, he looks like a cartoon character.

[matthewk]

Give him red hair and some freckles and he's Howdy Doody.

[RobVarak]

Great pick by Blagojevich. Who better for the job than someone who has been rejected in statewide elections no less than 3 times and also has a loss in a run for mayor of Chicago.

A quick aside on all of the environmental debates crisscrossing the threads lately. My biggest beef with those who are zealous advocates for policy changes based on fear of climate change is that they cling as ridiculously to scientific consensus as those on the religious right who cling to creationism.

Naturally scientific consensus is the best source of information about the universe in the sense that it uses scientific method to prove some of its theories. But assuming that one should impliment policy based on scientific consensus without accounting for the fact that that same scientific consensus has a centuries-long tradition of mistake, foolishness, misunderstanding and outright falsehood is almost as ignorant as sticking one's head in the sand and hoping for the best.

Incidentally, anyone who responds that contemporary science is somehow "better" than in the past is fooling themselves first and foremost. We may have better data and experimental methods available than at any time in the past, but the unknown unknowns still outweigh that data and method by a metric ton.

[Feanor]

So having better data and experimental methods hasn't made science better. That makes no sense.

[Jared]

Naturally scientific consensus is the best source of information about the universe in the sense that it uses scientific method to prove some of its theories. But assuming that one should impliment policy based on scientific consensus without accounting for the fact that that same scientific consensus has a centuries-long tradition of mistake, foolishness, misunderstanding and outright falsehood is almost as ignorant as sticking one's head in the sand and hoping for the best.

So the scientific method is the best source of information about the universe. However, we shouldn't implement policy based on the best source of information about the universe? That doesn't make sense.

Or is it that we shouldn't implement policy decisions based on scientific information because there have been mistakes and dishonesty by scientists in the past? If you use that as a metric, then we couldn't use anything to make any sort of policy decisions, as just about any group has as much (if not more) of a history of mistakes, dishonesty, etc. as scientists.

[Naples39]

So having better data and experimental methods hasn't made science better. That makes no sense.

The methods can improve but the fundamental pitfalls of the study will never go away.


I can accept that most scientists feel strongly that man has contributed to climate change and won't fight a conclusion that people smarter and more informed than me have come to. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in 3 decades this is looked back upon in ridicule, but its the best info we're gonna get and is the only info upon which we can act. Granted these scientists aren't unanimous, and whether or not it is a 'consensus' is besides the point.

The conclusion that man is contributing to climate change is just the tip of the iceberg. The more important questions are to what extent are we contributing to climate change, and what can we expect to happen in the near and distant future.

Global climatology (or whatever they call it these days) is a field in its infancy. Even if the current consensus is that factors x, y and z are the best indicators and this is our best guess as to how they interact doesn't guarantee the accuracy of a model. If the factors aren't well understood or (most likely) dangerously incomplete the resulting computer model and predictions will be worthless whether or not it is borne out of a scientific 'consensus' that represents our current best guess.

Scientists aren't policymakers, nor should they be. The role of policymakers is to weigh all evidence before them and make a decision about the most prudent course of action. This is a highly subjective process, and is littered with pitfalls when the science is a relatively new field like global climatology. People can scream 'consensus! consensus!' all they want, but the conclusion that 'most' climate change is 'very likely' caused by man begins the scientific inquiry about climate change policy, it doesn't settle it.


Lastly, as an aside, I'm tired of the implication that the american right is the only group that has a political stake in the debate, whereas everyone else is nobly following the word of our dutiful and selfless scientists.

The environmental movements pre-dates the notion of global warming, and there are a lot of people out there to whom the notion that we must cut-back on emissions are music to their ears, climate change or no. I've sat through more lectures at school than I can count about how pollution and smog could have devastating effect on our future, make earth inhabitable, blah blah blah. Those same folks now use a different cause (climate change) to warn of the same conclusion.

I also recall a leading hurricane expert resigning from last years IPCC commission because they insisted on putting in their report that climate change would lead to more powerful hurricanes, when in fact there was no (and as AFAIK there still is not) any evidence that this is the case.

[RobVarak]

So the scientific method is the best source of information about the universe. However, we shouldn't implement policy based on the best source of information about the universe? That doesn't make sense.

Or is it that we shouldn't implement policy decisions based on scientific information because there have been mistakes and dishonesty by scientists in the past? If you use that as a metric, then we couldn't use anything to make any sort of policy decisions, as just about any group has as much (if not more) of a history of mistakes, dishonesty, etc. as scientists.

I'm merely suggesting that meaningful cost-benefit analysis might be undertaken if one treats the "scientific consensus" with the proper level of skepticism rather than as the monolithic and immutable facts set forth by some on the "environmental" side of the debate.

[RobVarak]

I am a cynical and fairly seasoned observer of politics.

Never. NEVER! Never have I seen anything like this farce of a press conference that Blagojevich and Bobby Rush put on today. The people of Illinois should be ashamed of themselves for letting clowns like this into any position of power.

Rush has been an embarassment for decades, but this sets a new bar even for this thoroughly shameless and vile race-baiter. He is the living embodiment of every decrepit impulse that spun off the civil rights movement. Dinosaurs like this bamboozler, Jesse Jackson and their ilk cannot perish quickly enough.