Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Al Gore's Plan for the "Climate Crisis"
Gleanings from Gore's testimony before Congress.
Gore: "We face a planetary emergency. I know it sounds shrill."
He proposed a Marshall Plan to address climate change. "We do not have time to play around with this," Gore declared.
Specific suggestions.
(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp
reductions to by 90% by 2050. [In other
words, emit only 10% of CO2 that we emit today--sorry for any
confusion.] Freeze it right now.
(2) I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on production and employment and substitute pollution taxes. We’re discouraging work and encouraging the destruction of the planet’s habitability. We should discourage pollution while encouraging work. Carbon pollution is not currently priced into the marketplace. I internalize air and water and I think that the economic system should too.
(3) A portion of those revenues must be earmarked for lower income groups to make this transition
(4) I’m in favor of a strong global treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions—I’m in favor of Kyoto—I fully understand as a brand it’s been demonized. I think we should work toward de facto compliance with Kyoto. My formal proposal is to move forward the adoption of the next treaty to 2010, not when Kyoto expires in 2012. We have to work to get China and India in participate in some way, to make them part of this effort.
(5) This Congress should enact a moratorium on all new coal fired power plants not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
(6) This congress should develop a Electronet—a smart grid. We ought to have a law, allow people to put up photovoltaic and wind generation and sell electricity into grid without any artificial caps.
(7) Must raise CAFÉ standards for automobile and trucks. CAFÉ must be part of a comprehensive package. Don’t single out cars and trucks. The problem is cars, coal and buildings, so must address all three
(8) Set a date for banning incandescent light bulbs.
(9) Carbon neutral mortgage association (Connie Mae) The idea is that the market doesn’t properly price energy saving technologies, e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth, so government should create some kind of financial instrument to pay for these energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for themselves.
(10) The Securities and Exchange Commission ought to require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reports. Because it’s a material risk that companies face.
Just letting you know.
Dave W.|3.21.07 @ 11:21AM|#
If anyone has a link to Mr. Bailey's competing plan, please let me know. Too busy to GOOGLE around for it today.
|3.21.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Why the light bulb? Of all the things that will piss people off, the light bulb has to be the one. As it is people get a little wierd under the flourescents, I can only imagine what it will be like if the flourescents are in the home as well (beyond the laundry room).
|3.21.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Point 9, about buildings and mortgages, is spot on.
If the bank figures you can afford a $1400 monthly mortgage
payment, they don't care if your heating bill averages $200/month.
However, if a home's design raises your mortgage to $1500 and
lowers your heating bill to $50/month, they won't give you the
mortgage.
|3.21.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Hey, if global warming alarmists are willing to end all FICA taxes, in return for a carbon tax which raises the same amount of revenue, I'd be willing to sign on. At least it might end the fiction that the bonds in the Social Security trust fund are the equivalent of the government bonds sold at auction.
dhex|3.21.07 @ 11:29AM|#
only if you're a pussy, kap.
THIS IS THE HARDCORE GENERATION (repeat)
anyway...yeah, what's the deal with lightbulbs?
|3.21.07 @ 11:31AM|#
"I'm sorry if a few little boys had to die, but in the end, I
killed ManBearPig."
-Al Gore, parodied on South Park (and paraphrased by me)
Parodied? Really? REALly?
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 11:34AM|#
(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin
sharp reductions to 90% by 2050. Freeze it right now.
Too bad Batman captured Mr. Freeze. It would be easier to make all
that dry ice if he were our ally rather than our prisoner.
|3.21.07 @ 11:37AM|#
We have to work to get China and India in participate in
some way
Yeah, we also have to work to get Iran and N. Korea to stop
building nukes, in some way.
Yes, even a moron has the right to speak his mind in this
country.
Elect Gore! We need to be ruled by someone who grew up reading --
then aspired to write for -- the National Enquirer. He was so good
at it he went and created his own syndicate.
|3.21.07 @ 11:37AM|#
YEESH! Bend over everybody, and spread em wide. Here comes the the flip side to the religious right.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 11:37AM|#
(4) I'm in favor of a strong global treaty to limit
greenhouse gas emissions-I'm in favor of Kyoto-I fully understand
as a brand it's been demonized. I think we should work toward de
facto compliance with Kyoto. My formal proposal is to move forward
the adoption of the next treaty to 2010, not when Kyoto expires in
2012. We have to work to get China and India in participate in some
way, to make them part of this effort.
Translation: it was a bad idea when I was Vice President, but don't
go back and look at that record, it is a good idea now that someone
else is VP.
Yes, we really need to talk to these countries that are not
following it, but until then let's stop using oil and coal so it
will be even cheaper for them. That should get them to come
around.
|3.21.07 @ 11:37AM|#
1) I have no idea how he would actually implement this. What if
I get a new job in which I have to increase my commute by 20%, does
that mean the government will force me to stop using my air
conditioner? Or will they force somebody else to reduce emissions,
maybe by taking away airconditioning at my new office.
6) This is a great idea, but as I understand it people are already
trying to develop this. And congress has few engineers to help in
the design process.
10) As an investor, I can only imagine how difficult this is going
to be. If I am microsoft, do I have to account for the cars that
ship my product, the airplane flights my employees take? Who
decides how much carbon gets allocated between the airline and
Microsoft?
Kap|3.21.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Somebody should assemble an array of compact fluorescent light
bulbs that uses the power equivalent of Gore's consumption, and
place it on the National Mall while he is testifying.
By my calculations, that would be about 2,000 of them.
Perhaps you could make a giant GORE sign, like the MOBY backdrop in
that video with Gwen Stefani.
That would excuse the pounding techno music.
Maybe you could have a ManBearPig dancing in front of it.
|3.21.07 @ 11:38AM|#
"Do LED lights give people headaches?"
Where are they at with these? I carry an LED flashlight (Inova X05)
and keychain light with me pretty much everywhere.
But I haven't seen much on lighting houses with them, other than
some experimental setups.
Also, how do they compare, efficiency-wise, to the fluorescents?
(I've replaced about half the bulbs in my new house with the
fluorescent bulbs.)
|3.21.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Dan W.: Actually Gore's #2 (pricing carbon) would take care of most of the rest of his suggestions. Higher energy prices would yield more efficient buildings, homes, lights, cars, fewer power plants, new energy technologies. Why the need for government micromanagement? After all, the US reduced its oil consumption by 13 percent during the 1970s "oil crisis". Of course, the economy was a bit slack in those days.
|3.21.07 @ 11:39AM|#
A portion of those revenues must be earmarked for lower
income groups to make this transition
How can you rule like a Medaeval tyrant if you kill off all the
peasants?
|3.21.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Al Gore's plan:
We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp
reductions to 90% by 2050. Freeze it right now.
Ok, Al... Stop breathing. Seriously, Al Gore has no idea of what he
is talking about - you cannot reduce 90% of emissions and yet
expect people to live confortably.
(2) I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce
taxes on production and employment and substitute pollution taxes.
We're discouraging work and encouraging the destruction of the
planet's habitability. We should discourage pollution while
encouraging work. Carbon pollution is not currently priced into the
marketplace. I internalize air and water and I think that the
economic system should too.
Oh, right. Al, you were a Congressman - do you REALLY think
Congress would simply kill the golden-egg-laying Goose to replace
it with "pollution" taxes? First, how would you MEASURE pollution,
by which standard? WHo would impose the standards, and how would
ANYONE know if these standards will not be changed by each Congress
out of expediency?
(3) A portion of those revenues must be earmarked for lower
income groups to make this transition
Wealth re-distribution . . . who would've thunk it?
(4)My formal proposal is to move forward the adoption of the
next treaty to 2010, not when Kyoto expires in 2012. We have to
work to get China and India in participate in some way, to make
them part of this effort.
"In some way", as in: The do not have a SINGLE incentive to follow
us down the cliff, so maybe a few threats would do . . .
(5) This Congress should enact a moratorium on all new coal
fired power plants not compatible with carbon capture and
sequestration.
Good. And while you're at it, how about a moratorium on gas-fired
powerplants? They emmit CO2, do not they? This would go along FINE
with the NUCLEAR power MORATORIUM already in place. We will have to
power our fridges with bicycle generators...
(6) This congress should develop a Electronet-a smart
grid.
Since when is Congress capable of developing anything?
Gore is being conceited here: Congress just passes laws. It is NOT
a technology incubator.
We ought to have a law, allow people to put up photovoltaic and
wind generation and sell electricity into grid without any
artificial caps.
You need a LAW for that?? How about just letting them? Oh, right -
it is UNeconomical, which means Gore is thinking of making it
MANDATORY, at bayonet point.
(7) Must raise CAFÉ standards for automobile and trucks. CAFÉ must
be part of a comprehensive package. Don't single out cars and
trucks. The problem is cars, coal and buildings, so must address
all three
I did not know Buildings zipped along highways, burning gas
along.
(8) Set a date for banning incandescent light bulbs.
Yep. The alternative is not that expensive YET, precisely because
of competition from incandescents. Once you BAN the competition,
prices will hit the roof, leaving poor people with the choice of
buying black-market lights, or go candlelight at nights...
(9) Carbon neutral mortgage association (Connie Mae) The idea is
that the market doesn't properly price energy saving technologies,
e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth, so government
should create some kind of financial instrument to pay for these
energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for
themselves.
Al Gore is an economics ignoramus. The market does not "price"
efficiency right? What, does he think he is omniscient?
Joe seems to like this idea. Wonder where HE gets the idea that Al
Gore is "spot on".
eb|3.21.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Did he mention anything about demanding the existing Kyoto
participants to actually meet the terms of Kyoto? If we sign Kyoto
can we also not actually follow it?
By China and India participating in some way, does he mean that
they watch, laugh and increase their dominance in production?
Was he speaking under fluorescent lighting? I assume our Democratic
congress has alread instituted that change or are holding hearings
with the Fluorescent Lighting committee to address that
issue.
Does anybody know where I can score some contraband incandescent
light bulbs. I am close to the border so maybe I'll make a run.
Timothy|3.21.07 @ 11:43AM|#
All things considered I see Gore's proposal like this:
2 and 6 actually sound pretty reasonable, as far as government
actions go. 2 basically proposes a pigouvian tax on pollution to
internalize the externalities into the market price of the
good/service produced. There are problems with that, but if it
comes with an in-kind reduction of corporate and personal income
taxes I think it's an okay idea. 6 is actually a great idea, but
local zoning laws are really the problem rather than anything
federally so maybe Congress isn't the place for the solution.
5, 7, 9 aren't truly awful ideas, but they're certainly not good
ideas either. 5 could work if there was an in-kind increase in
nuclear plant production, or maybe it could work in conjunction
with 6, but on its own all you'll do is hamstring power production.
7, well, if you're going to have emissions standards they should
apply to all vehicles, but how likely is that? Further, higher
efficiency just lowers gas prices and encourages more driving, so I
wonder if it'll have any net emissions effect. 9 is just more
government interference into an already buggered mortgage market,
neutral at best, probably slightly bad.
1, 3, 8 and 10 are just plain batshit loco crazy. Costly,
detrimental to the economy, or not the government's place. Totally
and utterly unconscionable as courses of action.
AdamSC|3.21.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Compact Fluorescent lightbulbs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
Modern CFLs typically have a life span specified between 8,000 and
15,000 hours.[1] Typical domestic incandescent bulbs are similarly
specified to have a life of 1000 hours.
CFLs use about 20% of the power, and so in the simplest case when
compared to incandescent bulbs, they can be responsible for about
an 80% reduction in electricity costs and therefore also in the
environmental impact of generating that electricity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4667354.stm
It has been estimated that if every household in the US replaced
just three of its incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving
designs and used them for five hours per day, it would reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide by 23 million tonnes, reduce
electricity demand by the equivalent of 11 coal-fired power
stations and save $1.8bn.
Kap|3.21.07 @ 11:43AM|#
LEDs are even more efficient than CF, but they are expensive,
and their color rendering index is abysmally bad. Like around 20 or
so (sunlight & halogen = 100, CF is in the 60s).
Although the light is "white" it produces extremely muted colors.
If you set up a grocery store with LEDs all the produce would look
spoiled, nobody would buy it.
|3.21.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Specific suggestions.
(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp
reductions to 90% by 2050. Freeze it right now.
Well good luck with that. (Maybe he could start with his
Gulfstream...and sell the credits to his carbon credit trading
company).
(2) I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on
production and employment and substitute pollution taxes. We're
discouraging work and encouraging the destruction of the planet's
habitability. We should discourage pollution while encouraging
work. Carbon pollution is not currently priced into the
marketplace. I internalize air and water and I think that the
economic system should too.
He does realize that production and employment are a big part
of what he is campaigning against!
(3) A portion of those revenues must be earmarked for lower income
groups to make this transition
Yeah, still need to keep the serfs on the TEAM!
(4) I'm in favor of a strong global treaty to limit greenhouse gas
emissions-I'm in favor of Kyoto-I fully understand as a brand it's
been demonized. I think we should work toward de facto compliance
with Kyoto. My formal proposal is to move forward the adoption of
the next treaty to 2010, not when Kyoto expires in 2012. We have to
work to get China and India in participate in some way, to make
them part of this effort.
Again good luck with that...!
(5) This Congress should enact a moratorium on all new coal fired
power plants not compatible with carbon capture and
sequestration.
See 1 and 5!
(6) This congress should develop a Electronet-a smart grid. We
ought to have a law, allow people to put up photovoltaic and wind
generation and sell electricity into grid without any artificial
caps.
Electronet, Electronet stop sticking net on the ends of words
you fucking moronnet!
(7) Must raise CAFÉ standards for automobile and trucks. CAFÉ must
be part of a comprehensive package. Don't single out cars and
trucks. The problem is cars, coal and buildings, so must address
all three
This is happening already without your help.
(8) Set a date for banning incandescent light bulbs.
...but without the stick. See item 7
(9) Carbon neutral mortgage association (Connie Mae) The idea is
that the market doesn't properly price energy saving technologies,
e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth, so government
should create some kind of financial instrument to pay for these
energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for
themselves.
Yeah, because Fannie and Freddie aren't fucked up
enough.
(10) The Securities and Exchange Commission ought to require
disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reports. Because it's a
material risk that companies face.
Al Gore is living proof that not attaining your main goal in
life will drive you insane! Please don't listen to the fat crazy
man!
Just letting you know.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Where are they at with these? I carry an LED flashlight
(Inova X05) and keychain light with me pretty much
everywhere.
They do have them as replacements for marker lights and turn
signals on cars now. Supposed to last so much longer. Odd thing, at
Auto Zone they are very expensive and at a truck stop they are in
the $9.00 or less range for what looks like the same brand.
I plan to use them for all future replacements on the Jeep and
Charger.
For the home, believe it or not, there is yet another Art Bell
connection between the AGW people and the ET people: ads for LED
lightbulb replacements!
|3.21.07 @ 11:45AM|#
What -- no mention of nuclear?
If he thinks we're going to reduce CO2 emissions and still maintain
our life-style without nuclear plants, he's more nuts than I
thought.
And by lifestyle, I don't mean driving the kids in an SUV 1/4 of a
mile down the road to McDonald's, I mean: generating electricity
for agriculture and hospitals.
|3.21.07 @ 11:45AM|#
RE: LED light bulbs
http://theledlight.com/120-VAC-LEDbulbs.html
From what I'm seeing on that page, its a no-go right now. The
highest powered one seems to have the equivalent power of a 35 watt
incandescent bulb.
|3.21.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Mediageek,
You replaced your light bulbs with flourescents? Wow. At work, I
brought in regular house lights for my office and turned off the
flourescents. My mood has improved immensely.
Ben|3.21.07 @ 11:46AM|#
anyway...yeah, what's the deal with lightbulbs?
I guess he's pushing compact fluorescent, but the people doing this
really need to start being more clear. If you want to replace the
light-bulb technology that's been in use, virtually unchanged for
the life-time of everyone now alive, you have to do a better job of
selling the new product. The savings of switching to CF probably
sound great to businesses, which already adopted fluorescent due to
cost, but people at home want to know that these put out as much
light and do so in a similarly wide spectrum. At least in my
experience, people pushing compact fluorescent point out only the
upside to switching without addressing the widely perceived
down-side (really shitty, depressing light).
According to
Wikipedia the light CF can produce is pretty similar, but I'm
not sure this is true and in what cases.
|3.21.07 @ 11:47AM|#
you cannot reduce 90% of emissions and yet expect people to
live confortably.
You cannot reduce emissions by 90% and still expect people to
live. There will have to be a serious drop in population
to pull of Gore's plan.
Does anybody know where I can score some contraband
incandescent light bulbs.
You might try China, India, or any other third world country. Life
in one of them might soon be better than it is here.
The only thing that might counter-balance Mr National Enquirer
Gore, is the fact that Americans are greedy SOBs and maybe, just
maybe, they won't be willing to give it all up.
|3.21.07 @ 11:47AM|#
I don't think I could stand fluorescent lights everywhere. It
would end up driving me into a killing rage.
Though I guess if it did that to everyone, we could kill the rest
of the planet, and that would limit carbon production.
Solutions!
|3.21.07 @ 11:50AM|#
yeah yeah yeah, the sky is falling, the economy will be
destroyed, we'll be freezing the dark, and if Congress mandates
seat belts there will be no American automobile industry by
1975.
chicken littles.
|3.21.07 @ 11:51AM|#
"I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce
taxes on production and employment and substitute pollution
taxes."
This will just result in taxes on production, employment, AND
pollution.
AdamSC|3.21.07 @ 11:51AM|#
I only use CFLs. I couldn't tell the difference at all when I
switched over. The light they produce is not at all what you'd
expect from a regular long-bulb fluorescent.
They also need to be replaced a hell of a lot less frequently. They
also are a lot less hot, you can touch them while they've been on
for awhile and they're only warm. My current setup has them shining
directly on my face, unfortunately, but I don't feel the heat I
would from incandescents.
I would definitely recommend them.
Chris|3.21.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Has Al Gore ever watched Mad Max, The Road Warrior, or Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? While Gore and his Green allies might wax nostalgic for the Stone Age, a world without "guzz-o-line" apparently would be Hell on Earth. If I had one suggestion for Gore, it would be "just walk away"--and take the religious 'apocolyptos' with you.
Kap|3.21.07 @ 11:52AM|#
I'm pretty much all-CF at home, the light quality depends heavily on what brand you get. The Sylvania ones (at Lowe's) are very good. Some of the others (lookin' at you, IKEA) are nasty.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Since when is Congress capable of developing anything? Gore
is being conceited here: Congress just passes laws. It is NOT a
technology incubator.
Didn't they create the internet under his leadership?
dhex|3.21.07 @ 11:52AM|#
thank you for the link adam.
"You forgot to add [/seinfeld]."
the best thing about michael richard's meltdown is that people are
far more wary of saying "oh man seinfeld is SOOOOO funny."
sure, it'd be better if it were on the grounds of good taste, but
whatevs.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 11:54AM|#
I only use compact fluorescent bulbs at home as well. Pictures
on my digital camera look weird sometimes, but that's what the
flash is for. (At least for us inexperienced amateurs who just want
a picture now and then.) Otherwise I don't notice the difference.
They rarely burn out, they don't heat up, and they keep the
electric bill low. I don't see why the hate for CFLs.
*Of course I don't think they should be mandatory blah blah.
(Sorry, Eric.)
|3.21.07 @ 11:54AM|#
if Congress mandates seat belts there will be no American
automobile industry by 1975.
Yes, God knows that the American auto industry is just posting such
great profits that this is really funny...
oh wait...
|3.21.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Ok, Al... Stop breathing. Seriously, Al Gore has no idea of
what he is talking about - you cannot reduce 90% of emissions and
yet expect people to live confortably.
You couldn't and I couldn't, but Al certainly could--quite easily.
All he'd have to do would be to reduce his enormous personal
electrical energy consumption from its current 10 times that of the
average American down to just average.
Now, for the rest of us going from the American average to 10% of
that would be a lot tougher, but hey, Al is perfectly willing for
everyone else to make the necessary sacrifices.
|3.21.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Check out the lifetime costs incandescent/CFL/LED lights here. Click on the link on the Light Bulb Comparison Spreadsheet. Apparently, LEDs win hands down for lifetime cost. Treehugger says that there is now a 9W LED that replaces a 70W incandescent now available.
|3.21.07 @ 11:57AM|#
and if Congress mandates seat belts there will be no
American automobile industry by 1975.
There's only a very tine difference between mandating seat belts,
and mandating a 90% reduction in total energy consumption.
The difference is that a nuclear power plant only costs FOURTY NINE
CENTS more than a seat belt.
So you're right joe, these are just a bunch of chicken
littles.
btw, are you expecting a cabinet post in Gore's monarchy?
|3.21.07 @ 11:59AM|#
(11) No more tasers on detainees. Use energy efficient
mechanical thumbscrews instead.
(12) Buy 2015, all guitars sold in the US should be
accoustic.
(13) Declare a moratorium on the amount of third world development
we're prepared to accept. New Guinea should be allowed to reach a
Malaysia style of propserity, but no further. Malaysia can get to
South Korea. South Korea can get to Holland. Holland can upgrade
it's plumbing, and that's about it.
|3.21.07 @ 11:59AM|#
I only use CFLs. I couldn't tell the difference at all when
I switched over. The light they produce is not at all what you'd
expect from a regular long-bulb fluorescent.
I ALSO use CFL on my home, exclusively. However, it is immoral AND
unethical to BAN incandescent lights, which are still useful in
many applications around the home. What Al Gore is implying is that
government restrict people's choices ONCE more, as if people were
stupid children that need someone to lead them. What a
CONCEIT!
At least in my experience, people pushing compact fluorescent
point out only the upside to switching without addressing the
widely perceived down-side (really shitty, depressing
light).
Depends on the light. There are some lights (a bit more expensive)
that give a good, warm color, and the less expensive ones that
deliver this blue-tinted, cool light, which IS depressing. However,
it should be left to the consumer to make the decision - I am all
for the idea of selling the idea of using CFL to save
money/reduce emissions, and letting the buyer decide with his/her
wallet. But BANNING the incandescent lights is nothing more that
immoral oppression from a conceited politician - we would have a
choice taken from us.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Thanks for the data, Ron.
To everyone else: I thought we were supposed to be enthusiasts for
the power of technological improvements to solve environmental
problems. So why all the hate for CFL bulbs?
|3.21.07 @ 12:02PM|#
My favorite of the Algore bullet points:
* We must go and tell the King the sky is falling down.
|3.21.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Ron,
Light bulb efficiency, by any rational measure, has always been
extremely low.
Justifying the cost isn't the problem. Getting the CRI into a
reasonable range is.
The human eye is tuned to work -- of all things -- in the presence
of sunlight. The color distribution of sunlight is determined by
the temperature of the sun.
It's been hard to produce light with a wavelength distribution
similar to the sun, and yet not have a source with the same
temperature as the sun.
It's just plain old physics, black body radiation.
|3.21.07 @ 12:02PM|#
thoreau, well Canadian Football sucks, but as to the bulbs, there is just the lack of info out there as to whether or not they drive people to kill like regular long fluorescents do.
VM|3.21.07 @ 12:03PM|#
DrT: what about then, then. Old tyme Physics. Eddie Shore. All
that.
[runs off]
Mike Kozlowski|3.21.07 @ 12:03PM|#
...Thank you, Environmental Commissar Gore. When he lives his life 100% within his rules, I'll take a good hard look at what he's asking. Until then, all I see is yet another attempt of The Right People to tell us how to live our lives while they do something very different.
|3.21.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Has anyone seen those fiberoptics cable things that bring sunlight inside? Those are cool.
Kap|3.21.07 @ 12:04PM|#
I have no hate for CF bulbs, only hate for people who shove them
down my throat.
As a committed strange-lightbulb-fetishist, they can have my
1/2-chrome G30s when the pry them from by singed, dead hands.
|3.21.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Fools! The Gore creature knows nothing about solving these types
of problems! The methods he proposes led to the destruction of
Krypton! Also populated by fools! My solution is both elegant and
simple:
1) Kill off five billion people and stop all unregulated breeding
(other than Zod clones).
Don't be a fool--vote Zod!
Dave W.|3.21.07 @ 12:06PM|#
So why all the hate for CFL bulbs?
The quality of the light is crappy. The white ones are okay to work
by and nice in the washroom, but not very romantic or aesthetically
pleasing in a "homey" room. The yellow ones make light that makes
everything look just plain crappy and depressing.
That said, I have mixed feelings about the proposed ban. Sacrifice
may be required on my part. If I had to pay carbon offsets to keep
my incandescents, I would
|3.21.07 @ 12:06PM|#
thoreau,
If you've got the cash to buy good flourescent bulbs, you can get
ones with a decent CRI these days. I switched to these in many
parts of my house a long time ago. I expect other bulb types will
follow over time.
I suspect the beef is a) the fact that historically these alternate
bulbs haven't produced as nice a light and b) the government
mandate thing.
|3.21.07 @ 12:06PM|#
thoreau and Gamito,
Kap says Sylvania; what brands do you guys recommend for compact
flourescents?
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 12:09PM|#
mitch-
Not being the most aesthetically oriented person I just buy
whatever is cheapest.
|3.21.07 @ 12:10PM|#
"Mediageek,
You replaced your light bulbs with flourescents? Wow. At work, I
brought in regular house lights for my office and turned off the
flourescents. My mood has improved immensely."
Replaced them with the compact fluorescents, actually. Bought a
couple packs of them. Didn't pay close attention, and one of the
packs gives off that ugly bluish-hued light that fluorescents are
so well-known for. I put those in the basement. The rest of them
give off a warmer hue of light. (They actually mark this on the
packaging.) Not quite as good as an incandescent, but close. The
biggest downside that I've noticed is that the CF lamps don't
immediately light up. There's a very short delay between throwing
the light switch and getting light, around .25-.5 of a second.
Also, the CF's seem to take about 10-20 seconds to reach peak
output.
Joe will be happy to know that I bought a house in the city, not
out in the 'burbs.
But I'm still driving my V8 TBird, so nyah.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 12:11PM|#
I have big FLs in the kitchen and they have been on almost 24/7
for about 2 years. Both televisions are on 24/7 also. Incandescents
everyplace else, but I turn them off when nobody is in the room.
The heat pump is at 70 in the winter, 65 in the summer.
Since I don't use carbon power I am as Holy as Al Gore. The powere
company may be using coal or something, but I am not! They could be
using nuclear, so it is not my problem. I am just as earth friendly
as the electric car drivers.
As far as my vehicles go, I hardly ever drive them. I go weeks
without starting either one. But LEDs will be going into them
wherever I can install them.
So, Al, send me a check. My electric bill is a lot lower than yours
too and I have some carbon credits for you.
|3.21.07 @ 12:12PM|#
It seems people either believe that global warming exists or it doesn't, and then there are two subset camps; it is largely caused by human activites, or it is not. I am in the very limited camp that hopes global warming is a reality, AND, I hope I am playing my part in its continued growth.
|3.21.07 @ 12:14PM|#
I only use CFLs. I couldn't tell the difference at all when
I switched over. The light they produce is not at all what you'd
expect from a regular long-bulb fluorescent.
Same here. I didn't notice much of a difference.
The real issue with Compact Fluorescent is what to do with them
when they eventually do burn out. Apparently they have a lot of
mercury in them and need to be disposed of by either being brought
back to stores that recycle them or taking them to some government
disposal facility. They aren't supposed to be thrown out in the
trash.
That to me seems like the biggest drawback and a big risk -- I
imagine most people are gonna just trash them.
I had read a few months ago that Wal-Mart was going to start really
pushing CFLs -- to the point that they were going to set up tons of
displays and move them off the bottom shelf to the eye level
shelves and set up a recycling facility. Dunno how thats going
though
|3.21.07 @ 12:16PM|#
If they want people to recycle CFLs, and potentially forestall govt regulation, they might want to give a rebate for bringing them to the recycling center.
|3.21.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Guy, it's the 4.6 liter motor. Pretty much factory stock. I'm not much of a car guy.
|3.21.07 @ 12:21PM|#
The Securities and Exchange Commission ought to require
disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reports. Because it's a
material risk that companies face.
I don't get it. What is the material risk to financial performance
involved in carbon emission?
Unless of course he is talking about his fantasy future where the
government punishes carbon emitters.
|3.21.07 @ 12:23PM|#
One downside, though.
I installed a new light fixture to illuminate the stairs into the
basement.
Yanked out the old one that takes one incandescent bulb, and
replaced it with another that takes 3 of the CF's.
So I replaced one 60W incandescent with three CF's that each use
probably 18W each for a total of 54W.
So in the case of that particular fixture, I'm not really saving
that much energy. (Increased efficiency almost always leads to
more, not less, power consumption.)
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Apparently they have a lot of mercury in them and need to be
disposed of by either being brought back to stores that recycle
them or taking them to some government disposal
facility.
You could go fishing with them.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 12:34PM|#
mediageek,
Probably a decent motor, but I am not a Ford guy. Still .6L bigger
than my Jeep motor and .6L smaller than the hybrid Charger motor
:)
|3.21.07 @ 12:43PM|#
"(9) Carbon neutral mortgage association (Connie Mae) The
idea is that the market doesn't properly price energy saving
technologies, e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth,
so government should create some kind of financial instrument to
pay for these energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for
themselves."
So according to Al Gore, we're a bunch of retards.
...Is there some other way to interpret that?
|3.21.07 @ 12:45PM|#
--"Do LED lights give people headaches?"
Where are they at with these? I carry an LED flashlight (Inova X05)
and keychain light with me pretty much everywhere.
But I haven't seen much on lighting houses with them, other than
some experimental setups.--
I know that for lighting marine aquariums, they are the cat's
meow.
Equivalent in intensity to MH, but without nearly as much heat. And
you can keep pretty much any type of coral or anenome you like. But
they're pricey.
http://www.jlaquatics.com/phpstore/store_pages/tlist/ledlighting/ledlighting.php?category_ID=144
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Okay, I am finished joking and picking now. Well, the car and
house stuff was neither, but anyway . . .
For any of you mistaken about what former VP Gore was doign today,
he was NOT proposing an new way forward for saving the planet. He
was kicking off a presidential campaign.
|3.21.07 @ 12:49PM|#
If individuals reduce their power usage, but the US population continues to grow, doesn't total consumption remain about the same? Or is there some plan to reduce family size?
|3.21.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Would people please wake up and read the science.
The CO2 factor would not even be worth mention; if it were not for
the fact that the greenies cannot find anything else they could
(falsely) link to human success and development.
CO2 IS NOT a major greenhouse gas. It is a trace element and is
responsible for about 0 .28% of the theoretical greenhouse effect.
The total of all "manmade" CO2 therefore accounts for approximately
0.117% of the greenhouse effect. Also worth noting is that the
total greenhouse effect, by most accounts, is responsible for less
than half of any perceived climate change. We could shut down the
entire economy of the U.S. and have absolutely no measurable effect
on climate. Easy to read numbers and graphs here
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.
|3.21.07 @ 12:54PM|#
I remember the debate about whether Kerry would have been
worse--glad that's over.
...but I think we should consider whether Gore would have been
worse. I mean, what's worse? President Bush making a mess of our
security policy, both foreign and domestic, or a President Gore
making a mess of our economy?
I say a pox on both their houses!
|3.21.07 @ 12:59PM|#
For any of you mistaken about what former VP Gore was doign
today, he was NOT proposing an new way forward for saving the
planet. He was kicking off a presidential campaign.
I was hoping that was the case. Because if it is, his one-issue
party plank is likely going down in flames.
Somewhere between now and November 2008, it will occur to everybody
except joe, that maybe there's more to life than The Carbon
Inquisition.
I think, Grand Inquisitor Gore is unlikely to walk away with the
big prize.
fyodor|3.21.07 @ 1:00PM|#
So according to Al Gore, we're a bunch of retards.
...Is there some other way to interpret that?
Oh, we're not retards. We're just average and bureucrats are
geniuses.
Ha-ha.
Actually, this is the kind of centralized tinkering with the
marketplace (and with others' lives) that gets the likes of joe
into mouth watering mode, witness his singling that point out for
hearty endorsement.
|3.21.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Didn't he leave out the step where we're supposed to sacrifice a virgin to Gaia during the vernal equinox to gain the climate gods favor and avert the Apocalypse?
|3.21.07 @ 1:02PM|#
but I think we should consider whether Gore would have been
worse. I mean, what's worse? President Bush making a mess of our
security policy, both foreign and domestic, or a President Gore
making a mess of our economy?
I thought I was the only one who asked those kinds of
questions.
I humbly submit that Iraq is cheaper in the long run than The Great
Carbon Inquisition. I am absolutely unconvinced that fewer people
would have died in the long run with The Carbon Inquisition. Just
the opposite.
|3.21.07 @ 1:07PM|#
But if Gore wins, does that mean we'll all have to face Tennessee at noon each day, kneel down on our mats and pay homage?
|3.21.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Father forgive me, for I cooked my dinner last night.....with the f'ing lights on!
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 1:09PM|#
If Gore were president we would be having a dialogue with the
terrorists, just like the India and China dialogue he wants for
AGW.
The inquisition on people not saving energy would be bigger than
the one that happened with everybody who ever saw Timothy McVay in
the months and years after his capture.
Oh, and don't forget that every FBI record on every political
opponent would be in the West Wing on the desk of a staffer.
|3.21.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Guy,
Has it occurred to you, that you could get filthy rich selling
indulgences??!!!
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Has it occurred to you, that you could get filthy rich
selling indulgences??!!!
Yes, but I keep trying to sell the Montag Carbon Credit Cards in
the wrong places. I need to find where those guys from The
Nation hang out. The Reasonids just ain't buyin'.
|3.21.07 @ 1:23PM|#
"I mean, what's worse? President Bush making a mess of our
security policy, both foreign and domestic, or a President Gore
making a mess of our economy?"
...and notice that although their messages are different, in a very
basic way, they're the same.
It's all about fear mongering.
|3.21.07 @ 1:25PM|#
My new #2
2)I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on
production and employment...We're discouraging work...We
should...encourage work. Carbon pollution is not currently priced
into the marketplace.
Now it's fixed
|3.21.07 @ 1:25PM|#
The Reasonids just ain't buyin'.
Have you talked to Al Gore about this? He could bank roll your
start up.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Have you talked to Al Gore about this? He could bank roll
your start up.
Not yet, but the next time he is over for pizza and ribs I will ask
him :)
|3.21.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Pizza and ribs. I see. Well, that explains Gore's
weight gain.
Now that I think about it, Gore should go on a Gandhiesque hunger
strike to motivate us to curb our proliferate ways.
|3.21.07 @ 1:40PM|#
To everyone else: I thought we were supposed to be enthusiasts for the power of technological improvements to solve environmental problems. So why all the hate for CFL bulbs
Man, what? Gore rambles on about command-economy stuff (arbitrary
price-setting for "externalities" and magically making unfeasibly
expensive technology cheap) and you just try to mock the
libertarian in your head disliking CFL?
|3.21.07 @ 1:41PM|#
ALberta,
You might want to broaden your reading to include more perspectives
on the issue.
I find this place a nice place to start.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/
|3.21.07 @ 1:44PM|#
"The Reasonids just ain't buyin'.":
Why buy the bullshit when you can just buy a bull?
The joke, Guy, has gotten, ummmmm, old. Really. We all get it. No
need to repeat it. You are a clever wit. Now move on.
|3.21.07 @ 1:46PM|#
The good meats with all the transfats give more calories per
ounce. You could cook less and fill the same caloric need. By
cooking less you are more green. therefore---transfats are
good.
Does cooking oil with transfats provide more energy(cetane) for
alternate fuels vehicles?
|3.21.07 @ 1:51PM|#
So let me get this straight: a whole bunch of you read Gore's
first point as calling for an immediate 90% reduction in carbon
emissions, and you didn't bat an eye.
You were told (as you understood it) that the former Vice President
of the United States was calling for an immediate - immediate -
reduction in greenhouse gas output by an entire order of magnitude,
and that didn't send off any alarm bells?
I'm going to throw this out - do you think that maybe your
perception of environmentalists in general, and Al Gore in
particular, is maybe a little bit warped?
|3.21.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Pizza and ribs. I see. Well, that explains Gore's weight
gain.
He's just doing his part by sequestering carbon in his own body
fat.
|3.21.07 @ 2:01PM|#
From the AP: Al Gore, a Democratic favorite for the
presidency despite pronouncements that he's not running, spoke out
on his signature issue Wednesday, warning of a "true planetary
emergency"
As someone who thinks the human population is contributing to (but
not solely responsible for) global warming, I cringe every time Al
"chicken little" Gore opens his mouth.
|3.21.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Matt, do not neglect to consider methane's contribution to global warming. Looking at Al and Tipper, I get the suspicion that Saturday night at the Gore manse may be a version of the campfire scene in "Blazing Saddles."
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 2:12PM|#
As someone who thinks the human population is contributing
to (but not solely responsible for) global warming, I cringe every
time Al "chicken little" Gore opens his mouth.
It makes me support the draft Al campaign!
|3.21.07 @ 2:15PM|#
So let me get this straight: a whole bunch of you read
Gore's first point as calling for an immediate 90% reduction in
carbon emissions, and you didn't bat an eye.
?
I've read every comment on the thread. I searched for every
instance of '90%'. Where did you get the impression that anyone
thought the 90% reduction was immediate?
|3.21.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Joe, I originally misread the statement as "reducing it to 90%
of current emissions." In other words a 10% cut, which, under the
circumstances isn't terribly unreasonable.
A 90% cut, on the other hand, is, without some serious
technological changes, nutsoid.
|3.21.07 @ 2:24PM|#
It makes me support the draft Al campaign!
Well Guy, I don't fully understand your comment.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, humanity has
pumped hundreds of millions of tons of chemicals into the
atmosphere. Since we have a closed system, it is impossible that
there would be no effect.
It is of course way far from settled whether that effect is larger
than normal variations in earth's atmospheric condition; whether
that effect is permanent or temporary; whether the total effect of
human development will push the atmophere out of equilibrium.
It is also far from settled what the overall consequences of global
warming will be.
Anyone that asserts that we are on the brink of utter disaster is
totally irresponsible.
|3.21.07 @ 2:27PM|#
I originally read it as a cut to 90% of current emissions too, which isn't terribly unreasonable. A cut of 90% really is nuts unless there are some huge technological advances, or serious regressions, to say pre-Industrial Revolution living.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Well Guy, I don't fully understand your comment.
From your first paragraph, I did not think that I would be bright
enough to explain it to you. But the rest sounded pretty good, so
here goes.
Albert Gore, Jr. sounds like a raving lunatic to those who are not
his fellow Plutonians. Having him as the candidate for his party,
which I like better than some but less than two others, helps the
ones I like win.
|3.21.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other
warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avert a crisis.
So joe, the crazy libertarians here actually did understand what
Gore said -- cut existing emissison by 90% in just over 40
years.
This statement clearly indicates that Gore is both crazy and
dangerous.
|3.21.07 @ 2:34PM|#
I'm going to throw this out - do you think that maybe your
perception of environmentalists in general, and Al Gore in
particular, is maybe a little bit warped?
If I were called up before Congress and said, "I propose we allow
the warming of the earth by 5-8°F by 2100, and it won't cost us a
thing: In fact, the global GDP per person will be 60% higher than
if we restructure society to worry about such warming," I would be
called a nutter and accused of suggesting something with possible
catastrophic consequences.
But Al Gore gets up before Congress and says, "I propose we
decrease the nation's carbon emissions by 90% by 2050," and no one
bats an eye.
At least I have in my hand an IPCC report that says the results of
such global warming are not likely to be catastrophic. All Gore has
are dreams of conservation and undiscovered magical
technologies.
Which of our suggestions is more likely to cause a catastrophe?
Which of us has more theoretical and empirical support for his
position?
|3.21.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Albert Gore, Jr. sounds like a raving lunatic to those who
are not his fellow Plutonians. Having him as the candidate for his
party, which I like better than some but less than two others,
helps the ones I like win.
That's what I guessed you were trying to say, but I wasn't really
sure given the brevity of your previous post.
|3.21.07 @ 2:38PM|#
I, Zod, neglected to inform you, the citizens of Planet Houston,
that I shall also ban all Kryptonite lights. So, in his puny way,
the Gore creature anticipated this new ruling. Therefore, he shall
die only one painful death.
Zod is merciful.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Gore forgot to mention killer bees too. He is in the pocket of big malaria.
|3.21.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Mike P,
I refer you to Gamito at 11:40 and barnary at 11:57.
mediageek, Matt L,
Of COURSE a 90% reduction in emissions without serious
technological reductions, phased in over a long period, is nutsoid.
No reasonable person would call for any such thing, and yet people
have such deluded ideas about this issue that they didn't for a
second find it odd to be told that Al Gore was doing so.
|3.21.07 @ 2:48PM|#
That's it, people. You've have your answer.
To Guy Montag, Gore's proposals sound unreasonable.
Make of that what you will.
|3.21.07 @ 2:51PM|#
No joe, we have Gore's actual words and he is
unreasonable.
Either tell us you agree with Al that the US can cut its greenhouse
gas emissions by 90% in 40 years or shut the fuck up.
|3.21.07 @ 2:54PM|#
I didn't read all the upthread comments but:
CFL's aren't so great becuase they have more than a little mercury
in them. NPR had to do an interesting retraction on an enviro
suggestion piece based on this feature.
My read: It is a mixed bag, a compromise on some of it should be
possible. He was shrill.
|3.21.07 @ 2:55PM|#
I refer you to Gamito at 11:40 and barnary at
11:57.
Neither of those says anything that implies that the author thinks
the 90% is immediate. Both comments make perfect sense given the
understanding that the 90% is to be phased in over forty
years.
If I say that a 90% reduction by 2050 is, by all current evidence,
impossible without fantastically reduced economic output, and that
Gore is effectively crazy to say that it's required, am I
too going to be accused of misreading the 90% reduction as
immediate?
|3.21.07 @ 3:00PM|#
What about number 11 it seemed to be omitted.
11. Never allow overweight blowhard jackass former or current
politicians to fly on private jets that produce more CO2 on one leg
than I will in a lifetime. Or Hollywood movie stars.
Remember folks this is the same piece of shit Al Gore that wrote a
book on Deforestation and had it printed on NEW paper! How many
times does someone have to point out a Hypocrits faults and
backward ass mentality before people ignore them? Al must be
working on a new world record for bull shitting the country.
I liked it better when if was just his wife trying to take my music
away. Ah good times.
|3.21.07 @ 3:07PM|#
carrick,
"No one knows and no one can wholely accurately predict what sort
of rise in temperature we will see over the next fifty to hundred
years. Indeed, that seems to be the primary argument amongst
climate scientists these days."
1. I agree that the US can cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 90%
in 40 years.
2. You are ill-mannered cad who can't help but lapse into profanity
when you are being beaten in an argument. Also, your Mom gives good
head when she takes her dentures out.
|3.21.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Oops, carrick the cad's quote was "Either tell us you agree with Al that the US can cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in 40 years or shut the fuck up."
|3.21.07 @ 3:15PM|#
I agree that the US can cut its greenhouse gas emissions by
90% in 40 years.
Then you are as crazy and dangerous as Al is.
|3.21.07 @ 3:16PM|#
I was going to comment about the possibility of having to put CF
headlights in my car, but I guess the car will be banned first. I
had a CF bulb burn out once, and the base became extremely hot, and
oozed some kind of black goo. That was a pretty early version,
though, so maybe that type of failure is no longer an issue.
Aside from greenhouse gasses, has anyone ever studied the amount of
heat we actually put out? Any energy conversion gives off waste
heat due to inefficiency, from good ol' lightbulbs to tiny amounts
of heat generated by friction of air moving over wind turbine
blades. I imagine it's pretty miniscule compared to solar input,
but I'm curious. Hell, I'm not even sure I know how to estimate
it.
|3.21.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Also, your Mom gives good head when she takes her dentures
out.
My mother has all of her teeth, so you must have mistaken your
sister for her last night.
|3.21.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Al Gore is just in the pocket of big-carbon-trading...
http://www.noco2.com.au/
Seriously. This is a for profit company working on carbon
reductions. Check it out you whiners.
Stop complaining and start making money.
|3.21.07 @ 3:23PM|#
I liked it better when if was just his wife trying to take
my music away. Ah good times.
It was a simpler time. CF light bulbs were a wild and crazy future
technology. Al's "internet" invention was little more than a crude
system connecting some universities. Life was good.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 4:00PM|#
The
best reaction to "Connie Mae" is by corbettw over on
/.:
Did I read that right? Did the Goreacle really call for something called "Connie Mae" to handle "carbon offsets"? How the hell did he come up with that name?
Goreacle: Now, we have to have a name to sell this con.
Goreacle's aide: What if we called it something like Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae?
Goreacle: That's perfect! We'll call it "Connie Mae"! We'll tell people it's like mortgages, but for carbon. Then when people point out it's just a shell game, we'll be all like "Ooh, you don't like homeowners!" It can't fail! Quick, to the Goreplane! We have to tell Congress about this great invention.
Cue "Batman" theme music.
|3.21.07 @ 4:20PM|#
All AL GORE needs now is a temple so all the eco-wackos can go and worship him and his rediclous new age religion which is just the reworking of pagan new age religions AL GORE WORSHIPS AT THE TEMPLE OF GAIA
Mike Laursen|3.21.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Ronald, I think you must have accidentally left out the part of his testimony where he recommended building more nuclear power plants. He did recommend building more nuclear power plants, didn't he?
Mike Laursen|3.21.07 @ 4:41PM|#
I don't think I could stand fluorescent lights everywhere.
It would end up driving me into a killing rage.
Besides compact flurorescents, there is also a new generation of
fluorescent tubes with electronic ballasts (T5 and T8). They don't
flicker or hum like the old T12s, and are more energy
efficient.
Mike Laursen|3.21.07 @ 4:44PM|#
You need a LAW for that?? How about just letting
them?
In states where the utilities are publicly or semi-publicly owned,
you do need to pass a law to enable selling power back to the grid.
Not saying that it's a good thing, but it's the political
reality.
|3.21.07 @ 4:54PM|#
To everyone else: I thought we were supposed to be
enthusiasts for the power of technological improvements to solve
environmental problems. So why all the hate for CFL
bulbs?
Wait a second, Thoreau - indicating the IMMORALITY of a ban on
incandescent lights is NOT the same as hating CFL bulbs.
|3.21.07 @ 5:00PM|#
(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin
sharp reductions [...] by 90% by 2050. [In other words, emit
only 10% of CO2 that we emit today--sorry for any
confusion.] Freeze it right now.
Huh, what was the confusion? In clearly says that the escapee from
bedlam [a.k.a. Al Gore] wants the US to reduce its carbon emission
to a level which is only 10% of right now, or a 90% reduction.
That's absurd.
|3.21.07 @ 5:02PM|#
what brands do you guys recommend for compact
flourescents?
GE makes good lights. I bought some made by IKEA, at one of their
stores (I live in Houston), and they work all right - good color,
and not very expensive.
|3.21.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Seriously, joe, WTF???
If you want to argue, argue.
But, please stop making "your mother" posts. they are cheap and
disgusting.
You really, really need to stop taking attacks on your political
idols as personal insults. They're not. Some of us think your
heroes are despicable people, get fucking used to it. We take
insults from your kind all the time.
|3.21.07 @ 5:32PM|#
The idea is that the market doesn't properly price energy
saving technologies, e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so
forth
Why not? Is he saying that energy is underpriced now? If so,
underpriced compared to what? Is he claiming a market failure that
depresses energy costs?
so government should create some kind of financial instrument
to pay for these energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay
for themselves.
And how will that happen? Where will the money come from to pay off
these financial instruments?
|3.21.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Must raise CAFÉ standards for automobile and
trucks.
The price in blood of higher CAFE standards is well known. So right
there, he has to weigh whatever eco-benefits this will create
against lost lives and limbs.
|3.21.07 @ 5:56PM|#
Isaac,
"You really, really need to stop taking attacks on your political
idols as personal insults." Telling me to "shut the fuck up" is not
an attack on my "political idols." It is a personal insult, and a
vulgar one at that.
I don't take kindly to people who swear at and insult me, and tend
to respond in kind, with an appropriate level of interest. No, I
will not unilaterally turn the other cheek when people hurl abuse
at me. Deal with it.
|3.21.07 @ 6:05PM|#
As a long-term poster, I can say that joe's only insulted me a couple of times (and mild insults, at that), even though we agree only about 27.215% of the time. I've seen him fly off the handle, I'll admit, but he's not that bad for someone who thinks we're all batshit insane :) I think he tends to lose his temper the worst when we gang up on him. Which happens occasionally, since we're all right and everything.
|3.21.07 @ 6:52PM|#
In the 1960's overpopulation and mass starvation decimated the earth. In the 70's global cooling ushered in a new ice age burying the northern hemisphere under glaciers. In the 80's acid rain killed our rivers, lakes and forests, no tree or fish was spared. In that same decade hiv/aids jumped to the heterosexual population, killing most. Since the 90's global warming roasted the few hardy souls remaining, leaving not a soul to be ravaged by bird flu. If only the government had done something before it was too late.
|3.21.07 @ 6:57PM|#
"My mother has all of her teeth, so you must have mistaken your
sister for her last night."
Good one.
But seriously, she must not have told you about the bed rail
incident. I'm not surprised; not a pround moment.
;-)
|3.21.07 @ 7:00PM|#
"In the 1960's overpopulation and mass starvation decimated the
earth." A theory never backed up by evidence, and never accepted by
a majority of the people in the field.
"In the 70's global cooling ushered in a new ice age burying the
northern hemisphere under glaciers." A theory never backed up by
evidence, and never accepted by any more than a fraction of the
people in the field.
"In the 80's acid rain killed our rivers, lakes and forests, no
tree or fish was spared." A documented problem, successfully
addressed at very little cost through public policy. Let's hope our
efforts are so successful with global warming.
"In that same decade hiv/aids jumped to the heterosexual
population, killing most." A documented problem, the worst effects
successfully addressed through a combination of public policy and
private efforts.
|3.21.07 @ 10:37PM|#
Just one thing: the entire North American continent is a net
carbon sink. In other words, we absorb much more carbon than we
produce. Gore is a scientific fraud, a schill for what he really
wants: Big Socialism.
The US is a Carbon Sink:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5388/442
|3.21.07 @ 11:07PM|#
One last comment for joe.
I think you are generally a weasel and not worth talking to. I try
to avoid responding to you because you just frustrate me to the
point of issuing profanities. If you don't like that you can go
fuck yourself. If you don't like that comment, you can tell me to
do the same. However your penchant for invoking mothers and sexual
activities is a descent to the worst aspects of junior high.
|3.22.07 @ 12:28AM|#
Damn, I hate flourescent light bulbs. Gives me headaches. And wasn't there a time when people were discussing other health issues related to flourescents? What about the health costs there?
|3.22.07 @ 3:33AM|#
Well I had to go to work today and fell off the thread. Then I
got back and somebody told me about this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070321/cm_ucac/thecomingassage;_ylt=AkfAGZseHaSy0l3ILDO.5EX9wxIF
I swear my posts were up before this article hit the net. I mean I
made it up about the Inquisition, seemed funny and that's
all.
So I'm not the only one who's called it an Inquisition.
We all grew up with GI Joe dolls. Our grand kids will grow up with
GIG dolls. Grand Inquisitor Gore -- hero or villan? The next
election will tell.
Get the GIG Action Pig (bio-degradable of course) at stores near
you.
Guy Montag|3.22.07 @ 6:52AM|#
We all grew up with GI Joe dolls.
Action figures!
Oh, and I only had the solid plastic Army figures and Major Matt
Mason.
Guy Montag|3.22.07 @ 7:01AM|#
And wasn't there a time when people were discussing other
health issues related to flourescents? What about the health costs
there?
We all must make sacrafices to save the planet. Or buy some carbon
credits.
Guy Montag|3.22.07 @ 7:04AM|#
In the 80's acid rain killed our rivers, lakes and forests,
no tree or fish was spared.
LOL, anybody who "backs that up" is a freaking lying lunatic and
you beat me to the punch on that whole list :)
MJ|3.22.07 @ 8:11AM|#
"(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. ...Freeze
it right now."
Immediately? How? That's the question left unanswered. How would
Gore propose the US do that? Presumably, this would be by some kind
of government mandate. From where would the government derive the
authority to do that? Perhaps, more importantly, where would the
goverment get the practical ability to effectively monitor and
enforce such a mandate?
I cannot help but get the impression that this constitutes magical
thinking on Gore's part, Congress makes a law and it shall be so.
Or he's simply dishonest and realizes that any such action would be
purely symbolic.
|3.22.07 @ 9:34AM|#
Or, he's simply honest and really does intend to rule over peasants living in dirt huts.
|3.22.07 @ 10:13AM|#
"Will - just wait for rob to show up!" - VM
Ouch! Thanks for the invite, but no thanks...
|3.23.07 @ 7:37AM|#
Interesting. In the thread above, I ask specific and rather
basic questions about 2 or 3 of Gore's proposals. There seem to be
no answers to these questions.
Even from the "We must do something. This is something. Therefore,
we must do it" crowd.
|3.23.07 @ 10:32AM|#
RC - You didn't actually expect those answers, I'm sure.
VM - No worries, man. (In other non-news, I'm trying to limit my
rhetorical beat-downs of joe to one a week. It's just a bad habit,
like smoking cigars...)
Guy Montag|3.25.07 @ 7:18AM|#
RCD,
It seems the objective of the Gorites is to starve brown people,
but share the suffering with some rich people (who can never be
brown, of course). Some rich people "suffering", like that of the
Gore klan is in paying off enviro-sins with cash. For the rest it
is freezing in the dark as the jack-bootied envirocops check every
home for counter-revolutionary carbon.
E85 starves brown people and produces more greenhouse gasses than
C8H18, but it is done with love and compassion.
Is there a new ribbon or wristband color for envirofreaks?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245