U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2009, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,247,357 times
Reputation: 948

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
We are already down to minimum energy consumption so cutting more will take a lot of effort. Not likely to happen.
We are no where near minimum energy consumption. If you compare our consumption patterns to those of western Europe where people also live comfortable lives, you'll find that we consume 2 to 4 times as much energy on a per capita basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2009, 09:47 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,118,431 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
We are already down to minimum energy consumption so cutting more will take a lot of effort. Not likely to happen.
We're not down to minimum energy consumption (unless you're referring to yourself and your family).

Look at how many people - with nobody else in their vehicle - go thundering down the Interstate in giant SUVs and 4x4 trucks? Instead of driving a $50,000 vehicle that gets 15 mpg, they could be driving a $30,000 VW TDI Jetta that gets 45-50 mpg. But they don't want to.

How could reducing energy consumption NOT be easy?


My wife works at an office less than half-mile from our house. She could walk, and do so easily. But she drives every day, primarily because she tends to wait until the very last minute to do everything. I could ride my bicycle to my office, but I ride my motorcycle. Why? Because it's a heckuva lot more fun, and takes far less time.

Am I a hypocrite? On one level yes, absolutely!


ALL of us could easily reduce our energy consumption, if only we were willing. But I am - like the rest of Americans - just not yet willing to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 12:12 PM
 
1,047 posts, read 2,088,883 times
Reputation: 413
We'll only reduce our energy consumption when we can't afford the level of energy usage we're used to. I know its recommended to set the thermostat at 68 winter, 78 summer, but I set it at 72-73 and happily pay the bill because I want to be comfortable. I don't plan on changing that as long as it is affordable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,247,357 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Worley View Post
We'll only reduce our energy consumption when we can't afford the level of energy usage we're used to. I know its recommended to set the thermostat at 68 winter, 78 summer, but I set it at 72-73 and happily pay the bill because I want to be comfortable. I don't plan on changing that as long as it is affordable.
You're a very typical American, which is why we have to impose cap and trade, CAFE, and other regulation to get to the solution that best benefits society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 01:34 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,738,755 times
Reputation: 18042
The fact is that any thign doen like this will be passed tot eh consumer and we all saw how politicans acted when the public gets outraged. Not liike many incongress are going to vote for this and chance not being relected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 02:44 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,118,431 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
The fact is that any thign doen like this will be passed tot eh consumer and we all saw how politicans acted when the public gets outraged. Not liike many incongress are going to vote for this and chance not being relected.
Ummmmm... Moderator cut: No flaming or insults

Last edited by vec101; 04-29-2009 at 06:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 05:17 PM
 
11,256 posts, read 43,241,545 times
Reputation: 14906
I think most people realize that there's no free lunch when it comes to changing over to more "green" energy production as well as finding ways to conserve energy.

We'd changed over our lighting to CFL's to reduce energy costs, and are aggressive about turning off lights and fixtures we aren't using. And now we're changing over to the LED lighting, which uses a fraction of the energy that the CFL's required ... and still turning off the lights when not needed.

The outrage of the costs of "cap and trade" will hit the politicians when the public sees the increase in their energy bills and becomes aware that the money is going to the energy speculators and traders, not to more efficient and cleaner energy development.

My fear is that the current administration will "lock" us into international agreements of little benefit but exceptional profits to the "cap and trade" industry. The legal and political leadership in this administration seems more focused on international "feel good" legislation than directing their efforts on behalf of the american people.

We'll see .... the Europeans already have "cap and trade" costs on their energy production, and have achieved far less reduction of the evil CO2 gas emissions than the USA which has (up 'till now) not had the burden of the extra speculative costs on their energy industry. The Euro economy has seen "cap and trade" costs fluctuate as much as 17% per month, which is making it very difficult for energy producers to keep up with their added costs and pass them on to the consumers. But those costs must be paid, and it's out of the pockets of the consumers ....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2009, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 6,628,729 times
Reputation: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
We are no where near minimum energy consumption. If you compare our consumption patterns to those of western Europe where people also live comfortable lives, you'll find that we consume 2 to 4 times as much energy on a per capita basis.
Agree (RL, we agree on something LOL )

For example, look at how much energy we use by being on our computers debating/discussing the large energy consumption of US citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2009, 07:11 AM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 6,628,729 times
Reputation: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit View Post
........The outrage of the costs of "cap and trade" will hit the politicians when the public sees the increase in their energy bills and becomes aware that the money is going to the energy speculators and traders, not to more efficient and cleaner energy development.
Good post.
There will be outrage but not sure if it will be directed at the politicians - depends largely on the "mood" of the media.

A large number of Americans (dare I say the majority) will blame the direct source - the electric company - or the traders/speculators.

This will be especially true if the media likes those in power. The media will lead the charge in pointing fingers. If the media does not like the President, the finger will be pointed at him. If they do like him, the finger will be pointed in other directions. (Will be interesting to see the direction of NBC/MSNBC since they are owned by GE and GE has BIG money invested in solutions to GW. It has also been reported they are in a joint venture to trade in carbon credits).

Of course, if the Feds enact Cap & Trade and the man-made global warming crisis disappears, the President & Congress will be credited with saving the world. (They will have to do something, whether it be Cap & Trade or whatever - with all the hype that has been bombarded on the public by the Feds, they cannot risk the possibility of taking NO action and the world not coming to an end).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 10:44 AM
 
17,580 posts, read 19,729,922 times
Reputation: 7314
Its not really a "tax"... because although you wil LOSE money from it, it goes into the super-rich pocket who SELLS it to companies that "tax" you for it... its transference of wealth from the poor to the rich... that's why Europe loves it so much... the rich are even richer... and yet pollution is still the same in Europe... amazing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:18 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top