Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 04-09-2009, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,301,933 times
Reputation: 24740

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
Reduce, reuse, and recycle is voluntary and simple to do. If you don't want to do it, then don't do it! Some of the things that the 'Greens' suggest, I have no problem doing since they are reasonable.

For example, not using plastic bags but canvas bags at the grocery store. Those bags are great and they're washable by hand. I also use them for other purposes including carrying my lunch to work. I used to come home from the store and after putting the groceries away I used to have a large pile of bags that could, at best, only be reused a couple of times. Then I had to throw them away. Using canvas bags beats stuffing plastic into our limited landfills. And before anyone says, "There's plenty of land for landfills!!" keep that in mind when someone decides to put one next to you or near something you value.

Conversely, some of the things the 'Greens' suggest are unreasonable. I'm not taking a cold shower. I like my water hot. Shrinkage, ya know?

Anyway, you don't have to do everything the environmentalists suggest one do. Do what works best for you. A little here and there can go a long way.
Absolutely. I LOVE my "permanent" bags for groceries and everything else - addicted to them, I think I have about 10 of them now, for various purposes.

Recycling is fine. We don't have it out here where we live now, but we still bag it up and my husband takes it in to his business where they DO have recycling to be picked up with the business's recycling.

Energy efficiency is something that doesn't need to be mandated on an individual level - it is something that can sell itself if done properly, because there's a financial benefit to the bottom line of the consumer.

An ordinance was recently proposed in Austin that would have required all houses being sold not only to have an energy audit, but for the seller to bring the house up to current energy standards before being able to sell it. Pure madness, that one, especially considering how many older homes there are in the city, and a lot of people, including "green" agents like myself, were against it. What ultimately ended up happening I think was the best choice - an energy inspection/audit is required at the time of sale, just so everyone, including the prospective buyer, knows the energy status of the house and what can be done to improve it and what savings there would be if certain things were implemented, and then can make their own decision about whether or not to do it.

I refer those who advocate legislating "green" morality to Prohibition. And smoking bans, for that matter (which, based on the anti-smokers' reactions to the late lamented great compromise in Austin, Texas, are NOT about not wanting to be exposed to smoke and ARE all about wanting to control the decisions of others). It's been demonstrated that that's not the way to do it. Education, and letting people make their own, informed, decisions, is the way to go. Assuming we still want to live in the United States of America, that is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2009, 09:51 AM
 
9,846 posts, read 22,632,304 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
It's been demonstrated that that's not the way to do it. Education, and letting people make their own, informed, decisions, is the way to go. Assuming we still want to live in the United States of America, that is.
Exactly. I believe there is a balance there between just being destructive and on the other hand using and enjoying what god put on this earth for us to use. I am all for new technologies that do things better but I'd rather let the market decide.

Also there needs to be some sensibility about what we do. Recently in Australia some envirofreaks wanted to ban toilet paper and insist on people using a poop rag to wipe their behind. In order to make it hygienic there all sorts of steps you had to take by washing it alone in the washing machine and putting it in the dryer, etc. etc. Someone bothered to do the calculations and found all that waste of water and electricity was more than just using some toilet paper.

To me radical environmentalists are just as dangerous or more dangerous than al-qaeda in terms of the overall damage they can do to society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2009, 01:38 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,926,180 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
BTW the proposals are quite modest -- 20% renewable electricity by 2030 isn't going to shut down many coal-fire plants.
$1.3 to $1.9 trillion dollars over a seven year stretch is not modest. This will be paid primarily off the backs of the middle class as they will be heavily subsidizing the energy needs of low income families. No taxes my ass.

Quote:
Sources: White House Official Boosts Cap, Trade Rev Estimate
By COREY BOLES AND MARTIN VAUGHAN
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -- A top White House economic adviser told Senate staff a proposed cap and trade system could raise "two-to-three times" the administration's existing $646 billion revenue estimate, according to five people at the meeting.

This could mean the cap and trade system could actually generate between roughly $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019.

Jason Furman, deputy director of the National Economic Council, offered the estimate at a Feb. 26 meeting on Capitol Hill with a bipartisan group of staffers, most of whom are attached to the Senate Finance Committee, according to five Senate aides who attended the meeting. They spoke on condition they wouldn't be identified by name.
At $1.3 trillion dollars it's about $600 per year for every man, woman and child in America assuming the current population. That does not include the increased cost for the much more expensive renewable energy and the increased cost of goods because of the higher energy prices manufacturers are paying. If you're an industry like cement forget it because they'll be hitting you all over the place.

Modest? pffft this will be the single biggest tax ever, let's call it what it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2009, 01:44 PM
 
1,655 posts, read 3,242,601 times
Reputation: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
I'm not cavalier about them at all. I find it a very serious concern that we are pandering to people whose main goal (based on their behavior and what they say and what they want to do, when it comes right down to it) has precious little to do with what they SAY their purpose is and everything to do with forcing everyone else to make the decisions that they prefer.

I've been an environmentalist for a very long time, and as I said above, this doesn't apply to all environmentalists by a long shot, but to a very small, very loud number of them who sadly get a lot of attention. Mainly, the ones whose opinion is that they know SO much more than anyone else and that it's their way or the highway (or, preferably, their way and you do what they say).

If an environmentalist doesn't fall into that category, then I've got no problem with them. If a person DOES fall into that category, I think they are just as much a threat to our country and our world as any environmental issue.
I read all of this and I have no idea what your concern is. Who's out to get you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2009, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,051,387 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
$1.3 to $1.9 trillion dollars over a seven year stretch is not modest. This will be paid primarily off the backs of the middle class as they will be heavily subsidizing the energy needs of low income families. No taxes my ass.
The Department of Energy study on the subject of getting to 20% wind generated electricity by 2030 estimates that the price of electricity will increase by 0.06 ¢/kWh as a result of installing 300 GW of wind. In addition it would create over 200,000 new jobs. Looks like the best thing that we could do for the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2009, 01:49 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,511,606 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac View Post
fatchance----I wear a seatbelt to protect myself and would do so if it wasn't law.

However,I fail to see where failure to wear a seatbelt ( or motorcycle helmet ) infringes on the -----rights of others.
You can read about this in the thread, "How the Insurance Industry Plans to Control Your Life."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2009, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,301,933 times
Reputation: 24740
Nobody is out to "get" me specifically. What's at risk is our liberties. It's very easy to just decide that this or that doesn't matter, because it will serve a "good cause" - surely you've heard that old saw about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?

If you cannot convince the majority that your idea is a good one, and then turn to force, via legislation, to MAKE them do what you want, you've just overturned liberty. Read the Benjamin Franklin quote I posted upthread. There was a man who knew (as did his fellows) what liberty actually meant and, just as important, what giving it up, even a little bit of it, for safety or comfort or because it's not your ox that's being gored, but your neighbor's, and you don't really approve of their ox anyway, really means. Remember, when you do this to someone else, you have given up all right to complain when someone else comes along and decides they know better than you what decisions you should be making and what you should be doing - and, trust me, they will, because you've paved the way for them.

Sad thing is, the people who are most inclined to treat their fellow man that way never do get it that that's what they're doing, because to them, their motives are SO good that they should be allowed to make the decisions for everyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2009, 02:14 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,926,180 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
The Department of Energy study on the subject of getting to 20% wind generated electricity by 2030 estimates that the price of electricity will increase by 0.06 ¢/kWh.
That's nice but it won't have any effect on the $1.3 to $1.9 trillion cost associated with C&T.

What does one TRILLION dollars look like?



That's 100's. Each pallet is about 4X4 double stacked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2009, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,051,387 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
That's nice but it won't have any effect on the $1.3 to $1.9 trillion cost associated with C&T.

What does one TRILLION dollars look like?



That's 100's. Each pallet is about 4X4 double stacked.
If you shift to renewables you don't have to acquire any offsets. So yes it will directly affect who pays and how much. Duh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2009, 04:00 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,926,180 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
If you shift to renewables you don't have to acquire any offsets. So yes it will directly affect who pays and how much. Duh.
So you're disputing the figures attributed to the Obama administration? You know something they don't?
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:16 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top