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.
newhandle-the green movement stopped advocating for what a long time ago? Population control? I know I'm all for it, there are way too many people having way too many babies.
Being environmentally aware is not hard, it's not a burden, it's not exhausting, but it is smart. One doesn't have to be whole hog about it, although that's great too. It's the little things that help & if more people would get rid of that chip on their shoulder, it'd be even better. Recycling, walking or biking instead of constantly taking your car....that's one that really gets to me, the overuse of the vehicle. No wonder so many people are overweight, they find it impossible to walk anywhere. Not running your water while brushing your teeth. Not flushing every single time you go pee. I'm a huge proponent of this one, you waste so much water flushing your toilet it's ridiculous. Keeping those plastic grocery bags for like your bathroom garbage basket....I won't go on but yeah, it's easy to do. Why do people complain so much about it?
Going green saves you money and reduces waste. That is, if you are smart about it and don't do it through commercial means. and what does going green have to do with Starbucks? If you are going green, you would make your own coffee and use a reusable cup.
My fiance and I are not green nuts, but we do our part as much as possible. It saved us about $1500 last year.
Going green saves you money and reduces waste. That is, if you are smart about it and don't do it through commercial means. and what does going green have to do with Starbucks? If you are going green, you would make your own coffee and use a reusable cup.
My fiance and I are not green nuts, but we do our part as much as possible. It saved us about $1500 last year.
Hi raison_d'etre,
My favorite is lawn waste bags. Sometimes I see 5 or 10 of them. These cost the same as garbage disposal. A compost pile is certainly cheaper and greener than hauling this around on a truck. Smaller piles also do not produce methane. That's a classic cheap green. I go green by not driving to the train. I have lots of green because of it. I probably save more than $5,000 a year going green. The south side of my house now grows edibles. Instead heating up bricks to make me turn the air on, I keep sunlight from becoming heat while turning it into food. It cuts down on food that needs to be hauled on trucks, tilled by peto powered vehicles along with cutting down on shrink wrap and boxes. I love going green. I just did my duty by making pesto with noxious weeds.
I 100% disagree with the notion of banning fast food. People have the right to pick what food they eat and what they feed their kids. You don't have to like it, but they have that right and to "ban" foods because they are unhealthy and you don't like them is moving us closer to socialism which is not what this country is about. You don't like fast food, don't eat it but stay out of other peoples business and what they eat.
As for "going green"...first of all, going green can be very expensive for people which is why more people who would like to do it, don't. I would love to be able to get solar power. But I don't have the money to buy solar panels or get it all set up. Oh, I know, in the long run it saves....but you still have to get past the initial start up costs.
Recycling I do because if something can be broken down and re used and not sit in a land fill, I'd much rather it be done. Yes, it costs money but the way I think about it, we are not alone, it's not just about us, there are other species on this planet that we are hurting.
For me I think it started when I was a kid and we would always go to a little park when visiting the grandparents in Napa, CA. There was a lake there with ducks. For years, we would look for the same duck with the 6 pack plastic rings stuck around its neck. First of all, because people don't take the time to cut those up so that if they do "get away", they don't get caught on an animal's neck. Second, plastic takes forever to break down and become part of the environment again. So, let's reuse it, instead.
I live frugally and minimally simply because that's my lifestyle. I move around way too much to be acquiring a lot. Makes moving a pain. I also have discovered I don't need a whole lot. Life is more than just gadgets...and that comes from someone who actually likes gadgets. I just don't buy them all.
I also live that way because I prefer to keep more of my own money in my bank account than have it go to the electric company, the water company, the trash company, etc. I worked my tail off for this money, I want to keep it.
I don't agree with everything that is being pushed on us about the "green" movement. First of all, recycling and being frugal is nothing new. It just seems new because suddenly we are all being chastised like children for how we live. Sure, some people do make a lot of waste. Go work in a hotel and be blown away by how much waste is produced in ONE day. One hotel, one day and you start to get an idea of how much is wasted every single day by millions across the country.
BUT, again, recycling and living minimally is nothing new. It's just that everything became easier to get. Everything was faster. Everything was shiny, new, more powerful, greater, better, improved, we must have it!!!!!
I think we are now, very slowly, very, very slowly, starting to return to our sanity and realize that we don't need all of this stuff. Sure, a p*ss poor economy is helping some people find that but it does show people that they can live without having everything.
Just like with everything, there's always some truth to it but when people start going extreme, they've lost me. Keep the balance, shut off the rhetoric, give factual evidence, stop talking to America like they are stupid children and you will get more people to listen, accept and put in to action.
Someone said earlier, if it had been presented as a way to save money, more people would have been for it. Being told we are destroying the planet, we have to offset our carbon footprints, here's a little kiosk for you to put your credit card in to in order to assuage your guilt by the loss of some of your money, you are stupid and suck because you use what we gave you...no...that doesn't work with a lot of people.
I don't know where you get information, be it Fox News or the John Bircher Society, but that is not what socialism is.
If something has a subsidy attatched to it that thing is not a viable substitute for current technology. For example if you have a tax incentive to buy a car that is a hybrid then what you have is a technology that is not cost effective and will not sustain itself. The same can be said about solar energy or anything else.
What we do have is plenty of petrolium in the ground and a way to get it to where we can use it. Our nations energy needs can be fueled by our own nation and not some other nation. We could be spending a lot less for fuel especially if the Government would open up areas for drilling. The best part about this would be no lost revenue because of incentives to support a technology that is not ready for the open market. If you want real progress eliminate the subsidy programs and let real business people develop systems that will make a profit.
If something has a subsidy attatched to it that thing is not a viable substitute for current technology. For example if you have a tax incentive to buy a car that is a hybrid then what you have is a technology that is not cost effective and will not sustain itself. The same can be said about solar energy or anything else.
Firstly, nearly all of our major industries and utilities are gov't subsidized as it is. It would just be a matter of changing which hand gets the money.
Secondly, incentives (of any product, in any industry) are a marketing tool used to make adoption more appealing or to renew sales. They are not a subsidy, and they are no indication of the viability of the product. Just look at how many "cash backs" and "zero down" and "2-fers" you see in the market for things not even remotely "green".
Thirdly, if subsidies mean that a technology isn't cost effective and will not sustain itself... well, then, the last thing we want to do is invest in petro or coal. The gov't has been subsidizing the auto & aero industries, the transportation grid, and the utility companies for decades.
The technology to get the oil out of the ground is here now. They have allready did it in small scale efforts. The best part is that they know that the area contains 3 X the known amount of oil that is in Saudi Arabia all under ground here in the USA.
You have to be a little careful fully trusting the Alaska DNR fact sheet above... this is, ultimately, a sales pitch from the State targeted at prospectors to increase their revenues through lease and claims. It's the DNR's job to make money for the budget by making the availability and extraction of of the resource highly attractive... but, ultimately, there is no guarantee that said resources will be as available, of viable quality, or as easily extracted as implied. There is also no discussion about the ancillary effects such mining may have on other natural resources in the area, or the financial and logistic barriers to such operations. Much more to the story than just USGS survey and analysis suggesting that "there's (black) gold in them thar hills".
The problem with both oil shales and other resources like coal to liquid fuels is that it's only profitable *most* of the time. Right now they could make a killing but if the bottom of the market falls out like it did in late 2007 they are out of business.
Interest in these technologies always picks up when we have high gas prices and that's been going on for decades, it quickly diminishes when the oil prices fall. Because of the volatile oil market it's a risky venture for private investment.
I hate to say it but if the government wanted to be serious about secruing a domestic supply and leveraging prices downwards for conventional oil they could do this by guaranteeing the processors using this tech the difference if the cost of barrel of oil falls below X amount. For coal to liquid fuels you're looking at about $40 or $50 which is half what it's trading for now.
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.
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.
