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.
Measuring an ecological footprint based solely on carbon dioxide is nonsensical.
Agreed. I had also note that, while I have a front and backyard, I have never watered my lawn. Despite my car free lifestyle, I actually do own a car. I wash it once or twice a year.
I'm not a climate alarmist at all, but I disagree with the premise of this thread. In fact, city living is less ecologically damaging than suburban & rural living.
So I should move to the suburbs-drive everyday to work, waste land and water/destroy the soil with chemicals by obsessing over a lawn that is not even meant for my climate, use more energy than needed to heat my McMansion I am never in, etc., etc.
I can understand city living and rural living-but suburbs to me are the worst of both Worlds and will eventually be seen as a weird temporary, unsustainable fad born out of Government policy and racism. I was born and grew up in the city, but eventually would love to have my own land/farm to be completely self-reliant.
Climate activism is really just progressive means of control and that focused by those who believe population is the real danger.
These people believe we should force everyone into tightly packed cities, freeing up all of the country and then allowing a more strict management of the populations. This is their ultimate goal.
Think of a mailman.
In a city it would probably take him under an hour to deliver letters to 1000 households.
How long and how much gas would he consume to deliver to the same number of households in the country?
The bigger question is why they live large carbon footprint lives.
If the rest of the world lived lifestyles that came anywhere approaching theirs, the carbon output would be enormous compared to today.
They essentially focus on taxes, which will do next to nothing. The key would be lifestyle change, and when that is brought up, the idea is mocked. Of course the reason it is mocked is because they don't want to be confronted with how they live their lives and the toys and perks it gives them.
It's hypocrisy when you get down to it, and Obama is the finest example of hypocrisy, both by Obama and the AGW supporters who simply refuse to face it.
You talk as if it is all about individual choices. It isn't. It's about the systems within which we live.
I live as low on the carbon chain as I can, as do most people I know. That's necessary, but it is nowhere near sufficient. And I don't kid myself otherwise.
Think of a mailman.
In a city it would probably take him under an hour to deliver letters to 1000 households.
How long and how much gas would he consume to deliver to the same number of households in the country?
Think about a thermometer, then think about it sitting in an urban jungle, surrounded by concrete, which radiates heat, and think about all various tech and industry that is also generating heat surrounding it, now... with that in mind... ask yourself if you have an accurate understanding of temperature when you can not properly delineate between all the variables that are providing such increases within these cities and that of the actual temperature that exists?
Now, take that and consider the enormous areas where we do not have temperature gauges and how they attempt to find relationship between those boundaries. Think about how you would achieve such an evaluation over a global scale with numerous variables that are tainted, that are suspect and unknown between these sites and LEGITIMATELY find relationship between them that would be of any scientifically valid means?
You getting it? Maybe?
Maybe you could explain to us the math that is used to establish this grid relationship and how this math properly validates itself between these sites to establish a growing trend that is significant outside of the limited historical records we do have and the numerous issues we have with those in terms of accuracy to proclaim a given temperature variance that is only a few degrees at most globally?
Please, do this without looking like a complete idiot. I dare you.
If you believe in science the earth has been going through warming & cooling periods forever . Now it's cow farts & humans , I guess before it was dinosaur farts & cavemen campfires .
You talk as if it is all about individual choices. It isn't. It's about the systems within which we live.
I live as low on the carbon chain as I can, as do most people I know. That's necessary, but it is nowhere near sufficient. And I don't kid myself otherwise.
I don't think most of you understand the stark contrast between your lifestyles and those of much of the rest of the world. You're probably fairly naive as to how your carbon footprint compares to two or three billion people who most likely have about a twentieth or less of yours.
You might, just might, have a relatively small Western footprint, but the majority of AGW promoters are in complete and total denial.
BTW, do you feel Obama is a horrible hypocrite for claiming to support the AGW while using an armada of aircraft to travel to Hawaii each year for vacation?
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.
