The earth Hour is back!
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Anyway Extrafire, so we agree that conservatives support very few (if any) environmental initiatives. That tells me that most conservatives are strongly, indeed rabid anti-environmentalists (arising either out of their desire to make money or out of their interpretation of the Bible). You may disagree, but that is your right.
Anyway, Earth Hour is over (and was a huge success) same as last year. Let us give the thread a decent burial. We will resurrect it again next year. In fact I didn’t think anybody would post here any more, seeing that it is yesterday’s news.
Anyway, Earth Hour is over (and was a huge success) same as last year. Let us give the thread a decent burial. We will resurrect it again next year. In fact I didn’t think anybody would post here any more, seeing that it is yesterday’s news.
Ignoring my words again! But then, that is what you do. OK, although I'm sure it's futile, I will spell it out for you one more time.
I (and most conservatives) will support doing something about the environment any time it is a real environmental issue. We will NOT support political initiatives such as Kyoto, which isn't actually an initiative but a treaty in response to a political initiative. Since Agw is a scam, the Kyoto accord cannot be environmental. But of course, you will say that it isn't a scam. OK, for the moment let's pretend that AGW is a real threat. If all the signatories of Kyoto were to actually reduce (at the cost of trillions of dollars and decimated economies) their emissions to levels required under the treaty (reduce, not transfer) what would be the result on global warming? A delay of 6 years in the warming over a century. That's not even measurable. If Kyoto was really about saving the planet it would have had some real reductions, like 40% (still only half what is claimed to be necessary) It doesn't because it was never about the environment.
Similarly cap and trade is about industry, job and wealth transfer. Nations who have tried it in Europe have seen just such transfers to countries that have no emission caps, with the resulting transfer (and increase) of emissions rather than reductions. In fact, even with those transfers, Europe's emissions keep rising at a rate of 1% per year. Why would any logical, thinking person support such costly initiatives that don't deliver any environmental benefit?
As far as dumping raw sewage into water, it isn't necessarily a health hazard. There was no health hazard when Victoria dumped it into Puget Sound. The city of Prince George could dump raw sewage into the Fraser river with no health hazard - the water flow is too huge, the dilution would render it harmless. Yet I would be opposed to both of them.
Let me give you an example of a local initiative that I did support. Alcan dammed the Nechako river well upstream from Prince George in the '50s and diverted the water through the mountains to provide electrical power for their aluminum smelter. A few years back they applied to raise the dam to send even more water to their generating station. This would have considerably lowered the river levels, creating a major stress on the salmon that run upstream every year. The local environmental organization (a bunch of kooks) were at the forefront of the effort to stop it. I was on their side. And it turned out that Alcan didn't want the power to make more aluminium, they were just going to sell it to BC Hydro! Seems they found out that was much more profitable than making ingots.
Here's another one. Enbridge is currently trying to get approval to build a pipeline through central BC to the west coast. I'm on the fence on this one. While there is the real possibility of damage to the environment, they build them a whole lot better these days. The risk should be minimal. But of course then there's the issue of tankers in the narrow passages along BC's coast. I haven't decided yet on this issue.
So as you can well see, consevatism and environmentalism do mix. What conservatives reject is the con jobs, the lies, the political goals that are the real purpose of most so-called environmental initiatives.
I know, I know, you're going to spin it somehow and insist that we don't care about things environmental, just so you can maintain your caricatured propaganda about conservatives. Well go ahead, you know better and I'm not going to waste any more time showing you the error of your words.
Anna: Our hot water heater is High efficiency gas heater also the furnace and the clothes dryer is gas (cheaper)
Outdoor lights are motion detector so they don't turn on unless you walk in the yard...also have an inside switch to turn them off when there is a windy day like today(Hot and cold air currents tend to turn them on).
And since in my part of the country vehicles need block heaters to start good in the winter...I would rather use a remote to switch the power on the block heater about three hour before I need the vehicle...(also cheaper)
Which is why I laugh at those pseudo armchair environmentalists that pat themselves on the back for turning off the lights for one hour a year.......:roll::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Sounds good.
I was just offering a temporary solution to having to wander around turning things on and off to accommodate low consumption hours. We use one for the heat lamp in the chicken coop during winter and one for the block heater we never use anymore. lol
:lol: You don't know my brother! He knows a thing or two about history (his field). That would qualify him as an expert on global warming how? He almost seems to be living his life in a bubble. He's remarkably naiive and out of touch with a lot of what's going on in the world.
I think missinformed would be more applicable to him. Gullible would be someone who tends to accept someones claims at face value without question.
I think you'll find that cap and trade with CO2 is a totally different ball game. Witness how it's working out where it's been tried.
Now that I can agree with! If all those concerned people who turned off their lights would leave them off permanently, then I might believe that they are sincere about wanting to address climate change. Then I would respect them. Then you could proclaim it a real success. If they're not willikng to do at least that much, then the biggest result of earth hour is to demonstrate hypocracy. When they walk the walk, not just talk the talk, they'll have something to brag about.
It's the same thing, it's just harder to do. Hence the hiccups where it has been tried.
It's funny that so many in this thread proclaim this is idiocy/a fad/naiive/whatever you want to call it...because it's just one day, despite a complete lack of information about those who do participate.
I think it's funny anyhow. :lol:
Nope, this time it's a totally different setup. It's designed to transfer wealth rather than reduce emisssions. Not everyone plays by the same rules. For example, a steel mill in England had to by credits. They shut it down and moved the whole operation to India, same size plant, same amount of emissions, but in India it didn't have to pay credits, it had credits to sell! The "justification" being that it emitted so much less CO2 than other mills in India. Thus the amount of CO2 is not reduced but increased, since there is an emission increase due to the need to transport the product to England.
Actually it's not just one day, it's just one hour. It isn't funny, it's rather sad that so many people actuallly see that tiny demonstration as meaningful. Then they (including SJP and all the other zealots on this forum who participated) turn everything back on, thereby demonstrating where their real sympathies lie.
Some have already implemented energy saving measures throughout their everyday life. You can't know that, but you feel comfortable speaking about a whole group without knowing.
That to me, is funny. Laughable. Haha. Not to worry, you're not the only one being laughed at.
That's why it's harder...
A cap and trade is still a cap and trade. A limit is placed on something, and the market picks the best way to avoid the costs. If that means moving, then that's what it means.
The global aspect, along with the residency of the pollutant is what makes it more difficult. But the principle is the same. More choice in the market, less to comply with. That's part of why some industries favour it, along with the ease with which they can lobby for free allowances.
Lots of people have implemented energy saving measures, including me. But when push comes to shove they will not give up their modern conveniences, no matter the cost to the planet, including you and SJP, for all your bluster. And that's what the demonstration really reveals, even if they don't realize it.
True, cap and trade will accomplish something. The question is, what? Reduction in CO2 emissions? No. That's what the ostensible purpose is behind cap and trade but experience has demonstrated that it won't work unless everyone has the same limits. With only the "developed nations" required to reduce emissions and pay penalties, the only result will be wealth transfer, as has already been proven.
Another example or two. Cement production produces a lot of CO2. (My son is an engineer and works for a large plant and I've had the tour, rather a simple process) A cement plant in California was required to reduce emissions or pay. The plant had been operating there for over 100 years but rather than pay they moved operations to Mexico. How much reduction of CO2 was accomplished?
Lafarge in France had the same problem. They weren't willing to pay either and moved their operations to Morrocco. Lot's of emission reduction from that, would you say?
It's all about wealth transfer, and you know it.
Right...you're just giving examples of why it's so difficult. It's still the same thing as the cap and trade that was used in the US to bring down emissions of sulfates.