FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Al Gore, Global Warming Hypocrite (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Al Gore, Global Warming Hypocrite
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Bush fronts himself as a paragon of virtue, yet is known to have been a drunk driver.
To be fair, it's mostly other people, not acting for him, who act as though he's a paragon of virtue.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
That's true enough, mph, but I believe you and I both know Bush's actions and politics are calculated to achieve that end.

-----

Lyrhawn,

If this were an open hypocrisy on the part of someone advocating a policy you disagree with, can you honestly say you'd be so dismissive of it?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mig
Member
Member # 9284

 - posted      Profile for Mig   Email Mig         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Bush fronts himself as a paragon of virtue, yet is known to have been a drunk driver.
I'm not sure what you base this on. He's never denied his past. He'd be a hypocrit if he was talking about the virtues of temprance and he was still a drunk. What makes men like Gore and Obama hypocrits is that that, to paraphrase you, front themselves as paragons of virtue on the environment, yet don't practice what they preach.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Bush fronts himself as a paragon of virtue, yet is known to have been a drunk driver. Yet he is still by and large trusted, mostly by the same people who villify Gore in the wya you're doing.
What has this got to do with anything? First quote where Bush says to the effect, "I am the paragon of virtue." Even if you can do that it merely demonstrates that there are other hypocrites besdies Al Gore.

quote:
Second of all, who the speaker is, has nothing to do with what the speaker says, when he's championing a cause. You can validate the truth of what they are saying by looking at their words, and seeing if the facts back it up. Their personal lives have nothing do to with its validity.
um perhaps you are willing to live in a world where people do not actually live the standards they espouse, but I would rather not.

By your logic we should accept the word of a known liar at face value as his personal credibility has no implication on his presentation of the facts.

Nobody expects perfection, but when you so strongly espouse a cause, you can do more than the average person does to demonstrate the virtues of that cause.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What makes men like Gore and Obama hypocrits is that that, to paraphrase you, front themselves as paragons of virtue on the environment, yet don't practice what they preach.
I'm still not seeing this "don't practice what they preach" bit. Where's the evidence for that, again?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jh
Member
Member # 7727

 - posted      Profile for jh   Email jh         Edit/Delete Post 
What is your evidence that Obama (a) presents himself as a paragon of virtue and (b) he is a hypocrite?
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samuel Bush
Member
Member # 460

 - posted      Profile for Samuel Bush           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks Lyrhawn for stating what you did. It’s an inescapable fact that one has to use electricity to charge up the batteries on a totally electric car and even a hybrid, and that the electricity has to come form some process which uses energy to generate that electricity. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I would like to add this to what you said: I remember form general science that every time you change energy from one state to another or from one form to another, you lose something in the process. The word “efficiency” comes to mind but no doubt the physicist and engineers have other terms as well to describe what I’m talking about.

So my question is, do we gain anything by using an electric car as opposed to a gasoline car? When I say “gain anything” I’m talking about, do we gain anything in terms of CO2 emissions? How about in terms of dollars per mile driven? How about in terms of ergs (or whatever) of energy per mile?

I lack enough background in physics and math to know the answers to these types of questions. So does anyone here have the background or know of any studies done which show comparisons of the different alternatives?

Another thing that I wonder about is solar voltaic cells. Where I live there is plenty of sunshine most of the time. One could conceivablely recharge a car that way without resorting to plugging into the electrical grid. But what would the cost of that be in terms of time it takes to recharge, cost of solar voltaic cells, cost and environmental impact of manufacturing and transporting solar voltaic cells?

Another thing I wonder about is how many more power plants are we going to have to build if we convert to everyone driving electric cars? Right now there are a lot of people (Like Al Gore and John Kerry’s wife) who scream bloody murder at the very suggestion that a new coal fired plant ought to be built. And they go into spasms and foam at the mouth if you even mention the word “nuclear.”

Personally, I would be ecstatic if I didn’t have to give even one more penny to the oil companies (especially the ones connected to the Middle East). It would give me great pleasure also if I didn’t have to give even one more penny to the government in the form of gasoline tax..(Have you seen what the percentage of tax is on gasoline? You always hear folks squawking about oil tycoons’ huge profits but just take a look at how much the government’s piece of the action is.)

So where the heck are all these alternate energy sources I keep hearing about? And how much are they going to cost me? Can I even afford them even if they did become available?

Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mig
Member
Member # 9284

 - posted      Profile for Mig   Email Mig         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by jh:
What is your evidence that Obama (a) presents himself as a paragon of virtue and (b) he is a hypocrite?

As I stated earlier, Illinois Senator Barack Obama made a recemt speech in which he warned against SUVs and global warming and then drives off in an SUV, a GMC Envoy. His people claim its an alt-fuel (e85 ethanol) vehicle but that make of SUV is not e85 complaint. I didn't say that he presents himself as a paragon of virtue, I said that he presents himself as a paragon of virtue on the environment, but he, like so many liberals, doesn't practice what he preaches. See report at http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So my question is, do we gain anything by using an electric car as opposed to a gasoline car? When I say “gain anything” I’m talking about, do we gain anything in terms of CO2 emissions? How about in terms of dollars per mile driven? How about in terms of ergs (or whatever) of energy per mile?
It depends on what we're using to generate the electricity, mainly, and how it's getting to the car. If we went with nuclear sources, electric cars would be reasonably cost-effective and environmentally sensible.

--------

Mig, given how much of Drudge's "flash" information gets retracted, you might want to wait on more data for that one. It's also worth noting that at least three of my coworkers have modified their cars using after-market parts to run on ethanol and other biodiesels.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it's worth nothing that were this a conservative, on a conservative issue, there's a chance Mig would have applied that level of double-checking already.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
human_2.0
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for human_2.0   Email human_2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If people cannot be living examples of the ideas they present, how can anybody validate the truth of anything anyone says?

You are going to rely on a politician for your source of truth? You can't gather the evidence concerning this to decide the truth on your own?

I understand that it is nearly impossible to accept the political platform of an opposing party. But this country is getting to the point that even if we are faced with impending doom we are still divided along political lines on the course of action we should take. That is not good.

Big oil has a monopoly on energy. The fact that they were able to kill the next generation of cars is evidence enough for me that their monopoly is going to ruin us.

And burning oil products is dirty and if you've ever visited LA you can't deny it.

Global warming or not, we need to start changing. Polution and big oil's energy monopoly is reason enough for me to adopt the attitude that the proposed actions to solve global warming are valuable enough on their own. Global warming or global freezing, the actions merit enacting.

[ August 16, 2006, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]

Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
human_2.0
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for human_2.0   Email human_2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samuel Bush:
So my question is, do we gain anything by using an electric car as opposed to a gasoline car? When I say “gain anything” I’m talking about, do we gain anything in terms of CO2 emissions? How about in terms of dollars per mile driven? How about in terms of ergs (or whatever) of energy per mile?

...

So where the heck are all these alternate energy sources I keep hearing about? And how much are they going to cost me? Can I even afford them even if they did become available?

I don't have the science background to answer your questions. But here are my guesses.

I don't think we will gain anything for a long time. But until we switch, we will never gain anything. It is like the propeller vs the jet engine. I'm sure there were many propeller companies who tried to prevent the introduction of the jet engine. But think what we would be flying today if we were still using nothing but propellers. This is exactly the scenerio we have with big oil. They are so powerful they are going to prevent progress.

This is why I'm ticked. I don't care as much about cleaner cars as I do that we are being held back by rich selflish people. Of course, cleaner cars is the future. But that isn't all that is being held back from us. EV's are the bomb dude.

And to answer your other question, we will never see alternative energies become viable until big oil no longer has an energy monopoly.

Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So my question is, do we gain anything by using an electric car as opposed to a gasoline car? When I say “gain anything” I’m talking about, do we gain anything in terms of CO2 emissions? How about in terms of dollars per mile driven? How about in terms of ergs (or whatever) of energy per mile?

Your question has been pretty much answered in this thread. Electric motors are about 90% thermally efficient, compared to internal combustion at roughly 8% thermal efficiency. Also note that charging the cars at night time actually improves the efficiency of the grid, since it would help balance the power output between day and night.

Also, tesla motors claims that the monetary cost of energy to drive their car is about 1 cent per mile, compared to about 7 cents per mile for my Prius. That's a pretty good indication of how much you "gain" by going electric.

So the short answer to your question is yes.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As I stated earlier, Illinois Senator Barack Obama made a recemt speech in which he warned against SUVs and global warming and then drives off in an SUV, a GMC Envoy. His people claim its an alt-fuel (e85 ethanol) vehicle but that make of SUV is not e85 complaint.
You should double check this. GM recently announced that it had been quietly producing e85 compliant SUVs in order to comply with federal regulations, but didn't specifically label the vehicles as compliant. Most of the GM SUV's produced during the last several years are fully e85 compliant.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
You'll have to clarify. I don't recall criticizing any politician for their investment choices. Or are you somehow claiming that I would accuse Cheney of hypocrisy for handing out no-bid contracts to Halliburton?
If you were to advocate Dick Cheney as a strong advocate for an objective government and defender of free enterprise, then that would be equivalent to your defense of Al Gore because his work will harm his stock portfolio in the future, while it profits now.

By the system of measure you're using, apparently it is acceptable to profit from something you believe to be harmful now if you plan to change it in the future.

Bzzt. Wrong. Read my post again.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think it's worth nothing that were this a conservative, on a conservative issue, there's a chance Mig would have applied that level of double-checking already.
And here I am, having just posted a thread about that very thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Lyrhawn,

If this were an open hypocrisy on the part of someone advocating a policy you disagree with, can you honestly say you'd be so dismissive of it?

I doubt I would be. But I think I'd give whoever it was a little leeway. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still harp on them a bit, but what I KNOW I wouldn't do, is use their personal actions as some sort of factual proof one way or the other about the veracity of the claim they are making. Life choices have little to do with whether something is scientifically proven or not.

Mig -

It was an example, that quite frankly I think still works, but there are better ones out there I'm sure. Hell, look at the man's campaign pledges, he CERTAINLY does not practice what he preached then. He isn't a uniter, he DOES like big government, and he DOES like more government power and more intrusiveness into people's lives.

And to paraphrase Blackblade, when did Gore or Obama ever stand up and claim that they are paragons of environmental virtue? It's rhetorical, don't answer it, but come on.

Blackblade -

This:

quote:
um perhaps you are willing to live in a world where people do not actually live the standards they espouse, but I would rather not.

By your logic we should accept the word of a known liar at face value as his personal credibility has no implication on his presentation of the facts.

as a response to what I said, saddens me greatly. Why are you putting all the responsibility on someone other than yourself? Stop being so damned lazy and learn the facts for yourself. You're speaking as if Gore is the ONLY font of truth when it comes to Environmentalism. He's one voice among thousands, though he gets more face time than most, it doesn't really matter. Yes, the personal respectability factor DOES matter, but we aren't talking about something where a laymen's vouching for or against it really matters, we're talking about a vast scientific spectrum of information. Whether or not Gore is a paragon of virtue or a child molester matters absolutely ZERO about the truthfulness or correctness of Global Climate Change. If you really think it does, then I think you're lazy.

Mig -

The GMC Envoy does not currently come automatically E85 ready, BUT, it is a car, (like almost all cars) that can be easily modified to use E85 fuel. Until you actually get under the hood of his car and prove that those modifications weren't done, calling Obama a liar without any proof is stupid and childish.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
human_2.0
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for human_2.0   Email human_2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Whether or not Gore is a paragon of virtue or a child molester matters absolutely ZERO about the truthfulness or correctness of Global Climate Change.

And my contention, which I don't understand why Republicans can't accept, is that the truthfulness or correctness of Global Climate Change matters absolutely ZERO. The solutions that are proposed are valid enough that we should embrace them! You can have your cake (there is no global warming) and eat it too! (clean up the environment)

Seriously, this shouldn't be a political battle. The real opponents here are the big companies standing in the way of progress. And republican politicians' love of big business is the ONLY reason this is a political battle. Republicans voters need to understand WHY republican politicians are against enacting enviromental changes. It hurts big business! Not because it is a bad thing! It is a very good thing! Clean cars. Silent cars. No more zoom zoom.... but whoosh whoosh! (sound of air as it moves out of way of silent EV car driving by very fast)

Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Preaching to the choir James.

I think this is the first environmental thread I've argued in for quite some time where I haven't done by whole "Selfish People Should be Enrivonmentalists" thing. I figure people have already heard me do it a dozen times by now, so I don't want to harp on it, but you're right, it doesn't matter whether or not it'll save the entire planet, there's a bunch of benefits that come directly, more immediately, and for that matter, many of them are economic benefits.

The debate is useless, but we still have it anyways.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
human_2.0
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for human_2.0   Email human_2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
I just don't get it. How can anyone be against electric cars? I see several categories of alternatives: obviously classic cars, where the technology wont work yet (like big rigs), rich pigs running the oil companies, and rich pigs paid off by the oil companies (GM and republican party). Rich pigs must get a clue. Ok, my facts aren't totally backed up. I really don't know that GM was paid off by Philips 66.

But that brings up another category of rich pigs that still need to get a clue: hummer owners. I know too many of them. They make me sick. It really irks me to see hummers in the church parking lot on Sunday. "Gotta drive the gasoline incinerator to church because we haven't burned enough gas today!"

Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
You know, electric cars do have downsides. *laugh*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samuel Bush
Member
Member # 460

 - posted      Profile for Samuel Bush           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, Glenn.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
human_2.0
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for human_2.0   Email human_2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
You know, electric cars do have downsides. *laugh*

The slope of the hood as it reaches the bumper, right? [Wink]

Yeah yeah. Ok. Fine. The first jet airplanes weren't the best in the world either. But ya gotta admit the YF-23 is not your granddad's jet... (first jets flew in WWII)

And the F-35 Lightning isn't no P-38 either (link is to an ogg video file showing the latest jet technologies).

And SpaceShipOne is a thing of beauty!

Anyway, I can't wait to see what electric cars can do in 10 years. Maybe all they will do is just drive. But I bet the technologies the auto industry would hone if they were making them would improve many many other aspects of our lives.

[Edit: Arg, I'll get this post right eventually.]

[ August 17, 2006, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]

Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 9669

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama         Edit/Delete Post 
"Maybe all they will do is just drive."

Many of them will think and see and learn, any maybe, someday, be able to love?

Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Who says he's profiting? He owns the stock. If his work forces the value of the stock downward, he doesn't profit, he loses. In the meantime, as a stockholder, he has more say in whether the company works toward environmental solutions.

I did just that, skippy, and you said what I thought you said.

It is acceptable to profit from something now if you're working to change it in the future. I don't buy into your flimsy 'change it from within' copout, either. Al Gore cannot possibly imagine that the miniscule amount of stock he owns will help him change petroleum company policy from within.

Basically, this is acceptable because it's Al Gore and he's a proponent of a Good Issue.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh goody. AlGore quits owning petroleum stocks, and naturally the companies collapse.
Four billion people starve to death within the year: the GreenRevolution is HIGHLY dependent on petroleum-derived fertilizers as well as petroleum-fueled mechanization, transportation, etc.

[ August 17, 2006, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not even sure what the point of your post is, aspectre.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It is acceptable to profit from something now if you're working to change it in the future.
I know my investment in defense stocks has helped fund my investment into socially conscious stock.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
One concrete downside of electric cars is that they are TOO quiet. Already, the Prius has gotten a few articles about the dangers of it's electric-only mode (which occurs in city traffic going about 30MPH).

Imagine you are a blind (or even just distracted) pedestrian. You get the walk light (or in places that don't have the nifty chirpers, are told you have the walk sign). Except, someone in their new electric car is also distracted and runs the red light. If you are blind you will have no idea that the car is coming at you until it hits you. You get no auditory warning.

Expect sound-makers to become mandatory on any electric cars; maybe not immediately, but when the safety issue becomes clear.

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I know my investment in defense stocks has helped fund my investment into socially conscious stock.
So to take this line of reasoning one step further, would it be OK to sell questionable used automobiles if you used the profits to fund orphanages and soup kitchens?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So to take this line of reasoning one step further, would it be OK to sell questionable used automobiles if you used the profits to fund orphanages and soup kitchens?
I think it depends on your definition of "OK," and whether you accept utilitarianism as a moral force. Certainly any argument for the "greater good" might well say, yeah, it's "okay" to steal bread for your family. Was it "okay" for the Blues Brothers to cause enormous financial damage to downtown Chicago in their attempt to pay off an orphanage's loan?

I think people leverage this sort of low-grade evil all the time; it's the same logic by which movie stars "justify" their action flicks by doing an art film the next year.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
You haven't answered my question, though.

The stolen loaf of bread isn't really applicable here, because whether or not the equivalent action-funding and profiting activities you find morally wrong-is of questionable effectiveness, at best. Stealing the loaf of bread to feed your family, though, well they're starving and you feed them. Pretty straightforward.

How far along we are to 'starvation' is by no means clear, either.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The stolen loaf of bread isn't really applicable here, because whether or not the equivalent action-funding and profiting activities you find morally wrong-is of questionable effectiveness, at best.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Is the issue that "bread = food" is more obviously true than "money = assistance?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
BlackBlade,

Do you always live up to the ideals you believe in? Always? If not, should I think that those ideals are false? Or that you are a human being that sometimes falls short?

Should someone disbelieve in Christianity, for example, because Christians don't always live up to it?

Tom, KoM, this is not a question for you. [Wink]

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It is acceptable to profit from something now if you're working to change it in the future. I don't buy into your flimsy 'change it from within' copout, either.
Nope, still haven't got it. You don't profit by owning stock, you profit by selling it. If the stock goes down, he loses. There is no "profit now." Unless you know the details of Gore's stock trading habits, you've no business claiming he profits. (Also see the thread about registering Republican because there's no value in voting in the Democratic primaries in Texas).

As far as changing it from within, it doesn't matter how much of the stock he owns in order to get the annual report, or access to the yearly stockholder's meeting. And given Gore's stature, if he owns one share, and stands up to speak at the shareholder's meeting, people will listen.

The fact is that whether Gore owns petroleum stocks or not has little bearing on whether he's "walking the walk." What matters is whether he's also investing in green technologies. I've already given the example of Molten Metal Technologies, which is something I know he invested in through pure serendipity.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
human_2.0
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for human_2.0   Email human_2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Four billion people starve to death within the year: the GreenRevolution is HIGHLY dependent on petroleum-derived fertilizers as well as petroleum-fueled mechanization, transportation, etc.
Big business "fixing" things once again. Read about another type of solution to famine.

I wouldn't hate big business so bad if they behaved better.

Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
BlackBlade,

Do you always live up to the ideals you believe in? Always? If not, should I think that those ideals are false? Or that you are a human being that sometimes falls short?

Should someone disbelieve in Christianity, for example, because Christians don't always live up to it?

Tom, KoM, this is not a question for you. [Wink]

Remember I said, "Nobody expects perfection, but when you so strongly espouse a cause, you can do more than the average person does to demonstrate the virtues of that cause."

And yes I do put very much effort into living up to the ideals I think are right.

kmbboots: How do you suggest people be able to establish truth in a world where integrity and honesty are convenient but not mandatory? I suppose I should have bought stock in "salt" because apparently we are supposed to be eating it everytime anybody speaks.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
human_2.0
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for human_2.0   Email human_2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
This is plain genius

quote:

Environmentalism's method of handling global warming is flawed.

The old paradigm works like this: We judge just about every issue by asking the question, Will this make the economy larger? If the answer is yes, then we embrace whatever is in question—globalization, factory farming, suburban sprawl.
...

Endless economic growth is built on the use of cheap fossil fuel... Coal, oil, and natural gas were, and are, miraculous—compact, easily transportable, crammed with Btu, and cheap. Dig a hole in the ground, stick a pipe in the right place, and you get all the energy you could ever need.
...

Carbon dioxide is the one major environmental contaminant for which no study has ever found any indication of improvement as living standards rise.

Which means we might need a new idea. We need to stop asking, Will this make the economy larger? Instead, we need to start asking, Will this pour more carbon into the atmosphere? Some of the shift would be technological. If carbon carried a real price, then we'd be building windmills far faster than we are now. All cars would be hybrid cars, and all lightbulbs would be compact fluorescent.
...

For that to happen, we'd need to change as dramatically as our lightbulbs. We'd need to see ourselves differently—identity and desire would have to shift. Not out of a sense of idealism or asceticism or nostalgia for the '60s. Out of a sense of pure pragmatism.

For instance, we've gotten used to eating across great distances. Because it's always summer somewhere, we've accustomed ourselves to a food system that delivers us fresh produce 365 days a year. The energy cost is incredible—growing and transporting a single calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the eastern U.S. takes 36 calories of energy. What would it take to get us back to eating more locally, to accepting what the seasons and smaller scale local farmers provide?

Or think about the houses we now build. They're enormous—more than double the size they were in 1950, despite the fact that the number of people in the average home continues to fall. Even a technologically efficient furnace or air conditioner struggles to heat or cool such a giant space—and the houses can only be built on big suburban lots, guaranteeing that their occupants will be entirely car-dependent. What would it take to make us consider smaller homes, closer to the center of town, where we could use the bus or a bike for daily transportation?
...

Since researchers started trying to measure such things in the years after World War II, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves "very happy" with their lives has remained steady, even though the material standard of living has nearly tripled in the same period. More stuff is not making us happier—but we can't break out of the cycle that offers more stuff as our only real goal.

What we really seem to want, according to the economists and psychologists conducting such research, is more community. Standard economic theory has long assured us that we're insatiable bundles of desires. That may be true, but more and more it feels like our greatest wish is for more contact with other people. We've built the most hyper-individualized society the world has ever seen: According to some surveys, most Americans don't know their next-door neighbors, which is a truly novel idea for primates. That's contributed to the great success of our economy—each of us rises and falls based on our own efforts, which is a great motivator. But it's also contributed to that gathering sense of dissatisfaction, and to that cloud of carbon dioxide. If everyone has to drive their own car everywhere (and the biggest car possible, to maximize their own safety), then it's hard to reduce emissions. If our idea of paradise remains a 4,000-square-foot house on its own isolated lot, it's hard to imagine really rapid change.
...

And you can do the same kind of rethinking about many other parts of daily life, from transportation to housing to energy itself: Imagine a windmill at the end of your cul-de-sac, powering the ten homes along the street. You wouldn't be generating much carbon, and you would be generating lots of companionship.


Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Gee, Blackblade, you are a way more perfect person than anybody I know(except, as I recall Tom.) I think most people do a whole lot of failing to live up to what we believe. Even good people, who believe in good things. I refer you back to the Jefferson example.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BaoQingTian
Member
Member # 8775

 - posted      Profile for BaoQingTian   Email BaoQingTian         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
You don't profit by owning stock, you profit by selling it. If the stock goes down, he loses. There is no "profit now."

Does big oil not pay dividens?

Also, take a step back here. You're suggesting that Al Gore owns oil stock in order to bring about internal change in the company, or bring it down by taking his non-existant profits from owning oil stocks and investing in competing technology. Doesn't that sound a little more far-fetched than the simpler explaination?

Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Gee, Blackblade, you are a way more perfect person than anybody I know(except, as I recall Tom.) I think most people do a whole lot of failing to live up to what we believe. Even good people, who believe in good things. I refer you back to the Jefferson example.

Could you articulate where exactly I described myself as more perfect then most? I have said that if you strongly endorse a moral principle you do it a diservice by not living it yourself as people are less apt to believe it. I have yet to present myself as a living example of any moral principle. Why should I even bother answering you statements directed to me, when you have not seen fit to answer mine?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Does big oil not pay dividens?
Probably, but they'd have to be huge dividends in order to outweigh stock value fluctuations.

quote:

Also, take a step back here. You're suggesting that Al Gore owns oil stock in order to bring about internal change in the company, or bring it down by taking his non-existant profits from owning oil stocks and investing in competing technology. Doesn't that sound a little more far-fetched than the simpler explaination?

There's a difference between what Rakeesh is accusing me of and what I'm claiming. Gore owns stock in petroleum companies, but his work to encourage a carbon neutral society threatens the value of the stock he owns. My claim is that putting his investments at risk in this way indicates sincerity in his belief, rather than hypocrisy.

Rakeesh is also separating one issue into two, namely profitting from stock and working to change the system from within. Owning stock is being part of the bigger system. While the right wing position is that he's a liberal tree hugger, investing in mainstream industry gives him credibility within the moderate conservative investment circles, as being one of them. Divesting himself of any but purely green technologies would put him firmly in the tree hugger category, even for most moderate investors.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
BB, I am just saying that we all advocate positions that we fail to perfectly embody. You, for example (me, too) talk about how wonderful Christianity is. We "strongly endorse" the "moral principles" of Christianity (though our ideas of what that mean may not be exactly the same). We both fall short of living those ideals perfectly. That doesn't mean that those ideals are wrong. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson failed to live up to his ideals of equality and freedom. That does not mean that those ideals were wrong. Al Gore fails to live up to his ideals. That does not mean that what he says is wrong.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Diana Bailey
Member
Member # 8313

 - posted      Profile for Diana Bailey   Email Diana Bailey         Edit/Delete Post 
After reading these messages, I've got to think that the hostility and anger directed towards Al Gore is in part due to the very real difficulty we have in formulating a consistent and thoughtful approach to global warming. All of us in America use enormous amounts of energy and live in ways inconceivable to my friends in Nigeria. Rather than get angry and shout "hypocrite", the real question Gore raises needs to be addressed-how then shall we live? There are lots of good places to begin thinking about these issues...my favorites are essays by Wendell Berry and the magnificent nature books by David Attenborough, and "Reguiem for Nature", by Duke professor John Terborgh.This book changed my perpective, my life...it goes on my top ten books read during the last decade.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BaoQingTian
Member
Member # 8775

 - posted      Profile for BaoQingTian   Email BaoQingTian         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

...the real question Gore raises needs to be addressed-how then shall we live?

Not like they do in Nigeria. Given the chance to drive SUVs and live in air conditioned homes most people in a 3rd world country would probably jump at the chance. It's not environmental idealism that makes them live like they do, it's poverty.

Honestly, I'm a bit hostile to Al Gore after this thread in a way I wasn't before. I've seen more bending over backwards to justify his hypocritical actions than I can believe. He's not being asked to live in a cave or go to any extremes to prove anything. People are just wondering why the man can't be bothered to do some of most basic things that he is asking others to do because the fate of the world hangs in the balance.

Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
People are just wondering why the man can't be bothered to do some of most basic things that he is asking others to do because the fate of the world hangs in the balance.
Like...?
I'm waiting to hear one of the "most basic things" he's recommended that he's not doing.

So far, no one's been able to come up with one. They've cited lots of things that they think some hypothetical tree-hugger might feel guilty about, but that's hardly the same argument.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
human_2.0
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for human_2.0   Email human_2.0         Edit/Delete Post 
Personally, I can't see why anyone thinks Al Gore matters. Politicians are politicians. I'm sick of Bush but I prefer him over Gore and Kerry. But that isn't saying much, because I'm really sick of him. I'm sick of them all. We need new leaders across the board. They need to be from different walks of life than all of the current leaders that are born and bred for office. We need to get people in office who aren't career politicians. But, sigh, how?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But, sigh, how?
By not stopping there. The strongest force against change is the widespread idea that change is not possible. Working towards a change not helps not only in the actual work done, but also by adding an impression of one more person who thinks that it can be done. Get enough people thinking that and suddenly it seems feasible to huge chunks of people.

But then I run into the problem that I don't trust huge chunks of people to change a tire, let alone our system of government.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BaoQingTian
Member
Member # 8775

 - posted      Profile for BaoQingTian   Email BaoQingTian         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Like...?
I'm waiting to hear one of the "most basic things" he's recommended that he's not doing.


So far, no one's been able to come up with one. They've cited lots of things that they think some hypothetical tree-hugger might feel guilty about, but that's hardly the same argument.

Here's a source outside the article stating some of the things he's advocating:
On The Issues

1)Opposition to oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Oppose all new oil and gas drilling off the coasts of California and Florida - and continue the moratorium on new offshore drilling leases nationwide.
2)Oppose any Congressional actions designed to roll back protections for clean air and clean water.
3)Invest more in conservation, renewable energy and in technologies that combat pollution and global warming.

From the posted article on what he personally is doing:
1) As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.
2)Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
3)But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes.

Is the wiggle room on these points....sure there is. But to the average person not looking to condemn or defend Gore it's pretty straighforward examples.

I just don't see why everyone's so worried about it. What Al Gore says one way or another about Global Warming doesn't change the validity of the theory. People just think it's a little hypocritical and sad, sort of like if the Pope held stock in the pornography industry and defenders rushed to say it's not hypocritical because it's not in the Bible or he's just trying to change the pornography industr from within.

Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I am worried about it because it's spokespeople like Gore who make the job of dittoheads easier.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2