You may be . The New Scientist describes 5 crimes most of us routinely commit.

1. Drinking coffee.
The average cup of black filter coffee is still responsible for 125 grams of CO2 emissions.

2.Use toilet paper .If you are an average American your wipe wastes 23 toilet paper rolls each year.

3.Buy new clothes instead of dumpster diving for them.Most of us dispose of clothing before they become thread bare.

4.Washed your dirty clothes. What ? Don't you have a dirty creek and a rock to beat your clothing on ?

5.You throw away food you don't eat. I've never been accuses of leaving food on my plate so I can plead not guilty on that at least.
Five eco-crimes we commit every day - environment - 01 December 2009 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427361.900-five-ecocrimes-we-commit-every-day.html?page=1)

So who is an eco-friendly person ? One could argue that the most eco-friendly people in the United States are the homeless. This is especially true if you are residing in recycled corrigation.

And NYC is determined to keep them eco-friendly... and healthy .The hunger pangs don't matter . The transfats content do.
Metro - Hungry, sure, but food is healthier (http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/11/24/08/2928-82/index.xml)

Soon we will all be living in our own private corrigated homes ;dumpsterdiving for our clothing and standing on line for our transfat free handouts.

1. Drinking coffee.

Nope.


2.Use toilet paper .If you are an average American your wipe wastes 23 toilet paper rolls each year.
When I used my hands I found eating a little icky...



3.Buy new clothes instead of dumpster diving for them.Most of us dispose of clothing before they become thread bare.
Yeah I have some shirts that have holes and I just can't get rid of them.



4.Washed your dirty clothes. What ? Don't you have a dirty creek and a rock to beat your clothing on ?
Sometimes I go weeks without doing my laundry, and if I'm lazy I get clothes from the hamper and wear them.

:D



5.You throw away food you don't eat. I've never been accuses of leaving food on my plate so I can plead not guilty on that at least.
Guilty. I went to a restaurant named Smitty's [the "m" should really be changed to "h"]-- the food was so gross I refused to eat it.

I'm pretty guilty of "wasting" food.


So basically I am an eco-criminal.

Am I going to change? Nah

1. Drinking coffee.

Absolutely, we brew Starbucks, usually an Indonesian roast or blend... none of that fair trade stuff.


2.Use toilet paper .If you are an average American your wipe wastes 23 toilet paper rolls each year.

2 ply


3.Buy new clothes instead of dumpster diving for them.Most of us dispose of clothing before they become thread bare.

Not a huge clothing shopper but can't say the same for my wife. The homeless and otherwise needy generally get them long before they're usefulness is gone. I do however wear my Dallas Cowboys shirts until they're threadbare. Even buried my dog in one so they're both adding nutrients to the soil.


4.Washed your dirty clothes. What ? Don't you have a dirty creek and a rock to beat your clothing on ?

I have plenty of rocks, and a Maytag.


5.You throw away food you don't eat.

Rarely is my plate not cleaned, but the leftovers don't always get used. The dogs do get most of the leftover meat and veggies they can have added to their dinners. Of course then they go emit their own greenhouse gases.


Soon we will all be living in our own private corrigated homes ;dumpsterdiving for our clothing and standing on line for our transfat free handouts.

Ah, Utopia...

Of course then they go emit their own greenhouse gases.


If your dogs are the same as mine then it can be said their greenhouse gasses are toxic.

I read that article and I don't drink Coffee but are there really people who drink 6 cups of coffee everyday?? They must be bouncing off the walls.

Speech I am so mad at myself for not starting Bo Scafie I would have beat you if I did!! Congrats!

Colston had a good game last night .

I was thinking last night I want the Saints to win. But I don't want Colston or Shockey to have a good game. Shockey didn't do that great but Colston had I think 23 points.

1. Drinking coffee.
Yes but not the drip filter kind so eco-friendly on that one


2.Use toilet paper
Yes, I find there are various kinds of pollution and I prefer not to have diarrhea


3.Buy new clothes instead of dumpster diving for them.
I've been reviewing my wardrobe lately, time to consign most of it to the charity store and buy some new clothes


4.Washed your dirty clothes.
No I just can't afford a house with a crik, but I only wash them once a week, does that qualify?


5.You throw away food you don't eat.
Yes, I find I just can't get through that lettuce in a week and bananas ripen so quickly, can't stand a mushy banana, what else can youdo with food you don't eat?


So who is an eco-friendly person?

I'm very friendly I plant shrubs and trees and even talk to them, I find them very friendly and more intelligent than most ecologists. I drive a four cylinder car, 2.2L of course, I think that's eco-friendly enough, all things considered, Since I only have to fill the tank once every three weeks. Even had a solar hot water system until it corroded out. I've done the weekend chopping wood thing and I have decided that denuding the woods of firewood isn't very eco-friendly and besides who wants to get rid of the ashes. I have also decided that composting unused food isn't eco-friendly and think that it belongs at the tip where they produce methane gas to generate green electricity, those flouro lights are a bit dim though and I wonder why I have keratosis

I read that article and I don't drink Coffee but are there really people who drink 6 cups of coffee everyday?? They must be bouncing off the walls.

Six cups barely gets my wife started.


Speech I am so mad at myself for not starting Bo Scafie I would have beat you if I did!! Congrats!

Thanks, I got lucky my team didn't suck more, I left 100 points on the bench. I was watching the game last night with 2 Saints receivers on my team while Brees tossed TD's to every player but them. Then Colston came through :)

Yeah I saw TO sitting on your bench. I played someone in a different league last week with TO on their bench. He would have beaten me by 1 point if he started TO.

I was thinking last night I want the Saints to win. But I don't want Colston or Shockey to have a good game. Shockey didn't do that great but Colston had I think 23 points.

At the half they had 3 points between them, about as much as the rest of my receivers and RB's had, lol. Regardless, I enjoyed watching Hoodie get spanked. I wonder if he wears his hoodies until they're threadbare?

I think he does wear them to they are threadbare!!

Whoever came up with that list is an eco-idiot.

You may be . The New Scientist describes 5 crimes most of us routinely commit.

1. Drinking coffee.

Absolutely, 2-3 per day.



2.Use toilet paper .If you are an average American your wipe wastes 23 toilet paper rolls each year.


I'd rather be a criminal than gross and funky :eek:



3.Buy new clothes instead of dumpster diving for them.Most of us dispose of clothing before they become thread bare
.

Points here, I have clothes older than my children, and I'm not above buying good second hand clothing. Unfortunantly as the years go buy my waist has not exactly stayed the same size ;)



4.Washed your dirty clothes. What ? Don't you have a dirty creek and a rock to beat your clothing on ?


If I'm going to wear old clothes, at least they should be clean. I have one of those high efficiency front loaders - saves water and electricity.




5.You throw away food you don't eat. I've never been accuses of leaving food on my plate so I can plead not guilty on that at least.


I only get enough that I can eat. And I'll finish what the kids don't eat and I'll reheat leftovers.



Soon we will all be living in our own private corrigated homes ;dumpsterdiving for our clothing and standing on line for our transfat free handouts.

So if everyone is eco friendly who will fill up the dumpsters to dive in?

[ I've reduced the space here, at the request of NK, so I waste less space :p ] G&P

OK lets see.. I drive 35 miles each way to work in my Outback (about 25 mpg) and pick up a decaf on on the way (in one of those styrofoam cups ) .

I tried one of those bidet thingys and all it did was get my pants wet. Paper or sycamore leaves are the way to go.

I wear my clothes until they are thread bare or hopelessly stained. But my wife is good at giving hers away to charity.

Does itr count that my employer's laundry service cleans most of my clothing ? Probably not .I bet the industrial cleaning process isn't very eco-friendly.

When it comes to food I call myself eco-friendly . My plate is clean... we make leftovers last and any veggie based waste goes into our back yard composter . Why should I deny the black bear his share ? When he's foraging through my composter it saves us the effort of turning it.
I run the dishwasher which I believe is more eco-friendly than using gallons of water and a bottle of biodegradable dish soap.

I pride myself in having 3 recycle bins of papers plastics etc a week and only a single can of refuse picked up.(empty beer and wine bottles take up much more space than wet trash. )

Hello tom:

I am NOT a crook! I don't commit ANY of those crimes. I do, however, produce about a pound and a half of methane daily.

excon

So who is an eco-friendly person ? One could argue that the most eco-friendly people in the United States are the homeless. This is especially true if you are residing in recycled corrigation.

And NYC is determined to keep them eco-friendly.....and healthy .The hunger pangs don't matter . The transfats content do.
Metro - Hungry, sure, but food is healthier (http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/11/24/08/2928-82/index.xml)

Soon we will all be living in our own private corrigated homes ;dumpsterdiving for our clothing and standing on line for our transfat free handouts.

yes, I am more eco-friendly than you guys. Finally a good point to being homeless.

someone should tell the government that fat is a GOOD thing when you're homeless. The extra padding helps keep you warm in cold weather, and you can live off the reserves if you have to go a ways between meals.

I have eaten more junk food since I became homeless than I did in the 2-3 years prior. Every free meal comes with a donut, or cake, or pudding, and there's usually some for you to take with you.

while I did not dumpster-dive for my clothing, it is all pre-owned (except the socks and underwear). Clothes closets and thrift stores are an amazing thing. Although, in an effort to be more eco-friendly I probably SHOULD consider going through trash in an effort to find that shirt I need to go with that skirt ^_^

1. Drinking coffee.

At least 6 cups during my 7th night shift in a row.




2.Use toilet paper .If you are an average American your wipe wastes 23 toilet paper rolls each year.


If only I had a buhday.



3.Buy new clothes instead of dumpster diving for them.Most of us dispose of clothing before they become thread bare.


I don't dumpster dive, but I don't buy clothes until I absolutely need them. Heck I still have a pair of jeans from the early 90s I wear.



4.Washed your dirty clothes. What ? Don't you have a dirty creek and a rock to beat your clothing on ?


Who want's a stinky nurse? There's already enough funk going on in the labor and delivery rooms, I don't need to add to it.




5.You throw away food you don't eat.

I save that for my ailing dog so that she can have some of the best last meals she has ever had before she meets the alpha dog in the sky.

1. Drinking coffee.

I drink the entire pot. But I only use one measuring spoon per pot (8 cups water). A can of coffee lasts me forever. So it's dishwater. Who cares?

2.Use toilet paper .If you are an average American your wipe wastes 23 toilet paper rolls each year.

23 rolls a year? Just who are they talking about? Men? Men I can see, but a woman? Ha! Not in this lifetime. More like 10 rolls a month minimum for a woman.

3.Buy new clothes instead of dumpster diving for them.Most of us dispose of clothing before they become thread bare.

I buy my clothes at thrift stores if I can. Have a collection of sweaters that I change out every 2 years or so giving the worn ones back to the thrift store. I seldom buy any clothes new from a department store as prices are too high.

4.Washed your dirty clothes. What ? Don't you have a dirty creek and a rock to beat your clothing on ?

I do wash in cold water only and if weather permits hang out to dry outside.

5.You throw away food you don't eat.

Any old, moldy or outdated food goes directly to my raccoons or possums that visit my back porch. They make short work of any kind of food I have. Haven't thrown out anything other than banana peels. They make short work of all of the food in their bowls.

I also keep my home at 60 degrees in the winter time regardless of how cold it is outside. I just pile on more sweaters and wear a hat inside. I'm toasty warm. I don't keep my home cooled off in the summer either with the a/c. I keep it at 78 in the summer. I wear shorts and sleeveless shirts.

I also don't use my stovetop or oven any more. I use plug in appliances that heat up my food quite nicely. Last month my electric bill was the lowest it's been in years since I stopped using the stovetop and stove to cook food. Should have done that years ago. No, I do not own a microwave either.

Hello tom:

I am NOT a crook! I don't commit ANY of those crimes. I do, however, produce about a pound and a half of methane daily.

So you ARE ruining the planet. :D

[QUOTE=tomder55;2111511]OK lets see.. I drive 35 miles each way to work in my Outback (about 25 mpg) and pick up a decaf on on the way (in one of those styrofoam cups ) .

Do great minds think alike or what?

I love my Impreza. Wish I could afford a Legacy turbo!!

23 rolls a year? Just who are they talking about? Men? Men I can see, but a woman? Ha!! Not in this lifetime. More like 10 rolls a month minimum for a woman.



I was thinking the same thing twinkie. My wife goes through TP like nothing. When I lived alone I hardly ever needed to buy TP my wife moved in and I thought my bathroom became and extra storage center for Scott TP!!

I was thinking the same thing twinkie. My wife goes through TP like nothing. When I lived alone I hardly ever needed to buy TP my wife moved in and I thought my bathroom became and extra storage center for Scott TP!!!

I hear you, Spit. Women are ruining the planet.

Now you can leave this world with a clean conscience...

Finally: eco-friendly bio-cremations (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/corpses-dissolve-in-eco-friendly-bio-cremations/story-fn3dxity-1225806137520)


WORRIED you haven't been green enough in life? Don't let death come in the way of a more eco-friendly you.

From coffins made of recycled cardboard to saying no to embalming chemicals that seep into the soil, people are increasingly searching for ways to make their final resting place a more environmentally-friendly one.

Now cremation, the choice today of a third of Americans and more than half of Canadians, is getting a green makeover.

A standard cremation spews into the air about 400kg of carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming - along with other pollutants like dioxins and mercury vapor if the deceased had silver tooth fillings.

On top of that each cremation guzzles as much energy, in the form of natural gas and electricity, as an 800km car trip.

Enter alkaline hydrolysis, a chemical body-disposal process its proponents call "bio-cremation" and say uses one-tenth the natural gas of fire-based cremation and one-third the electricity.

C02 emissions are cut by almost 90 per cent and no mercury escapes as fillings and other metal objects, such as hip or knee replacements, can be recovered intact and recycled.

"The target audience are those people who buy organic salmon rather than farmed salmon," Paul Rahill, president of the cremation division of Matthews International Corp, said.

"Those that buy a hybrid rather than a regular car."

The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based company that makes caskets and other funeral products is planning the world's first commercial launch of human alkaline hydrolysis in January at a funeral home in St Petersburg, Florida.

The technique is not new but has only been used to dispose of laboratory animals and medical research cadavers at a few institutions.

Its commercial use has been held up partly because of its cost - the equipment is four times as expensive as that of traditional cremation - and because state and provincial legislation may need to be changed, especially laws governing what can be disposed of in the water system.

Overcoming peoples' squeamishness when they hear the process described, what Mr Rahill calls the 'ick' factor, is also an obstacle.

The Catholic Church in parts of the United States has objected, saying the practice "is not a respectful way to dispose of human remains".

In alkaline hydrolysis the body is submerged in water in a stainless steel chamber.

Heat, pressure and potassium hydroxide, chemicals used to make soap and bleach, are added to dissolve the tissue.

Two hours later all that's left is some bone residue and a syrupy brown liquid that is flushed down the drain.

The bones can be crushed and returned to the family as with cremation.

Flush your loved one away, ain't that special?

I thought my bathroom became and extra storage center for Scott TP!!


Got to tell her to stop using it for origami projects.

I here Sheryl Crowe has an instructional video out about how to accomplish the wipe with a single sheet.

Galveston ;Getting stuck in snow is not an option for me . That is why I opted for the all-wheel drive Outback. It gives me that feature without having to drive an SUV.

someone should tell the government that fat is a GOOD thing when you're homeless. The extra padding helps keep you warm in cold weather, and you can live off the reserves if you have to go a ways between meals.


Some religions ban pork.Others ban trans-fats.

Speech here is what I am going to do when I die.

Eternal Reefs, A Cremation Memorial Option (http://www.eternalreefs.com/)

So you want to become cement mix ? There are good fellas in Jersey who could arrange that.

Oh I know Tom that is why my mom never let me stay with my cousin's in Jersey during the summer. I want to be cremated anyway and I love the ocean so hey why not make me a home for fish. Plus it also makes a few annoying days for my family members who hate boats and the ocean.

Speech here is what I am going to do when I dieHello spit:

That is very cool. I'm going to be cremated, and my kids are going to snort my ashes. That's pretty ecco friendly, no?

excon

I love the ocean so hey why not make me a home for fish.
Me too except I told my family to just make me fish food . I guess the enviro-wackos won't let that happen anymore.

Becoming cement mix is different, annoying family after you're gone is classic.

As for me I really don't care what you do with me when I go, prop me up for a weekend at Bernie's experience if you want. I just hope it's not any time soon.

No they won't I looked into it already. But in San Fran they have these Great White shark tours where you can get in a cage and watch the sharks in the water. I told my wife if I come down with some terminal disease get me on that boat drug me up then throw me in. This way when some asked how I died everyone could say I was eaten by great whites. Now that I type this I guess the drugs wouldn't be good for the sharks. Damn

Now that I type this I guess the drugs wouldn't be good for the sharks. damn

But it might help them not notice that bad taste in their mouth :D

Hey! ;)

I'm very pro-environment and animal rights, but I hate extremists. They give all environmentalists a bad name. I drink instant coffee, so I'm not sure if that counts for number 1. Using toilet paper is pretty much necessary. I don't buy new clothes unless I have to but I have to wash them after a reasonable amount of time. I often throw food that has gone bad into my gardens or in the woods so it can break down naturally or get eaten by bugs and animals instead of clogging up a landfill. I'm not giving up my sauerkraut or omelettes with fried onions and mushrooms so I guess I emit more greenhouse gasses than the average person.

I'm guilty of all of those sins and I intend to continue my life stye. What idiot drew up that list and left out the important things

1. You burn wood in an inhouse fire place;particulate emissions as well as CO2

2. you burn rubbish or leaves; particulate, poison and CO2 emissions

3. you travel in V8 autos, SUV and other large vehicles

4. you use ethenol which has been produced from corn

I'll think of some more later

The article is either gone or subscription-only, can you post the whole thing tom?

I'll try ,but this was originally posted in 2009 .

Part 1

Five eco-crimes we commit every day by Dave. S. Reay


1/12/2009 New Scientist Magazine issue 2736.
WHEN the UN Climate Change Conference opens in Copenhagen next month, all eyes will be on the delegates' efforts to broker a deal that will prevent catastrophic global warming. Yet amid all the talk of caps, targets and trading, it is easy to forget who is ultimately responsible for the mess we find ourselves in. I have long argued that climate change begins at home. Each of us in the developed world has played our part in creating this problem and, while there is no doubt that coordinated global action is needed to tackle it, we can each be part of the solution.

So, ask yourself this: how green am I really? You might think you are doing your bit for the environment, but even if you shun bottled water, buy local produce and reuse your plastic bags, chances are that you have some habits that are far more environmentally damaging than you realise. What's more, if everyone else is doing these things too, their detrimental effects really add up.

1 Coffee
Take coffee. Its vendors are in the vanguard of those promoting more “sustainable” products, with organic and fair trade options now widely available. Starbucks even boasts a programme it calls Shared PlanetTM programme – the irony of that trademark appears to be lost on them – which has the declared aim of minimising the company's environmental impact and increasing involvement with local communities.

That's no bad thing, as far as it goes: fair trade can help to stop the exploitation of farmers, and buying organic may ensure more sustainable production techniques. But the average cup of black filter coffee is still responsible for 125 grams of CO2 emissions. Of this, two-thirds comes from production and most of the rest from brewing.

Opting for the more prosaic joys of instant coffee reduces that figure to around 80 grams. Yet that still means a six-a-day caffeine habit clocks up more than 175 kilograms of CO2 each year. That's the equivalent of a flight across Europe – from London to Rome, say. Add milk, and the methane belched by dairy cows means you increase your coffee's climate-changing emissions by more than a third.

175 kilograms The annual CO2 emission of a six-a-day coffee habit. Equivalent to a single flight between London and Rome
It doesn't end there, though. The environmental group WWF has calculated that it takes 200 litres of water to produce the coffee, milk, sugar and cup for just one regular takeout latte. So if everyone ditched their pre-work coffee fix that would do wonders for the planet.

2 Toilet paper
Then there's toilet paper. Like coffee companies, loo paper manufacturers have long provided options for environmentally conscious consumers. Top of the list is 100 per cent recycled paper, which avoids much of the energy use and emissions associated with harvesting and processing new wood. Every kilogram of recycled tissue saves some 30 litres of water and between 3 and 4 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Since 1 kilowatt-hour of grid electricity is responsible for around 500 grams of CO2, that means a saving of 1.5 to 2 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of tissue.

Recycled toilet tissue is most widely used in Europe and Latin America, but even there it still only accounts for 1 in 5 rolls. In the US it remains very much a niche product. The average American gets through 23 toilet rolls each year, adding up to more than 7 billion rolls for the country in total. Of these, just 1 in 50 are from 100 per cent recycled fibres. As Greenpeace pointed out earlier this year, this not only wastes energy and water, it also puts additional logging pressure on old-growth forest in North America, forests which play a vital role in supporting native biodiversity.

The reason toilet roll made from new wood is preferred is quite simple: its long fibres produce the softest and fluffiest paper. Every time paper is recycled, the fibres become shorter, making for an increasingly rough bathroom experience. Recycled paper can't compete on softness so some use of new wood by the toilet paper industry may be inevitable. Sourcing Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) approved toilet tissue will help to ensure that any new wood fibres that are added to the mix have come from sustainable forestry projects that protect, rather than threaten, old-growth forest ecosystems.

3 Fast fashion
Next on my list of everyday decadence is fast fashion. In 1990, global textile production stood at 40 million tonnes. By 2005 that figure had risen to around 60 million tonnes. This surge in manufacture and consumption has been helped by fast-moving fashion trends and sweatshop price tags. As a result, much of the clothing we buy ends up being discarded long before it has worn out. In the UK, where the average item is worn for less than a third of its useful lifespan, more than a million tonnes of clothing are thrown away each year. The bulk of it ends up buried like woolly lasagne sheets in landfill sites or being used as multicoloured incinerator fodder.

Even the global economic crisis appears to have had little impact on our love affair with fast fashion; UK clothing sales this summer were up 11 per cent on the same time last year. If we can't entirely kick the habit, we can at least dispose of the evidence in a greener way.

At present, in the UK and US, only around a quarter of unwanted textiles are reused or recycled. Recycled textiles have many uses, from mattress fillings and upholstery to bags and shoes, but the truly green alternative is reuse. The energy required to collect, process and sell a reused item of clothing is only 2 per cent of the energy required to manufacture a new garment. Every kilogram of virgin cotton preserved by reusing second-hand clothing saves 65 kilowatt-hours of energy, equivalent to about 32.5 kilograms of CO2. For polyester, the savings rise to 90 kilowatt-hours per kilogram.

The clothing and textile sector in the UK alone is responsible for more than 3 million tonnes of CO2 emissions each year. Switching to second-hand alternatives could therefore yield some big energy savings and cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Part 2
4 Laundry
Fast fashion has created textile mountains in many homes, yet the environmental cost of this excessive consumption has an even less conspicuous twin: the energy used to launder it all. Cleanliness has become a touchstone of domestic life since advertisers convinced us that our shirts must always be “whiter than white”, our sheets should forever smell of spring flowers, and that to be dressed in freshly laundered clothes at all times is a badge of success. We live in a “wear once and wash” culture. In fact, only about 7.5 per cent of the average laundry load in the UK is thought to be heavily soiled. Much of the rest is made up of items that are stuffed into the washing machine simply because they are on the floor instead of in the wardrobe (Sustainable Fashion and Textiles by Kate Fletcher, Earthscan, 2008). This habit is shockingly wasteful in terms of water, detergents and energy.

One study found that over 80 per cent of the CO2 emissions produced during the life cycle of a single polyester blouse arose from cleaning and drying it. The percentage can be even higher for items made of cotton, as they tend to require far more energy-hungry drying.

It is easy to see how these emissions stack up. A full load in a washing machine uses around 1.2 kilowatt-hours of electricity per cycle and tumble drying clocks up a further 3.5 kilowatt-hours, resulting in over 2 kilograms of CO2 emissions per wash. With four or five loads per household per week, the total annual emissions from each home can easily pass the half-tonne mark. That's a significant proportion of the 10-tonne annual emissions of the average European. Line drying, washing at lower temperatures and ensuring full rather than partial loads will all help to reduce laundry emissions. For the largest cuts, simply washing less frequently is the way to go.

5 Food wastage
Of all the facets of overconsumption that plague both human society and the global environment, food wastage is the most shocking. US households throw away around 30 per cent of their food, worth $48 billion every year. Similar levels of wastage are seen in Europe. In the UK, some 6.7 million tonnes of food is binned annually. Most of this joins the layers of unwanted clothing in landfill sites, where it decomposes, emitting the powerful greenhouse gas methane. Potatoes top the pile, with 359,000 tonnes going uneaten each year. Bread and apples are not far behind. Meat and fish are next, accounting for over 160,000 tonnes, followed by 78,000 tonnes of cooked rice and pasta. A staggering 4.8 billion grapes go the same way, as do 480 million yogurts and 200 million rashers of bacon. The annual cost to UK consumers of all this waste is £10 billion and the cost to the environment is the equivalent of an extra 15 million tonnes of CO2 (The Food We Waste, WRAP, 2008; bit.ly/urUFj).

£10 billion The annual cost to UK consumers of wasted food
The cost of food wastage reverberates down the supply chain, increasing requirements for storage, transport and packaging. But the biggest impact by far comes in food production. For almost all the food we buy, the bulk of its greenhouse gas emissions arise here. This is especially true for meat and dairy produce. For example, 40,200 tonnes of milk are wasted each year in the UK, adding up to the equivalent of 40,000 tonnes of CO2. This is comparable to the annual CO2 emissions of 10,000 cars, or of flying 30,000 people from London to New York and back.

In their 2008 report, WRAP, the UK's Waste & Resources Action Programme, examined just why people throw so much food away. The most common reasons were that the food had been left on plates after a meal, was out of date, or simply “looked bad”. WRAP is now running a campaign to reduce food wastage. It aims to promote better management of food at home by encouraging people to prepare the right amount of food, keep an eye on use-by dates, and store food in appropriate conditions. As consumers we should also think more carefully before we shop. Check what you have already got, make a shopping list and, most importantly, don't do the weekly shop when you are hungry.

This list is far from complete and you may disagree with my choices. Perhaps you would include air conditioning, flushing toilets or popular science magazines on your list. Maybe you consider soft toilet roll or your morning latte as non-negotiable. If so, join the debate in the comments below. What's not in doubt, though, is that the cumulative effects of our everyday decisions can make a big difference to the global environment. Knowing just how damaging they are today may help us to make better choices tomorrow.

Gas-guzzling gadgets
Widescreen TVs

Last year, consumer electronics became the biggest user of electricity in UK homes. TV sets have led the regime change. As prices have fallen, size and energy demands have risen. Some plasma TV screens now measure more than 150 centimetres and, assuming average use, cause the emission of almost a tonne of CO2 each year. In 2005, TV sets used 8 per cent of the electricity consumed in the UK and this is predicted to almost double by 2020 (The Ampere Strikes Back, UK Energy Saving Trust; bit.ly/4h7IM7). This will mean an increase from just over 5 million tonnes of CO2 annually to more than 8.5 million tonnes. In the US, emissions attributable to TV use now top 30 million tonnes a year.

Plug-in air fresheners

Compared to watching TV on screens so large that they need a reinforced wall to hang on, the energy used by a plug-in air freshener seems positively spartan. At about 1 watt each their electricity demand is tiny, but they are busy wafting their approximation of apple and cinnamon odours around our homes 24/7. For a plug-in fanatic, half a dozen of them chugging away all year will emit the equivalent of 28 kilograms of CO2 – another tiny addition to the less fragrant outpourings of our power stations.

Patio heaters

The must-have garden accessory of a few years ago, the patio heater remains the domestic antithesis of climate change mitigation. The little useful heat that does manage to redden the foreheads of those clustered nearby comes at a cost of around 10 kilograms of CO2 for just four hours' use.

In-car gizmos

Instead of I-spy and guess-the-colour-of-the-next-car, in-car entertainment is now more likely to feature a plug-in games console or a passenger TV screen. Meanwhile, the badly folded map book has given way to intermittent commentary from a dashboard-mounted satnav. The extra energy demands of such devices, together with ever more powerful aircon systems, can result in fuel efficiency plummeting by more than 20 per cent.

Dave S. Reay is at the University of Edinburgh, UK. His new children's book on climate change is called Your Planet Needs You! And is published by Macmillan Children's Books

Wow... the article's content and your bullet points in the original posts barely resemble each other. There are some interesting facts and valid points in the proper article. It has a lot to do with our disposable/planned obsolescence economy.

Wow...the article's content and your bullet points in the original posts barely resemble each other. There are some interesting facts and valid points in the proper article. It has a lot to do with our disposable/planned obsolescence economy.

Didn't it really always have to do with that, the more crap we make the more CO2 we release. Let's see and SUV can last well maybe ten years but how many are traded every year? And you justt got to have that 100 in TV, right and aircon that could serve as a primary unit for a freezer room. Who ever turns off a light?

So clete... you've bought into the CO2 is pollution bs. I see .

No Tom CO2 isn't pollution pursee, waste is pollution, excess is pollution and it leads not only to CO2 emissions but the using of resources. Cutting down forests to grow soya beans is waste, using corn to fuel vehicles when people starve elsewhere is waste. Time to stop the waste, if you can recycle tanks you can recycle SUV, not just to stop bleshing smoke into the atmosphere but to change from a throwaway society to one that builds fro the future

No Tom CO2 isn't pollution pursee, waste is pollution, excess is pollution and it leads not only to CO2 emissions but the using of resources. Cutting down forests to grow soya beans is waste, using corn to fuel vehicles when people starve elsewhere is waste. Time to stop the waste, if you can recycle tanks you can recycle SUV, not just to stop bleshing smoke into the atmosphere but to change from a throwaway society to one that builds fro the future

A Sheryl Crowe... one sheet of toilet paper world.

a Sheryl Crowe... one sheet of toilet paper world.Why so condescending? No need for that.

a Sheryl Crowe ...one sheet of toilet paper world.

I don't expect you to be capable of understanding a concept so contrary to your throwaway society, A Muslim would tell you not to use toilet paper but to wash yourself, a chinese would tell you not to put toilet paper in the toilet, it blocks the drains, each society has it own excesses

Neither of you have a clue .

And the insults continue...

neither of you have a clue .

Coming from a clueless person that is a compliement

Fatberg ahead...

http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/streams/2013/August/130805/6C8518281-fatberg.blocks_desktop_large.jpg

Fatberg ahead...



I think you will find that fatberg sitting in the Capitol building in Washington blocking the flow of funds. Rogoff has described this process, or rather a default, as a loss of viriginity, but I think there is a somewhat cruder description and it has already happened. If you don't get it I'll be happy to tell you...

Although this is on another thread... I want to correct the emperor and others who claim that the US has never defaulted before . It has actually happened before once in 1790... once in 1812... in 1933, and once more recently... in 1979. The 1812 one was excusable because the Brits were burning down Washington at the time. The 1979 one was another finger pointing affair between the executive and the White House. The difference then was that both Congress and the executive was Democrat controlled . What is notable is that these incidences have been lost to history and although costly (in 1979 ,T Bills yielded 10% + as opposed to close to 0% today) ,are but blips that are not remembered today.
Others have argued that the US repeatedly defaulted on domestic debt after the Revolution ,on greenback obligations during the civil war ,and on Liberty Bond obligations during WWII. And there are some like me who argue that intentionally weakening the US dollar is effectively a default .

Hello wrongwinger:

Allrighty then. Default sounds great. Let's do it.. Last one in is a RINO...

excon

As I've stated on the other thread. If there is default ;it is completely because the emperor chooses that there is one.

Hello again, tom:

It's true. If I threatened to chop off your arms unless you do my bidding, and you REFUSE, OF COURSE it's your fault that I chopped 'em off.

excon

And there are some like me who argue that intentionally weakening the US dollar is effectively a default .

At last some sanity, yes you have already defaulted so the process is now academic posturing

At last some sanity, yes you have already defaulted so the process is now academic posturing

At last ? I thought I was very clear in my position about monetary policy .

At last ? I thought I was very clear in my position about monetary policy .

Tom monetary policy is missing in the US at the moment, you have 0% interest rates, you will be borrowing money to borrow money next, your taxes are low, so you cannot make many adjustments except the dreaded tax increase, you have a cap on borrowing and no budget to speak of. In addition you are printing money. What has happened is your ponzi scheme has fallen over, you have to keep paying out more than your income and you continue the illusion that you lead the world. The only place you are leading them is into depression, both mental and financial

Hello again, tom:
there are some like me who argue that intentionally weakening the US dollar is effectively a default .I don't disagree at all. That doesn't mean we should INTENTIONALLY put it out of its misery.

But, you're not arguing, are you, that Obama is the first president who ruined our dollar? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

excon

your taxes are low,

it's always about collecting more taxes isn't it ? It's never about reigning in out of control spending by the Leviathan . The rest of your response about interest rates ,and printing money I agree with as you know... and especially about our ponzi scheme entitlements that now includes the unfunded Obamacare .

Hello again, tom:I don't disagree at all. That doesn't mean we should INTENTIONALLY put it out of its misery.

But, you're not arguing, are you, that Obama is the first president who ruined our dollar? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

excon

No I'm not.. why would you think that ? I've certainly argued often against our monetary polices in the last 2 decades .

But, you're not arguing, are you, that Obama is the first president who ruined our dollar? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

excon

Of course he is arguing that, BO is the epitamy of all evil in his mind, but BO hasn't ruined the dollar, Congress has as it proves that the opposite of progress is congress

If the EPA gets their way anyone that owns property and has a puddle could soon be an eco-criminal subject to their heavy handed tactics.


Republican leaders of the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of rushing a rule to establish broad authority over streams and wetlands.

In a letter to the agency on Friday, Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Chris Stewart (R-Utah) alleged that it is trying to initiate a “sweeping reinterpretation” of its jurisdiction in a potential new rule.

The regulation to expand the EPA’s oversight would give it “unprecedented control over private property across the nation,” they asserted.

In September, the EPA began the process of asserting that it can regulate streams, estuaries and other small bodies of water under authority granted by the Clean Water Act. The agency said that the new rule is necessary to clear up confusion caused by two recent Supreme Court cases.

The EPA said making sure that regulations protecting clean water apply to those smaller waters ends up protecting larger lakes and rivers downstream.
Republican lawmakers have attacked the move and accused the agency of making a broad power grab. They worry that the EPA’s science has not been thorough enough to warrant a new rule.

“In light of the significant implications this action would have on the economy, property rights, and state sovereignty, this process must be given more thought and deliberation to allow for important, statutorily-required, weighing of the scientific and technical underpinnings of the proposed regulatory changes,” Smith and Stewart wrote on Friday.

Smith is the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, and Stewart leads its environment subcommittee.

The proposal is currently under review at the White House’s budget office, where most major rules are subjected to scrutiny before being unveiled to the public.
Once the proposal is released, the EPA will accept public comments and revise the regulation before finalizing it.

The lawmakers want the EPA to give a copy of the proposal to the agency’s science advisory board, which is made up of outside experts from academia and businesses, for a thorough review.
Releasing the proposal before the board has had a chance to look at it “would be to put the cart before the horse,” they claimed in their letter.
In a statement emailed to The Hill Friday afternoon, the EPA said that it has received the lawmakers’ letter and will review it.


Read more: GOP: EPA move 'unprecedented' - The Hill's RegWatch (http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/329321-gop-accuse-epa-of-plotting-unprecedented-power-grab#ixzz2i751goV6)
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

This is their response to losing 9-0 in a SCOTUS case that determined an Idaho couple had the right to sue the EPA for arbitrarily deeming part of their property protected wetlands and threatening them with fines of $75,000 per day if they didn't bow to their demands.

Trust me, the EPA will attempt a huge power grab here and they need to be reined in before private property rights become largely a thing of the past.

The Goracle has vented his spleen (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/al-gore-keystone-xl_n_4158648.html?utm_hp_ref=politics) again on Keystone:


The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is "ridiculous" and "an atrocity," said former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday.

Speaking at an event honoring the 10th anniversary of the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, Gore praised President Barack Obama's efforts on climate change, stating that he thinks the president is sincere and that it will be a legacy issue for him. But on Keystone XL, which is waiting to hear its fate from the Obama administration, Gore was unequivocal.

"I hope as he gets down to the licklog, as he gets down to the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, that he understands what this means," Gore said. "This should be vetoed. It's an atrocity, it's a threat."

Gore, who just concluded his third annual 24 Hours of Reality event, compared the reliance on fossil fuels -- particularly those derived from tar sands, which the Keystone pipeline would spur further development of -- to a drug addiction.

"Junkies find veins in their toes when their arms and legs go out," Gore said. "We are now at a point where we are going after dangerous and dirty fuels."

Because the proposed pipeline crosses an international border, the northern part of it must get approval from the State Department before it can go forward. The issue has been a major source of controversy for the Obama administration, as environmental groups argue that the pipeline would exacerbate global warming.

And where we aren't going after "dangerous and dirty fuels" we're killing off our eagle population and destroying the view, but who cares about that? OK Al, I give, let's just keep moving it by train (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-20/cn-rail-cars-burning-after-yesterday-s-alberta-derailment.html).

canadian pipeline map - Bing Images (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=canadian+pipeline+map&qpvt=canadian+pipeline+map&FORM=IGRE)

Pipelines are for profit, wind mills are for energy. You worry about birds, not a bad thing at all, but I worry about birds, animal, fish, and people who suffer when those pipelines rupture, and there have been plenty of those.

"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

Tilting at windmills (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/tilting-at-windmills.html)


The figurative reference to tilting at windmills came a little later. John Cleveland published The character of a London diurnall in 1644 (a diurnall was, as you might expect, part-way between a diary or journal):


"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

The full form of the phrase isn't used until towards the end of the 19th century; for example, in The New York Times, April 1870:


"They [Western Republicans] have not thus far had sufficient of an organization behind them to make their opposition to the Committee's bill anything more than tilting at windmills

canadian pipeline map - Bing Images (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=canadian+pipeline+map&qpvt=canadian+pipeline+map&FORM=IGRE)

Pipelines are for profit, wind mills are for energy.

Right, GE and all these power companies are putting them up out of pure concern for the environment. Bwa ha ha ha!

Meanwhile, what if the federal government held an auction for solar and wind leases and nobody showed?

BLM holds solar auction for Colorado public lands — and no one shows (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2013/10/blm-holds-auction-for-solar-energy-on.html?page)

Right, GE and all these power companies are putting them up out of pure concern for the environment. Bwa ha ha ha!

You can never have too many pipelines and what's one more in a land of pipelines

You can never have too many pipelines and what's one more in a land of pipelines

You know, I live in Texas which is in an oil boom and I never notice any pipelines, they just go about their business unnoticed. On the other hand those darn windmills are an increasingly worse eyesore.

When a pipeline that's generally underground and out of sight ruptures in your front yard you will notice.

When a pipeline that's generally underground and out of sight ruptures in your front yard you will notice.

It does happen, but you should know how strictly pipelines are regulated. There is nothing energy companies are more stringent about than safety.

The problem is more related to maintenance, replace, repair, and inspection. Not easy on underground pipes of any kind and very labor intensive.

One of Obama's pet projects, Abound Solar, another of thosse who took stimulus money and tanked, has left the beautiful state of Colorado a toxic dump behind.


Bankrupt solar panel firm took stimulus money, left a toxic mess, says report (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/31/bankrupt-solar-panel-firm-took-stimulus-money-left-toxic-mess-says-report/)

A Colorado-based solar company that got hundreds of millions of dollars in federal loan guarantees before going belly-up didn't just empty taxpayers' wallets - it left behind a toxic mess of carcinogens, broken glass and contaminated water, according to a new report.

The Abound Solar plant, which got $400 million in federal loan guarantees in 2010, when the Obama administration sought to use stimulus funds to promote green energy, filed for bankruptcy two years later. Now its Longmont, Colo., facility sits unoccupied, its 37,000 square feet littered with hazardous waste, broken glass and contaminated water. The Northern Colorado Business Report estimates it will cost up to $3.7 million to clean and repair the building so it can again be leased.

“As lawyers, regulators, bankruptcy officials and the landlord spar over the case, the building lies in disrepair, too contaminated to lease,” the report stated.

The owner of the property tried to force a bankruptcy trustee to clean the facility, but the report said it would "place humans at imminent and significant health risk." One of the hazards is the presence of cadmium, a cancer-causing agent that is used to produce the film on the solar panels, the report said.

While the loan guarantees exposed taxpayers to hundreds of millions of dollars, the federal government lost a total of $70 million backing the failed company. Unsold inventory which should have been used to offset those losses, including 2,000 solar panels, mysteriously disappeared, according to the National Legal and Policy Center.

"If a coal, oil or gas company pulled something like that the EPA would send out SWAT teams and the U.S. Marshals to track down the offenders, bankrupt or not," the center said in a report of its own.

Now that's what I call "green" energy.

I prefer deep green energy myself

One of Obama's pet projects, Abound Solar, another of thosse who took stimulus money and tanked, has left the beautiful state of Colorado a toxic dump behind.



Now that's what I call "green" energy.

Yes, but just because it is done badly doesn't mean that it can't be done well.

Yes, but just because it is done badly doesn't mean that it can't be done well.

That's pretty much the same argument I use when examples of leakage are cited as an example of the negatives of fracking .

That's pretty much the same argument I use when examples of leakage are cited as an example of the negatives of fracking .

Totally agree, things can be done better and safer.

Totally agree, things can be done better and safer.

The difference then is that I would not close down a whole industry because of isolated violations.

I would for system wide or repeated violations. We agree again as isolated can be dealt with case by case.

That's pretty much the same argument I use when examples of leakage are cited as an example of the negatives of fracking .

Me to. So why don't you apply the same standards to solar energy when it is done badly?

I do have the same standards . I think the market should decide which energy sources make it .

The market place is skewed toward short term profits, not enough long term investment. If it was we would have massive infrastructure activity in many areas.

Nah markets aren't interested in infrastructure, look at how road, bridges, railroads are run down

Infrastructure maintenance and development would be much better off if we adopted a public-private partnership approach. You should know that .Australia has had success with that formula.
http://www.irfnet.ch/files-upload/knowledges/IPA_Performance%20of%20PPPs_2007.pdf
This study examined 54 projects in Aussie ;and found that the privately financed ones had smaller cost overruns and were more likely to be finished on schedule than those financed through traditional methods.
I'm not saying that's the answer to all infrastructure challenges. But where it has been adopted ,it has had success.

But Tal's comment is a dodge . The fact is that of course governments can command and control an economy .Many do.....up to the moment the economy fails .

The market place is skewed toward short term profits, not enough long term investment. If it was we would have massive infrastructure activity in many areas.

Profits are a good indicator of the market ;and the market today does not want your stinkin "green economy"
Volt sales drop 32% in October | The Detroit News (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131101/AUTO01/311010108/1361/Volt-sales-down-32--in-October)
When that changes ,I assure you the VOLT or a different plug in will rule the market . But y'all nuts if you think that windmills can provide the power our economy needs.

It's come to this...

Report: Global warming alarmism can cause depression | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/31/report-global-warming-alarmism-can-cause-depression/)

It does explain why The Goracle always looks constipated, although with all that profit he's made along the way he should be a happy camper.

Profits are a good indicator of the market ;and the market today does not want your stinkin "green economy"
Volt sales drop 32% in October | The Detroit News (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131101/AUTO01/311010108/1361/Volt-sales-down-32--in-October)
When that changes ,I assure you the VOLT or a different plug in will rule the market . But y'all nuts if you think that windmills can provide the power our economy needs.


I think the idea ( at least from our perspective anyway) is that a variety of renewable energy sources have gained momentum within recent times. There appears to be is commitment by the public and private for future expansion.

I'm all in favor of the private development of emerging technology ;and I'm in favor of government being involved in R & D . What I oppose is subsidization of one industry in competition with another to achieve some predetermined market shift . Bottom line ;and so far it has proven to be true ,is that it is a needless waste of tax dollars that achieves little results. If solar power has a future ,it won't be because the government deems it so.
The Abound Solar plant is just one of many such examples of this in the last 5 years.

Meanwhile, Germany is building new coal plants while we're trying to ban them...

RealClearEnergy - Europe Is Returning to Coal (http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2013/10/11/europe_returning_to_coal_107285.html)

... as the UK points to the reality that fracking poses a low risk as they push to take advantage of their own reserves to ease skyrocketing energy prices.

Shale gas fracking a low risk to public health -UK review (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE99U0KX20131031?irpc=932)

Hello again, tom:

Profits are a good indicator of the market ;and the market today does not want your stinkin "green economy" Oh, really??? Profits ARE a good indicator... Tesla is killing it. (http://www.ibtimes.com/tesla-third-quarter-earnings-preview-analysts-see-teslas-first-ever-profit-quarter-third-consecutive)

excon

Germany over reacted to Fukushima Daiichi and began taking down their nuclear industry .They thought windmills and solar was the answer .Without coal ,they are left vulnerable to natural gas pipelines controlled by Tsar Vladdy .

Tesla is a fringe market for the uber:rich .Tesla delivered 4,750 units in the first quarter and 5,150 units in the last quarter woooohoooo!
That's if the owners survive the flambé
Second Tesla Model S fire ignites safety concerns - Chicago Tribune (http://cars.chicagotribune.com/fuel-efficient/news/chi-second-tesla-model-s-fire-ignites-safety-concerns-20131029)

I wouldn't exactly say killing it.

Tesla’s Stock Surge Hits $4.1 Billion Pothole in October (http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/tesla-s-stock-surge-hits-pothole-in-october-cars.html)

With a base price of $62,400 we should all have one, right? Call it our Obamacar.

Model S Design Studio | Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design)

It's come to this...

Report: Global warming alarmism can cause depression | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/31/report-global-warming-alarmism-can-cause-depression/)

It does explain why The Goracle always looks constipated, although with all that profit he's made along the way he should be a happy camper.




Political forums probably contribute to depression as well.

OK tutt we will shut down askmehelpdesk and the economy will recover

I'll wipe my butt as many times as I deem necessary to assure an absence of skid marks in my shorts.

The tree huggers can get stuffed.

I'll wipe my butt as many times as I deem necessary to assure an absence of skid marks in my shorts.

The tree huggers can get stuffed.

We don't need to know that smoothy, but you should consider we are laying waste whole forests so you can wipe your butt, get some perspective, man

We don't need to know that smoothy, but you should consider we are laying waste whole forests so you can wipe your butt, get some perspective, man
I don't subscribe to the Middle eastern habit of using ones bare hand. Part of becoming civilized means there are better more sanitary ways of wiping ones bum.

The trees we make toilet paper from are not old growth forest... but trees previously planted for the specific purpose of harvesting them... at which time new ones are planted for future harvests.

Huge difference between those.

I don't subscribe to the Middle eastern habit of using ones bare hand. Part of becoming civilized means there are better more sanitary ways of wiping ones bum.

The trees we make toilet paper from are not old growth forest... but trees previously planted for the specific purpose of harvesting them... at which time new ones are planted for future harvests.

Huge difference between those.

Yes hard wood doesn't make great tiolet paper but you could consider something more civilised like the bidet, perhaps that hasn't reached you yet

Yes hard wood doesn't make great tiolet paper but you could consider something more civilised like the bidet, perhaps that hasn't reached you yet

You are aware there is a greater global shortage of fresh water than there are farmed trees?

And incidentally....I know what a bidet is...and people that have those in civilized countries still use toilet paper before they get up from the toilet.

You are aware there is a greater global shortage of fresh water than there are farmed trees?

And incidentally....I know what a bidet is...and people that have those in civilized countries still use toilet paper before they get up from the toilet.

Yes the concept has quite got there has it, and you don't need fresh water you can use recycled water to flush the tiolet, etc, bet that concept hasn't made it either. In parts of this country they use rain water

Yes the concept has quite got there has it, and you don't need fresh water you can use recycled water to flush the tiolet, etc, bet that concept hasn't made it either. In parts of this country they use rain water

I bet you buy and use toilet paper in your house...

They do everywhere in Europe where the bidet was invented. And I've been in most of the European countries..in fact I lived and worked there for quite a few years. I have an apartment there and stay there a month out of every year.

I bet you buy and use toilet paper in your house...

They do everywhere in Europe where the bidet was invented. And I've been in most of the European countries..in fact I lived and worked there for quite a few years. I have an apartment there and stay there a month out of every year.

Yes I don't have room to instal a bidet so I'm guilty just as you are, but I did see an interesting piece of plumbing in Pakistan, can't find the equivalent here. If the people of Europe are backward , and stuck in tradition, that is not my concern, I have observed the plumbing in France and I found it very backward, in some cases no different to the third world.

I think it is interesting that Europe should be ahead of the US in plumbing, but then it isn't hard to be ahead of a backwoods outhouse, is it?

Yes the concept has quite got there has it, and you don't need fresh water you can use recycled water to flush the tiolet, etc, bet that concept hasn't made it either. In parts of this country they use rain water

In parts of this country it's illegal to collect rainwater.

Yes I don't have room to instal a bidet so I'm guilty just as you are, but I did see an interesting piece of plumbing in Pakistan, can't find the equivalent here. If the people of Europe are backward , and stuck in tradition, that is not my concern, I have observed the plumbing in France and I found it very backward, in some cases no different to the third world.

I think it is interesting that Europe should be ahead of the US in plumbing, but then it isn't hard to be ahead of a backwoods outhouse, is it?

Actually Europe isn't ahead of us in plumbing... or electrical wiring.

I have more electrical capacity in my 150 square foot shed in Virginia than my entire 3 bedroom apartment in Italy has. I'm serious it only has a 15 amp 220v main breaker. Run the oven, dishwasher and the tv at the same time and it trips.

I've seen European Pluming... it looks like American plumbing bid back in the 1940's and 1950's.

I also much preffer American toilets to European ones... and particularly British ones... good lord those are aweful. If you've spent any time in the UK you know why I say that.

I think its obvious you've never been to the USA before.

My house is 50 years old and its nothing like you think is the norm for the USA.

Actually Europe isn't ahead of us in plumbing... or electrical wiring.

I have more electrical capacity in my 150 square foot shed in Virginia than my entire 3 bedroom apartment in Italy has. I'm serious it only has a 15 amp 220v main breaker. Run the oven, dishwasher and the tv at the same time and it trips.

I've seen European Pluming... it looks like American plumbing bid back in the 1940's and 1950's.

I also much preffer American toilets to European ones... and particularly British ones... good lord those are aweful. If you've spent any time in the UK you know why I say that.

I think its obvious you've never been to the USA before.

My house is 50 years old and its nothing like you think is the norm for the USA.

Yes I have been to the UK, some parts of it are a little backward and in fact I have seen that garbage dump they call Italy, not surprised Musolini didn't upgrade the electrical system, too many palms to grease. I have passed through the USA and that's the way I like it, just passing through

Just for the record from the pictures I see there are two types of houses in the US, somewhat older clapboard houses and more modern brick veneer constructions, either way row upon row of them. I live in a fifty year old house too but the plumbing is first world, the heating is first world, The power works 24/7, the street outside is a broad tree lined avenue with a park within walking distance but that wasn't where I was brought up. Let's say I graduated. I have known the days of outhouses and chip heaters to get a hot bath but no one lives like that today

Tesla is a fringe market for the uber:rich .Tesla delivered 4,750 units in the first quarter and 5,150 units in the last quarter woooohoooo!
That's if the owners survive the flambé
Second Tesla Model S fire ignites safety concerns - Chicago Tribune (http://cars.chicagotribune.com/fuel-efficient/news/chi-second-tesla-model-s-fire-ignites-safety-concerns-20131029)

Make that a third.

UPDATE 5-Tesla reports third fire involving Model S electric car | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/autos-tesla-fire-idUSL2N0IS0TL20131107)

I think climate change, immigration reform are both sort of legacy issues,” Blumenthal said. “The measure of his presidency will be whether he has left changes in law and regulation, but also a heightened awareness, which I think he has been doing.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/189754-obama-grasps-for-climate-legacy-as-second-term-agenda-crumbles

This is the same bs they used when the Goracle's book was discredited and the phony climate scientists fudged data. 'yeah but we increased awareness' .

Interesting that the Hill reports that the only chance for the emperor to have a 2nd term legacy is by executive fiat.

Make that a third.

UPDATE 5-Tesla reports third fire involving Model S electric car | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/autos-tesla-fire-idUSL2N0IS0TL20131107)

Remember the Pinto?


Obama grasps for climate legacy as second-term agenda crumbles | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/189754-obama-grasps-for-climate-legacy-as-second-term-agenda-crumbles)

This is the same bs they used when the Goracle's book was discredited and the phony climate scientists fudged data. 'yeah but we increased awareness' .

Interesting that the Hill reports that the only chance for the emperor to have a 2nd term legacy is by executive fiat.

You say executive fiat, I say doing the job charged to them. That's what an executive is supposed to do with the agencies they oversee. You would rather have the Cheney energy policy right? Give the agency dope and alcohol and show 'em where to sign the contracts the companies write.

Wind turbines killed at least 600,000 bats in the United States in 2012... and that's a conservative estimate .The higher estimate is 900,000.
Why aren't the enviro-wackos outraged ?

US Wind Turbines Kill Over 600,000 Bats A Year (And Plenty Of Birds Too) - International Science Times (http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6286/20131108/wind-turbines-kill-600000-bats-birds-every-year.htm)

Why should they be enraged, bats spread disease, obviously you don't have Hendra virus in the US

Bats consume bugs that spread disease like mosquitoes . What do you think harms more humans... Hendra virus or Malaria ,Dengue fever and West Nile Virus ?

Hello again, tom:

Wind turbines killed at least 600,000 bats in the United States in 2012...

Why aren't the enviro-wackos outraged ? I AM outraged. Global warming will kill MILLIONS of PEOPLE and then a few MILLION more. You're worried about a few bats.

excon

Black Death killed 75 million people in the mid-14th century ;about 1/3 of the population of Europe was wiped out . The reason it was so devastating was because of the food shortages during the "Little Ice Age " which began in the early 14th century and ended unofficially in the late 19th century ,although the current Warm Period began around 1750 or nearly 100 years before the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration .

There was also a great famine that befell Europe at the beginning of the Little Ice age that killed millions and led to political disruption .It got so bad that some European resorted to cannibalism .
Contrast that to the Medieval Warming period (MWP) .From the ninth through the thirteenth centuries, farming spread into northern portions of Russia. In the Far East, Chinese and Japanese farmers migrated north into Manchuria, the Amur Valley and northern Japan. The Vikings founded colonies in Iceland and Greenland, then actually green. Scandinavian seafarers discovered "Vinland" along the East Coast of North America. It was a time of growth .By the late 1200s expansion in agriculture had transformed the landscape into an economy filled with merchants, vibrant towns and great fairs. Crop failures became less frequent.
Throughout the continent, economic activity blossomed. Europe prospered again, cathedrals were built and society advanced until the 14th century.

The trouble with the analysis today is that for some reason we think climate is constant and measured soley in our time frame. But climate change happens .

Hello again, tom:

The trouble with the analysis today is that for some reason we think climate is constant and measured soley in our time frame.The trouble with right wing analysis, is it's based on political ideology and NOT science. When science is mentioned, your ideology is to diss that too.I

I can't break through that mindset. But, I CAN, and WOULD move forward with climate control legislation in SPITE of your mindset, and I'd do it PRONTO.

Oh, I KNOW what's BEHIND your ideology. It's FEAR of the destruction of your beloved oil and gas industry... So, it's not really a save my way of life philosophy. It's a save the Koch brothers way of life philosophy.

But, MY solution wouldn't destroy that industry any more than running out of fossil fuel will do all by itself. What I would do, is create an industry that will protect our way of life, against the ABSOLUTE reality that we're gonna run OUT of fossil fuel.

So, solving THAT problem will have the added benefit of solving man made climate change, IF it IS man made. And if it ISN'T man made, who's gonna care?

excon

so then it wouldn't involve hundreds of thousands windmill blighting the landscape and wacking any flying creature .

Hello again, tom:
so then it wouldn't involve hundreds of thousands windmill blighting the landscape and wacking any flying creature .In the interim, it might. Look. I'm an ecowacko. I don't wanna kill ANYBODY. But, I also like driving my car, so if I had to choose between ME driving, and some animals dying, as long as it was an INTERIM solution, I'd go along with it.

As we've discussed, we're a breakthrough away from fusion being the end-all and be-all of our energy needs. We're close with battery technology, too.. All they need is a nudge.

excon

Fusion ,cold fusion ,or as the few remaining scientists in the field call it ;'Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions', (CANR,) or 'Low Energy Nuclear Reactions,'( LENR) has made very little progress in many years .The few who remain in the field try to convince the rest of the scientific community that their findings are real.
That being said ,I hope you are right about it . A safe reactor in every home sounds cool to me .
Batteries ? Until they take the next step into the world of nano technology ,I think they are at an impass .As they stand now ,they can't come close to replacing carbon based energy ....nor can windmills or solar .....not if we want to come close to fueling a 21st century economy .

We will never find better unless we look for better, and that includes a better grid system. I feel for birds and bats and squirrels and bees, but windmills ain't the only thing killing them. I put power in the rural areas before I worry about bats.

You hate tree huggers and are a bat lover, strange.

Fusion ,cold fusion ,or as the few remaining scientists in the field call it ;'Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions', (CANR,) or 'Low Energy Nuclear Reactions,'( LENR) has made very little progress in many years .The few who remain in the field try to convince the rest of the scientific community that their findings are real.
That being said ,I hope you are right about it . A safe reactor in every home sounds cool to me .
Batteries ? Until they take the next step into the world of nano technology ,I think they are at an impass .As they stand now ,they can't come close to replacing carbon based energy ....nor can windmills or solar .....not if we want to come close to fueling a 21st century economy .
Until the relm of science fiction is breached and we get cold fusion we have a perfectly good hot fusion solution called nuclear energy. This process removes the pollution of windmills and carbon gas belshing industries. What has to be realised is it doesn't matter which way you go there is a cost and there is pollution whether at the mining stage, the refining stage, the consumption stage or the disposal stage. All the arguments we have are just about what pollution you will tolerate and what you won't and what part of the cost you are willing to bare.THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH

Hello again, science deniers:

I'm NOT talking about cold fusion. I'm talking about HOT fusion, and today's nuclear reactors are NOT fusion. They're FISSION.

excon

Fission, fusion, it is all confusion, ex, everytime we find something that might be an acceptable solution the greenies and tree huggers pounce on it as the greatest evil for some reason or another. We could have hydro power but we arn't allowed to dam rivers and streams, we could have nuclear power but then there is always the possibilities of an accident, we could have wind but the birds and the bats object, we could have solar but the sun don't shine, what I say is stick it where the sun don't shine and get on with it. No fusion will need as much power as it generates to contain it and rare earths for super conductors, so not viable yet even if they did have a viable process. Scale is the problem, getting from the theoretical to the practical. look I have on CD a process for generating electricity, but you can't scale it up, so it hasn't been used. the ideas are there, the processes are there but getting beyond the lab, well that takes initive, finance, risk

So far ITER has not produced more energy than it takes to fire it up. Not sure it ever will .I do not oppose the research .

Research something useful, not pipe dreams. Find a better battery, find a way of making cars even more efficient. I find my new car amazing; 7 litres per 100 KM, and it's not a hybrid. that's real progress, find a way to make microwave power distribution operable. Build refineries at oil fields, not thousands of miles away. Find a way of storing electricity that doesn't involve pumping water up hill We have made great strides with solar power, put more research into that

Research something useful, not pipe dreams. Find a better battery, find a way of making cars even more efficient. I find my new car amazing; 7 litres per 100 KM, and it's not a hybrid. that's real progress, find a way to make microwave power distribution operable. Build refineries at oil fields, not thousands of miles away. Find a way of storing electricity that doesn't involve pumping water up hill We have made great strides with solar power, put more research into that

My '95 Mazda got 54 MPG. I'm not impressed.

Duke University researches have made a tiny bit of progress in converting radio waves to electricity (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html), but still a long way to go. Meanwhile, we need to use the efficient energy we have.

Hello again, Steve:

Meanwhile, we need to use the efficient energy we have.Only in right wing world do they think liberals want to walk.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Only in right wing world do they think liberals want to walk.

excon

No they want US to walk, ride the bus, ride our bike or take high speed rails nobody wants. You libs will drive your Priuses, Volts and toaster ovens, aka Teslas.

We are using what's available to us and what we can afford. All of us. Conservative or liberal, makes no difference. I can't afford a Tesla any more than you can.

My '95 Mazda got 54 MPG. I'm not impressed.

Duke University researches have made a tiny bit of progress in converting radio waves to electricity (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html), but still a long way to go. Meanwhile, we need to use the efficient energy we have.

Yes so did my 59' VW with a 1200 cc engine but that was before the greenies got loose and we got all the pollution control gear on the engines and vehicles became hulking monsters, what really impresses me about this car is it is performing way outside it's rated perimeters with a big engine, if this is possible the standards can be raised

Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack explained (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/189852-ag-secretary-vilsack-%E2%80%98i-don%E2%80%99t-know%E2%80%99-whether-ethanol-helps-climate) why we need to keep going with the handout that keeps jacking up gas and food prices called ethanol subsidies...


“I don’t know whether I can make the environmental argument, or the economic argument,” Vilsack tells AP. “To me, it’s an opportunity argument.”

If there is no environmental or economic argument then what is this "opportunity?"

Hello again, Steve:

then what is this "opportunity?"I've been telling you about the "opportunity" for YEARS. You never got it. You don't now. Look. You're a worker. You work hard. We need workers... But, workers, being workers, don't see opportunity where entrepreneurs DO. That's NOT to fault you as a worker. It's to correct your viewpoint of the risk taker.

When there were no cars, nobody SAW an opportunity in the car business - except one person. Even AFTER people bought cars, there were some who yelled, "get a horse!". When it was dark, NOBODY saw an opportunity in the light bulb - except one guy.

Lemme tell you a story that my Dad told me. It STUCK with me. There was an old shoe maker who had two sons. He sent ONE son over to China to set up a market.. He came back totally defeated and told his father, "They DON'T wear shoes over there!"

The old shoemaker then sent his other son to China. He came back bursting at the seams with excitement. He couldn't wait to tell his father, "They DON'T wear shoes over there!"

An entrepreneur would immediately GET this story. A worker would be scratching his head. Ordinarily, you don't like my stories. But, THIS is a good'un.

Seeing as how we're gonna run out of oil, I see opportunity, where others simply don't.

excon

You do know how to tell a story. You don't know how to answer a question.

If there is no economic or environmental case to be made for ethanol subsidies, what's the point? Who benefits besides mostly corporate farmers?

Ethanol production is an environmental disaster ,not including all the negative factors in pricing corn as a food commodity .
My Way News - The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html)

I hate the ethanol subsidy, but the financial transition away from them is a financial disaster. The Chinese energy model is but a warning.

it's also dumber than dirt . It takes more energy to produce than it yields .

it's also dumber than dirt . It takes more energy to produce than it yields .

Kind of like Obamacare.

AP Investigation: Obama's green energy drive comes with an unadvertised environmental cost (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/231524601.html)


CORYDON, Iowa — The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America's push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.

Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.

With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."

But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama's watch.

Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.

The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

Farmers planted 15 million more acres of corn last year than before the ethanol boom, and the effects are visible in places like south central Iowa.

The hilly, once-grassy landscape is made up of fragile soil that, unlike the earth in the rest of the state, is poorly suited for corn. Nevertheless, it has yielded to America's demand for it.

"They're raping the land," said Bill Alley, a member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, which now bears little resemblance to the rolling cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a Corydon pharmacy.

But hey, full steam ahead anyway, right?

I hate the ethanol subsidy, but the financial transition away from them is a financial disaster. The Chinese energy model is but a warning.

It's cheaper to just write a check to corn farmers to not grow, than to support this program.

The current set up is unsustainable for large farmers, and impossible for what's left of small famers.

It's cheaper to just write a check to corn farmers to not grow, than to support this program.
sounds like you have the conditions for another dust bowl over there, better get those agricultural subsidies moving quick

over production with no crop rotation ...... yup .

over production with no crop rotation ...... yup .

and you try to tell us how to do it, I bet you are still plowing down hill

and you try to tell us how to do it, I bet you are still plowing down hill

Uh no, we are quite skilled at contour plowing and soil conservation in my part of the country, and thus far we don't allow the feds to shut down crop production for a fish no one cares about a la the Central California Valley.

Uh no, we are quite skilled at contour plowing and soil conservation in my part of the country, and thus far we don't allow the feds to shut down crop production for a fish no one cares about a la the Central California Valley.

well that's good to know

it's also dumber than dirt . It takes more energy to produce than it yields .

That doesnt scare me as much as the by product of it. That would be GMO corn. That stuff is dangerous.

Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html)

Critics slam Obama for "protecting" Monsanto - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576835/critics-slam-obama-for-protecting-monsanto/)

Monsanto Co Contributions to Federal Candidates | OpenSecrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00042069)

Monsanto has some of the best lobbyists in the business, so they get what they want, regardless of the political party "in power".

Monsanto has some of the best lobbyists in the business, so they get what they want, regardless of the political party "in power".

of course the capitalist base has it's influences otherwise known as corruption

of course the capitalist base has it's influences otherwise known as corruption

As does every other system.

As does every other system.Not nearly to the extent that you've allowed it to get to.

Not nearly to the extent that you've allowed it to get to.

Spare me, we're not stupid.

Hello again,

Certainly, no one extraordinary catastrophic weather event can be attributed to global warming, but when the world has a series of them, back to back to back, you got to go, hmmmmm...

At least SOME of us do..

excon

Tornadoes in the Midwest in November? You got my attention because this was unusual, and a whopper.

Washington IL tornado kills 1, wipes out neighborhoods; 5 others die statewide in Midwest tornado outbreak | abc7chicago.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?id=9329608)

Whether you believe in climate change or not, you better believe in Mother Nature.

Hello again,

Certainly, no one extraordinary catastrophic weather event can be attributed to global warming, but when the world has a series of them, back to back to back, you gotta go, hmmmmm....

At least SOME of us do..

excon

Weather happens. We had a wonderfully mild summer here, not a single tornado to worry about and plenty of rain, although we did have an expensive hail storm. It happens.

The True bleieves of The Cult of Global Warming blames everything on global Warming... anything that deviates a mere fraction of a degree from a median average temprature... in EITHER direction.

As well as every other weather event that's been happening longer than man has been walking this planet.

And I suppose a rugged, self made, hard working man, will need no help when your whole neighbor hood gets wiped out by Mother Nature when she does her thing on YOUR head.

That's great!

Haiyan was indeed a strong cyclone . But the strongest on record occurred in 961 Typhoon Nancy with 215 mph winds . Hurricane Sandy's surge topped out at about 13 feet in New York City and northern New Jersey . What was unusual about it was the track it took at the end . A 13 ft surge is not that unusual . Running inland where it did ,instead of taking the typical path ,roughly following the Gulf Stream was unusual. Here in NY there is not a deep sand base to absorb the power of the storm,so the 13 ft travelled up a bedrock base .That is why it caused so much damage.
As for cyclones , it may have been unusual for the Philippines to get a direct hit . But throughout history more humans have died in places like Bangladesh from typhoon activity .

1582 ,one hit that killed 200,000 people . 1767... 30,000 people .1822 50,000 people . There are many others including the infamous 1970 Bhola cyclone that killed over 500,000 people (think George Harrison's The Concert for Bangladesh) .
So it is a dubious claim to link storms that happened in the last couple decades with a specific cause besides what is a natual occurrence . Certainly there were no SUVs in 961AD

And I suppose a rugged, self made, hard working man, will need no help when your whole neighbor hood gets wiped out by Mother Nature when she does her thing on YOUR head.

That's great!

If you're going to debate me at least keep it to facts in evidence, not manufactured bullsh*t. Put words in your own mouth, not ours please.

Haiyan was indeed a strong cyclone . But the strongest on record occured in 961 Typhoon Nancy with 215 mph winds . Hurricane Sandy's surge topped out at about 13 feet in New York City and northern New Jersey . What was unusual about it was the track it took at the end . A 13 ft surge is not that unusual . Running inland where it did ,instead of taking the typical path ,roughly following the Gulf Stream was unusual. Here in NY there is not a deep sand base to absorb the power of the storm,so the 13 ft travelled up a bedrock base .That is why it caused so much damage.
As for cyclones , it may have been unusual for the Phillipines to get a direct hit . But throughout history more humans have died in places like Bangladesh from typhoon activity .

1582 ,one hit that killed 200,000 people . 1767... 30,000 people .1822 50,000 people . There are many others including the infamous 1970 Bhola cyclone that killed over 500,000 people (think George Harrison's The Concert for Bangladesh) .
So it is a dubious claim to link storms that happened in the last couple decades with a specific cause besides what is a natual occurance . Certainly there were no SUVs in 961AD

History is nice but current effects are the reality. Watching others being devastated and debating it doesn't help anyone who needs food, water, or a roof over there heads. Known fact that righties vote against assisting fellow Americans, until it's their turn to suffer. Then they holler long and hard for help, like anyone else.

We don't have to go that far back in history to see that, just start with the dying from Katrina and track responses of our elected leaders.

And I suppose a rugged, self made, hard working man, will need no help when your whole neighbor hood gets wiped out by Mother Nature when she does her thing on YOUR head.

That's great!

If "mother nature" does it.. its not the fault of man.

If man could control the weather... then why haven't you been doing it until now?

History is nice but current effects are the reality. Watching others being devastated and debating it doesn't help anyone who needs food, water, or a roof over there heads. Known fact that righties vote against assisting fellow Americans, until it's their turn to suffer. Then they holler long and hard for help, like anyone else.

We don't have to go that far back in history to see that, just start with the dying from Katrina and track responses of our elected leaders.

What are you talking about ?The US military was on the scene immediately providing assistance and much of the rest of the confusion was local response ;which by all accounts was dismal. The point of the spear is the local response . The Feds responded to Katrina at about the same efficiency and timeframe as they did for Sandy . You just have a convenient memory and won't hold your own dear leader to the same standards you held Bush .

I guess you guys are not as self reliant as you say and depend on government whenever your teat is in the wringer like the rest of us dependents.

I guess you guys are not as self reliant as you say and depend on government whenever your teat is in the wringer like the rest of us dependents.

Not me... I haven't gotten a government handout of any sort I haven't even collected an unemployment check in 20 years.

I'd be a lot better off if I got to keep my entire paycheck and invested it where I want it invested.

I agree because of course you would invest in a road to get to your job so you can collect all your paycheck. Or pipes to keep the crapper from backing up in your house. Or the lights, and internet.

I guess you guys are not as self reliant as you say and depend on government whenever your teat is in the wringer like the rest of us dependents.

In other words, damned if we do and damned if we don't in your world.

In my world view assistance is dependent on actual need, not political wish lists and unworkable utopian ideals. I give, you take.

I agree because of course you would invest in a road to get to your job so you can collect all your paycheck. Or pipes to keep the crapper from backing up in your house. Or the lights, and internet.

I don't know where you live... but where I have always lived the water pipes aren't owned by or even the responsibility of the Federal or State Government.

Your water and sewer bill pay the local water and sewage authorities... and it's their responsibilities to maintain.

President Bush didn't push Hurricane Katrina through Congress without a single vote from the other party. And, Global-warmist superstitions notwithstanding, Katrina was a natural disaster, not a man-caused one.

Best of the Web Today: Katrina and ObamaCare - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304439804579205813863493136)

In other words, damned if we do and damned if we don't in your world.

In my world view assistance is dependent on actual need, not political wish lists and unworkable utopian ideals. I give, you take.

Me too, its called a safety net.


I don't know where you live... but where I have always lived the water pipes aren't owned by or even the responsibility of the Federal or State Government.

Your water and sewer bill pay the local water and sewage authorities... and it's their responsibilities to maintain.

But Smoothie, you blame EVERYTHING on Obama, even if your local government is responsible. Which no doubt gets federal money. Maybe not your town.


President Bush didn't push Hurricane Katrina through Congress without a single vote from the other party. And, Global-warmist superstitions notwithstanding, Katrina was a natural disaster, not a man-caused one.

Best of the Web Today: Katrina and ObamaCare - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304439804579205813863493136)

Comparing Obama to Bush is wishful thinking and false hope at best.

But Smoothie, you blame EVERYTHING on Obama, even if your local government is responsible. Which no doubt gets federal money. Maybe not your town.

Obama HAS actually made things worse for almost everyone... not just accused him of like the left did with Bush... Obama DREAMS of getting back to Bushes worst year... because it would be a huge improvement.

This is what happens when a complete idiot manages to get elected. Disaster soon follows. Anywhere and anytime it happens. BS doesn't work when the buck stops at your desk.

This is what happens when a complete idiot manages to get elected. Disaster soon follows. Anywhere and anytime it happens. BS doesn't work when the buck stops at your desk.

Yes we noted the outcome during the Bush years

yes we noted the outcome during the Bush years

Every thinking person in the USA longs for things to get back to the way they were under Bush... when vast numbers of people actually had jobs, and not just any job...but Full time jobs... and poverty was significantly lower than it is now as a result of Obamas "Destroy business" campaign.

Every thinking person in the USA longs for things to get back to the way they were under Bush... when vast numbers of people actually had jobs, and not just any job...but Full time jobs... and poverty was significantly lower than it is now as a result of Obamas "Destroy business" campaign.

You are forgetting the GFC started under Bush, that he is responsible for the job losses. What you wanted was a President with a majic wand and all you got was a President who is off with the fairies

you are forgetting the GFC started under Bush, that he is responsible for the job losses. What you wanted was a President with a majic wand and all you got was a President who is off with the fairies

Many of us knew Obama was a charlatan long before he ever got elected. It's the suckers that are finally coming to grasp this now that thought he was some sort of Messiah before.

Bush got stuck with a recession that started under Clinton... dealt with 9/11 that happened as a result of Clinton... and despite all that turned them around.

The economy the day he left office was better than it ever was under Obama... and Obama's recession was due to his anti-business policies and actions. No smart business owner would risk their capital in an environment as hostile towards business as this one is. Obama wanted a recession based on his actions... well he got it... he should be proud of it... instead of blaming it on others.

Was he perfect... nope, but he at least had a good grasp of things and got advisers that actually were good at their specialties... instead of surrounding himself with halfwits that were yes-men so his fragile ego wasn't hurt.

Many of us knew Obama was a charlatan long before he ever got elected. It's the suckers that are finally coming to grasp this now that thought he was some sort of Messiah before.

Bush got stuck with a recession that started under Clinton... dealt with 9/11 that happened as a result of Clinton... and despite all that turned them around.

The economy the day he left office was better than it ever was under Obama... and Obama's recession was due to his anti-business policies and actions. No smart business owner would risk their capital in an environment as hostile towards business as this one is. Obama wanted a recession based on his actions... well he got it... he should be proud of it... instead of blaming it on others.

Was he perfect... nope, but he at least had a good grasp of things and got advisers that actually were good at their specialties... instead of surrounding himself with halfwits that were yes-men so his fragile ego wasn't hurt.


You now have the second term malaise, they all have it, Clinton got Monica, Bush got the GFC, and BO will have QEIII

Just a reminder, if you like your light bulbs you can't keep your light bulbs.

Time to Stock Up on Incandescent Bulbs Before They Go Out Permanently (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/12/26/time-to-stock-up-on-incandescent-bulbs-before-they-go-out-permanently/)

Don't worry we went through the same process about 10 years ago. Some people didn't like the new bulbs so they brought in halogen bulbs. Very similar in terms of shape and performance to the old incandescent bulbs.

We've had halogen for ages but what they keep telling us to use are those expensive CFLs that at my house have never lasted much longer than incandescents and are a toxic hazard to dispose of. The issue is choice, stop mandating our choices.

I have a fair amt of 3 way bulbs in reserve . I'll go blind using CFLs . Eventually LEDs will replace them all ... because of consumer preference, not government mandates.

I'll go blind using CFLs No Tom don't you know they become brighter, but if you want more light go to a higher rating. You are just cheapskating on the environment

sorry there is potential for ultraviolet UV damage to the eyes .

no more than ordinary flouro and they have been around for a long time, do what I do and wear UV tinted lenses. life is too short, you know, to be concerned about every little inconvenience. One day we will reverse all this greenie rubbish but in the mean time these lamps reduce the cost of operation

LEDs are greener, brighter, last longer, and don't strobe like flouros. Households with migraine sufferers don't have to mess with the mercury hand grenades.

Stole this from parttime in the Electrical Forum.

What You Need to Know About the Lightbulb Law - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/improvement/energy-efficient/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-lightbulb-law-14789203)

I'm staying away from CFLs .I don't want to call in a hazmat team to clean up a broken bulb.

Do they grow wimps over there or what?

I've been underwelmed by the LED lights I've seen and tried so far... that is likely to change in time, but right now they suck In my opinion. I do have CFL's in my house and have since they came out... meaning more than 17 years... because I like bright lights and it cuts my electric bill down.

The CFL's don't bother my eyes...

Don't worry smoothy next he will tell you they enduce skin cancer, I spent most of my life under flouros and now I have a nice batch of kerotisis. can't say if it is flouro's or the relentless sunshine in these climes

I can believe they do bother some people... as they do flicker (if you've done video work you would know that very well) and some people are more sensitive to that than others. I do also know that certain eye conditions can be agrivated by bright fluorescent lights. They don't bother me but they do my wife somewhat.

If you spend a lot of time outdoors in a dry climate where you have a LOT of sun... I'd say that's the larger issue of the two. Some people in the American South West tend to have similar isses.

The progressive narrative is that energy-saving bulbs are better. Therefore the others bulbs should be illegal... as if energy saving is the only consideration when people decide which light bulb to use. Instead of leaving the choice to the consumer ,they know what's best for us and top down decide for us which bulbs can be sold on the market . To them it's not so much as a choice,but who gets to decide . Here is a quick guide to their thinking . 'Everything I don't like must be banned . Everything I do like is a human right. '

You have two years or so to hoard the inefficient light bulbs you love so much before the old technology is phased out. Don't complain about your energy costs until then either. I am surprised you aren't making your own candles Tom, or have a horse in the barn to get you to work. You like horses don't you?

yeah and whale oil too. You don't see too many of them around do you ? Wanna know why ? hint .it had nothing to do with a ban on whale oil lamps .The people decided in the free market that electric light was better . If your CFLs were so great then they could compete and dominate the market on their own and a gvt ban wouldn't be required .

The free market would let us drink coca cola with cocaine in it. Stop worrying and go buy as many bulbs as you can. Home depot still has them in abundance. How many do you need for a lifetime? I'll send you mine.

nope that horse is already out of the barn .My preference was 100W . Those are already gone.

I guess things are a little dim in you house Tom, for all sorts of reasons. Have you heard of light tubes they are very effective in bringing light into a darkened space