Our industrialization has damaged our global environment, and changed the way we think and conduct ourselves at various levels. But, to think that the US is the largest polluter, Choux, or to think us the #1 in CO2, labman, is to deny what little we know of what the Chinese have been doing to catch up with those statistics. Air pollution, water pollution, land rape... most hidden behind them not wanting us to know and us not wanting to delve.

Sorry Captain, but we are still the biggest in CO2. That is why those wishing to destroy America, or at least willing to risk it by destroying George Bush, like to focus on it while ignoring other, more important problems.

American forests are also carbon sinks used to sequester carbon dioxide. Since the beginning of the last century there has been a continuos effort to reforest agricultural land in the US. The only thing that threatens that is farmers reclaiming the land to grow bio-fuels . Ironic isn't it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Goddard:

To me, it does. It puts the kaybosh on the argument that since his energy footprint is big, he shouldn't say anything about it at all.

Huh??? Course it's big because he's wealthy and flies around the world doing stuff. You can't do that on the gas I use.

---

What the hell does his personal wealth have to do with his energy consumption?

He is wealthy, of course, just ask the folks like myself who are dying of lung cancer and emphysema after decades of smoking his number one cash cow -- Tobacco.

But really -- If he is as wealthy as we both agree he is, then why isn't he spending his largess on green alternatives to offset his carbon footprint?

And yes, I'm aware of his having purchased 'green credits' from his local utilities.

But this still does not negate his vast energy consumption.

Also, it's disingenuous to equate the energy consumed by his travels with the energy consumed in the maintenance of his estate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Come on guy's, what do you REALLY think of him?

---

Truth be told, it doesn't really matter what I or any one else on the 'Right' thinks of him.

What matters is what those on the 'Left' think of him.

And as far as that goes, most folks on the 'Left Coast' still haven't forgiven him for conceding the 2000 election so quickly.

Face the facts, ExDude -- Most folks with a brain in their head can see the yellow streak running down his backside.

Quote:

---

But, irrespective of whether you LIKE him or not, if you could be the president of the United States just by saying YES, would you? I believe, after this prize, the presidency is his for the taking.

No?

---

No.

He burned that bridge back in 2000 when he allowed himself to be bullied by the SCOTUS.

Y'know, my fondest wish is that his having won the NP will foment a groundswell of nostalgia for what might have been -- Which would lead to his being drafted to run for the presidency.

Of course anyone with a brain in their head knows he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning such a contest -- But it would sure as hell even the 'Right's' chances of prevailing in 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labman

Sorry Captain, but we are still the biggest in CO2. That is why those wishing to destroy America, or at least willing to risk it by destroying George Bush, like to focus on it while ignoring other, more important problems.

---

Interesting.

What could be more important at this juncture than ridding ourselves of the present 'Mental Midget In Chief'?

Seriously.

This idjit has and is destroying our country far faster than any elected official on the 'Left' has.

Y'know -- Self identifying as a 'Right Winger' doesn't mean we have to support the current 'Standard Bearer' as he drags our country down to new lows.

Just something for those capable of thinking for themselves to think about.

Et tu, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

What the hell does his personal wealth have to do with his energy consumption?.............Also, it's disingenuous to equate the energy consumed by his travels with the energy consumed in the maintenance of his estate.

---

Hello again, growler:

I'm not rich, but I'm richer than a bean farmer in Mexico. My energy footprint is a LOT bigger than his, and I'm a fairly green guy. If I was WEALTHY, my footprint would be proportionately bigger. What?? You think I should live in a little house when I have lots of bucks?? Really? I'd also have a boat and an airplane - a jet airplane... Yes, I would.

So, I don't think there's any significant difference between one's business use of energy and one's personal use of energy, and I don't think one needs make excuses for using it.

For the same reason, I don't think his use of energy signifies anything negative at all... So attack away.

excon

PS> Good to hear a righty speaking the truth about the dufus in charge.

PPS> Go Hawks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, growler:

I'm not rich, but I'm richer than a bean farmer in Mexico. My energy footprint is a LOT bigger than his, and I'm a fairly green guy. If I was WEALTHY, my footprint would be proportionately bigger. What??? You think I should live in a little house when I have lots of bucks??? Really? I'd also have a boat and an airplane - a jet airplane.... Yes, I would.

---

No.

I've done very well financially over the past twenty years, but I still, and calculatingly so, manage to live within my needs, rather than within my means.

Being wealthy doesn't mean one needs to live ostentatiously.

Especially when one spends as much time harping about the lifestyles of those living within their means as Gore does.

Look, ExDude, paint it any way you like, but Gore is *still* a hypocrite.

Harvey I will ask you to restrain from a disagree of my facts until you at least bother to check them

New Study Shows Reforestation of Agricultural Land Played an Important Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gases over Last Century

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Harvey I will ask you to restrain from a disagree of my facts until you at least bother to check them

---

Well, the "seems the other way to me" bit should be everybody's first clue that the rating wasn't coming from an informed viewpoint, Tom.

For years I admired people that won the Nobel Peace Prize. Probably because I was younger and did not really know a lot about the people that won them but I had heard many good things about them.
Now I feel that the winners of the Prize for the last 20 years or so have only because of their being exposed to the public. To name a few, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Kafi Annan,Nelson Mandela, Henry Kissinger, Martin Luther King Jr.
But now that I am older and more educated about who these men were and what they did to deserve the Prize I feel that the prize has no more worth than the certificate of guaranty of the stone in a ring that you buy at the dollar store, or the certificate that you get when someone buys a star and has it named over you.
I hate that I now have a empty space where I before had the admiration for the winners.

Tom,
I'm sorry if I should have clicked the agree button, I have read that report and agree with it, what I questioned is your remark "there has been a continuous effort to reforest" when deforestation is such a crisis.

(In response to the escalating deforestation crisis in the United States, 5 Senators and 90 Representatives now support the Act to Save America's Forests (S. 977, H.R. 1376), the most comprehensive forest protection legislation in U.S. history. This legislation would immediately halt and reverse the deforestation on our public lands. Other efforts to halt the deforestation have not succeeded. It is imperative that all Americans work together to pass this bill, before our nation's natural heritage is lost forever.)

Please forgive me for disagreeing.
Harvey

Harvey ;those were 1998 bills. Do you have any information what their status is /was ?

It is a complex issue for sure. It is part of the reason I see no need for agricultural subsidies ;especially in biofuels .My larger point in the posting is that 20% of the green house emissions is through deforestation world wide and that this rush to biofuels could be counter productive. The example I see is New Zealand . They ended price supports and it freed up a lot of the land to return to the forest . By adding subsidies for corn to fuel conversion land that would've not been cultivated is now being plowed.

I for one am in favor of smart forest management. The studies I have read show that younger forests are better at sequestering CO2 than ancient forests . I think in the US ,part of the problem we have had with the severity of forest fires (which produce a hell of a lot of CO2) is poor management of the forests and restrictions of all logging rather than having the logging industry as part of the solution (thinning projects and replanting ).. A better solution by a long shot than phony carbon credits in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamgrowler

This idjit has and is destroying our country far faster than any elected official on the 'Left' has...

...Just something for those capable of thinking for themselves to think about.

---

All right. Using the facts available at your disposal, please state how Bush is "destroying the country far faster than any elected official on the 'Left' has."

Carter decimated the US military, made us hostage to Iran, sent the economy into a tailspin, drove oil prices through the roof with his policies, and created an oil shortage that required rationing at the gas pumps.

In what way has Bush been detrimental to the economy? Seems to me that the economy is chigging along quite nicely, with sustained low unemployment, the highest stock market gains in history, strong retails sales figures for an extended period, and inflation that is the lowest in our history.

In what way has he been bad for energy issues? It is under Bush's tenure as President that the government has spent huge amounts of money to create alternative fuels, put hybrid cars on the roads in numbers never before seen, and attempted to increase oil production and productivity (which has been stymied by the libs in Congress).

In what way has he been bad for the military? He has done more to promote the strength of the military than any other President since Truman, with the possible exception of Reagan. Military recruitment numbers are meeting the goals set, and reinlistment numbers are exceeding goals. This despite an unpopular war.

If, as you claim, you can think for yourself, please tell me how Bush is "destroying the country" faster than Carter did? Or LBJ for that matter? Other than spouting the news-media party line, can you come up with any facts to back up your statement?

Elliot

[QUOTE=excon]Hello again, growler:

I'm not rich, but I'm richer than a bean farmer in Mexico. My energy footprint is a LOT bigger than his, and I'm a fairly green guy. If I was WEALTHY, my footprint would be proportionately bigger. What?? You think I should live in a little house when I have lots of bucks?? Really? I'd also have a boat and an airplane - a jet airplane... Yes, I would.

So, I don't think there's any significant difference between one's business use of energy and one's personal use of energy, and I don't think one needs make excuses for using it.

For the same reason, I don't think his use of energy signifies anything negative at all... So attack away.

excon

================================================== ================
The point of his jet fuel consumption is that Al Gore can choose to fly commercial, or use the internet that he invented to be at a conference virtually rather than actually be physically present.

Does not take much intelligence to realize this.

And why should he preach to us about energy use when he does not follow his own example?






Grace and peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But he has other priorities like getting rich selling distortions.

---

And carbon offsets :D