Check out some similar questions!

N0help4u · Nov 30, 2007, 05:51 PM

I have no idea how my posts keep ending up on member board!

Rockafeller Center | Gear Live

Now the question is WHAT is it's footprint!

How much energy was used to get it from its happy home to it's new home?
Did they plant another one in its place?
How much energy did it take to make the LED bulbs and keep them lit?
How much gas is being used by everybody to go visit the green tree?

Have a very greenie Christmas!

Oh and the question:

How GREEN are YOU willing to go!?

tomder55 · Dec 1, 2007, 02:24 AM

I see your point but LEDs are the future. Much better than those floresent bulb jive. Also the tree is powered by solar panels and I think they used an energy efficient chain saw to off the tree.:D The energy saved by the LEDs will power up John Edwards home for a day and 1/2.

The carbon footprint of the tourists drving in stop and go traffic to find parking will be off-set by how much money they later spend on 5th Ave. and at Radio City Music Hall. A cloud of carbon dioxide will hover over Rockafeller Center ;but much of it will be absorbed by the giant tree gasping it's last breaths before it becomes lumber for Jimma Carter.

N0help4u · Dec 1, 2007, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I see your point but LEDs are the future. Much better than those floresent bulb jive. Also the tree is powered by solar panels and I think they used an energy efficent chain saw to off the tree.:D The energy saved by the LEDs will power up John Edwards home for a day and 1/2.

The carbon footprint of the tourists drving in stop and go traffic to find parking will be off-set by how much money they later spend on 5th Ave. and at Radio City Music Hall. A cloud of carbon dioxide will hover over Rockafeller Center ;but much of it will be absorbed by the giant tree gasping it's last breaths before it becomes lumber for Jimma Carter.

I don't mind switching to the LED bulbs so much, but some of the hype, hypocrisy and stuff ~oye!

Besides as much as I HATE winter I do like a white Christmas NOT a green one! :D

excon · Dec 1, 2007, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by N0help4u

How GREEN are YOU willing to go!???

Hello you GORE haters:

Look, I don't think he invented the internet either, but I don't have a political dog in this global warming fight.

It seems to me, that the right is in denial about global warming because they think the remedy is a dismantling of their entrenched industry. They view it as an EXPENSE to be endured, not as an INVESTMENT to be profited from.

Being an entrepreneur, I see the solution to global warming as the latter. You'd think the right would love all the business opportunities that are opening up. But, they don't. Therefore, I think they're just guarding what they have. I'm not a supporter of "entrenched" industry. As a matter of fact, the more entrenched they are, the more outdated they probably are because they're using their political clout to stay in business instead of their business acumen. Which means, of course, that they don't have any business acumen anymore and aren't worthy of our support.

Besides, in my green dreams, I can see endless fields of hemp - which makes better and cheaper biofuel than corn.

But if the world IS warming up, what's the harm in reducing your footprint? You don't throw your trash on the street, do you? You know we used to do that, and nobody cared. You care about that, don't you?

Plus, if we reduced our "footprint" it would also have the added benefit of reducing our need for ARAB oil, and that's REALLY REALLY good. We should do it for THAT reason alone if nothing more.

How green am I willing to go? Pretty green.

K. I'll shuddup.

excon

tomder55 · Dec 1, 2007, 11:30 AM

How big a foot print is it ?

"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic (man-made)in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D

WorldNetDaily: Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'

Trillions of dollars to replace the linoleum ?

I'll tell you who has made a fortune on this new business opportunity... The Goricle has by peddling fear. He has made a fortune on this carbon credit scam; the equivalent of the plenary indulgences of the old Catholic Church . Gore is the Torquemada of the new Gaian religion.

Bjørn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist :measuring the real state of the world " disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming . Lomborg is a Greenpeace protester. His book was cited favorably in The New York Slimes.

But for daring to question the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." There is no listening to the heresy that offers dissent to consensus science.

ETWolverine · Dec 3, 2007, 07:37 AM

Excon,

Besides, in my green dreams, I can see endless fields of hemp - which makes better and cheaper biofuel than corn.

Admit it. You just want legalized marijahoochie.

I happen to agree with you that there are investment opportunities to be had with regards to the "green industry". So why not let those investment opportunities take effect? Why do the libs, instead of letting capitalism fill those opportunities, insist on taxing, regulating, and controlling industry?

The answer is that for the hard-core lib it really isn't about the environment. It's about the "evils" and "excesses" of capitalism and industry. Environmentalism is just the excuse for regulating industry. So is "public safety" and "labor rights" and "outsdourcing of jobs" and "minimum wage" and "distribution of wealth" and everything else that they can figure out to blame on industry so as to regulate it. The problem isn't the envionment, the problem is capitalism. And anything that can be used to regulate industry will be used by the hard-core liberal.

That's why when shoddy science is used as an excuse to regulate industry we have so much of a problem with it. If the science were solid, we wouldn't have half as much of a problem. If the science remained "iffy" but the libs weren't demanding regulation of industry, and were instead allowing capitalism to fill the "need" of environmental conservation, we wouldn't have a problem with it. Want to make money by delivering green products to the public? Go for it. But their goal is to destroy (to whatever degree possible) industry and Capitalism. Not because of the environment, but because Capitalism by its nature is "unfair" in that some people are more successful than others, and such unfairness cannot be allowed to exist.

Your post makes sense, Excon. It takes a capitalist approach to envionmentalism... find the missing green product, and offer it to the people in an open market. I LIKE that approach. I ENDORSE that approach. But that approach is not the one being taken by the hard core leftist environmentalists. Their approach is to stop industry at all costs. And that I do not agree with. Do you?

Elliot