Even though I dont think global warming is as much pollution's fault as it is a natural cycle, I do think we should all do our best to be energy conservative. As an outdoorsman, i try my best to buy green products when i can. (despite my gas gussling truck)
Afterall, the less energy you use, the less you pay for, so saving $$ and the environment is good in my book.
__________________
Hoyt VTEC 28" @ 74# 283 ft/s
GTProHunters 5575 wraped and Blazed
100 Grn Rcky Mtn Snypers & Stinger 4 Blade
STS, QAD Ultra Rest Pro
Even though I dont think global warming is as much pollution's fault as it is a natural cycle, I do think we should all do our best to be energy conservative. As an outdoorsman, i try my best to buy green products when i can. (despite my gas gussling truck)
Afterall, the less energy you use, the less you pay for, so saving $$ and the environment is good in my book.
Agreed!!! Too bad the limousine liberals don't practice what they preach!!![/align]
Most of those "hippyesque" solutions are completely unworkable on a national scale, nice in print but not practical. Like HuntingEd I won't dispute that we probably have some small impact in the charade of global warming, but any steps we might take to help correct it would be just as small and not effective. Climate change is only barely understood, and it's hghly unlikely that we've had more than an infintesimally small part in it anyway. Cow farts? Please...
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
As you know Red, I dont think the threat is assevere as its made out to be by some. However, I do believe we cant go wrong by doing all we can to have a cleaner environment. This article has some good measures to be taken. Good post.
I hate "do gooders," so it is hard for me to respond positively to their writings. Nonetheless, there are some good ideas here. What I object to is having any or all of these ideas shoved down my throat. A good idea? If you can wash your clothes in warm water rather than hot water and still get your clothes clean -- thereby reducing your consumption of energy -- great, go for it. A bad idea? I don't think I want to live in a 1,000 square foot house that was normal in the 1950's. I want to live in my big house. I enjoy this extra space and spaciousness. It is a lower standard of living to live in a smaller house. Another bad idea? Hanging your clothes out to dry. Ya, like I've got friggin' time -- or my wife has time -- to first hang out all the clothes and second go retrieve all the clothes when they are dry. "Time is money." When our time was more abundant and worth less, hanging out clothes to dry made sense and worked. It seems entirely impractical now.
Conservation, when it can be applied without a loss of standard of living, makes a lot of sense. What I object to is forcing those conservation measures which involve a loss of standard of living and then telling us that really it is better or no worse than before. No, it is worse, please don't lie to me.
I think that conservation can only provide small scale results, however. For example, if conservation can provide 40% savings but growth of energy consumption worldwide will grow 150% . . . there is no real solution. Any solution which does not address the fact that standards of living are improved by applying energy to boost productivity and the majority of people in this world are living at a very low standard of living which they want to improve, this solution is dead on arrival. Im stealing this idea from some Indian guy who is quoted in a recent issue of either Time or Newsweek that features Arnold Schwartzenegger on the cover apparently balancing the world on his fingertip. I think he is right on. We need to analyze how we can consume more energy to boost standards of living but STILL solve our environmental problems.
Finally, I am not persuaded that global warming is caused by human actions. Additionally, I'm not sure global warming, never mind the cause, is occuring. I think there is way too much contrarian opinion by independent thinkers, too many instances of "incontrovertible proofs" being controverted to feel confident that the scientists have figured this out and are all pulling in the traces in the same direction.
The best way to battle global pollution and global warming (whether it actually exists or not is debatable) is to control population.
Every human being leaves a daily carbon footprint, along with a trail of waste.
Less human beings = less carbon footprints, with less waste created. Simple.
If Adam and Eve were the only two people on the planet, they could be running 15 dirty powerplants each day, lighting forest fires and driving Hummers everywhere they went, but they couldn't possibly put a dent in the plant's ecological health. But, if you increase the population to 6.7 Billion, then you've got problems.
This graph shows a very obvious trend that cannot possibly continue. Something will give.
quicksilver is right. The world population is getting out of control. This earth can only support so many. You all know what happens when the population of animals gets too high, nature comes up with a solution. It is very possible the nature is trying to do this to humans right now. (global warming, epidemics, pandemics, aids). Bono wants us to feed a population in africa that the land there cannot possibly support. It is hard for me to support them when in reality his solutiononly increases the problem. The solution lies with keeping a population in check with nature. I know this is a bleak outlook, but it is a realist outlook.
Maybe
by hanging out the laundry you would have more time. Bein a slave to the punch clock for bigger bass boats is only good for the boat maker, not the fisherman who no longer has time to fish.
Nothing would raise my standard of living more than additional family time.
__________________
Have Fun
Take the Kids
Make it Fairchaise
The Global Warming Survival Guide
)
