WeCanDoIt.Org...WTF?

[Don Corleone]

So I understand William H. Macy narrating commercials. And I understand Hollywood icons getting up on television and sanctimoniously telling all of us peasants to shrink our carbon footprint.

But these new ads are really that... new. Pat Roberston kvitching with Al Sharpton? Newt Gingrich chiming in with Nancy Pelosi.

Now, this may surprise some Orgah regulars, but I actually am somewhat green. It's not a feel good thing for me, and I don't view man as a pox upon the land (I actually had a friend at University who described humans as the only unnatural organisim on the planet... how can that be?)

But I hunt, I fish, I hike and I camp. I was an Eagle Scout, and while I can't stand the ubiquitous 'green' label, or even beter 'eco-warrior' or 'defender of the earth', I'll use the old school label and call myself a conservationist. And anything that gets us to quit giving money to Chavez, Ahmadinejad and the Sauds is okay in my book.

But I'm also well aware that frequently these 'feel good' initiatives do nothing but inconvenience you. And if people were really serious about ending greenhouse gasses, we'd be building nuclear power plants like there was no tomorrow.

And I thought that this past winter wiped out the climate rise of the past century in one season. Yet, Newt, while sketchy and slimy, is a very intelligent guy. Either they have photos of him in drag, they waved a huge pile of cash at him to lie, or there might actually be something to it here.

So what do you guys think about WeCanDoIt.Org....

[Papewaio]

I think we should be more worried about fishing in rivers that have pesticides that mimic hormones then global warming.

I do think the globe has got warmer.
I'm not sure what percentage (even if it gets to a single digit) that we have as an impact.
I'm also not sure if global warming is a bad thing. The most obvious good thing would be more rice and wheat fields... as more warming equals more humidity which equals more rain and snow... in turn more fresh water for agriculture. The bad side is things like the spread of wheat rust due to more humidity.

Good and bad things abound, I do think we can build houses quicker then the ocean rises. What we might not be able to do is adapt our crops as fast as the pests adapt to the changes. Some crops (apples, pears, peaches) take significantly longer then a year to grow from the initial saplings to fruiting.

I do disagree with rampant waste, litter in national parks, cigarette butts floating in the harbour and pollution so bad that it feels like one is in a fog. So I think we should fight the obvious bad effects now and look at what else we can do for ourselves and future generations.

[Lemur]

Hey Don, when I type www.wecandoit.org or wecandoit.org or any variation thereof, I get a placekeeper page. Could you give a brother a link?

I'm glad to hear that you are a tad green. I find the disconnect between conservatism and conservationism to be one of the most illogical, counter-productive trends in modern American politics. Shouldn't conservatives be interested in conserving? Oh, whatever.

Anyway, linky, please?

[Veho Nex]

Here Here! I'm not into the whole oil scene, not my book. I'm a regular user of BART and GGT. I convince my boss that he should sell his hummer. He has thanked me in the saved gas money more than once. I'm not to big of a fan of sending the brass and the green to the middle east. I hunt, I walk everywhere. But seriously When I see stuff like, Greenpeace standing on street corners handing out pamphlets to random people, or when you have people who want to ban hunting/fishing/mass agriculture/wood cutting, it irks me. Big time. Its just my personal opinion.

[Beirut]

Methinks at this point only the most egregiously stupid and callous think the planet is doing fine with what we're throwing at it. Even Joe Richguy with the ten SUVs knows things have to change; he doesn't want to have to make the changes himself, but he still knows that change is required.

Anything that promotes environmentalism and conservation is good. After all, what's the downside, fresh air?

[Don Corleone]

It's called www.wecansolveit.orgactually. Sorry.

And Beirut, that's the problem I have with bad environmentalism. The whole pitch of "even if we're wrong, what's the harm..". Well, a scam is a scam. Somebody's making money off of all of this 'green the planet' business.

Like I said, I agree with cutting back on oil consumption and releasing harmful chemicals. But I don't care much for feel-good measures that do little to help the environment but get Uncle Al and his cronies rich.

I mean, let's look at Kyoto again here for a second. China and India got to actually keep increasing their carbon outputs. The United States took it on the chin. Europe fell somewhere in between. In the end, Kyoto was more about hamstringing the US economy than helping the planet. I'm not on board for that.

But things that will actually help, like carpooling, flourescent lights, composting... sure.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Or no more logging...

I think promoting conservation is good, and I tend to lean that way myself sometimes.

CR

[Marshal Murat]

I'm a conservationist. I'd like to preserve the environment, but to adopt a whole new way of life is a little extreme. I wish it were easier to be green, though. Public transportation is worthless, there isn't any fuel alternative. If I could buy 'organic' products, that would be great, but it's just plain cheaper to get the regular brand things.

[Mikeus Caesar]

It's called [URL="www.wecansolveit.org"]
I mean, let's look at Kyoto again here for a second. China and India got to actually keep increasing their carbon outputs. The United States took it on the chin. Europe fell somewhere in between. In the end, Kyoto was more about hamstringing the US economy than helping the planet. I'm not on board for that.



Ahahah, ahahhah.

No.

I'm sorry, but i stopped taking you seriously at this point, and don't think i'll be able to take anything else you say in this thread seriously from this point on.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Public transportation is worthless

Maybe in America. It works well here.

[Lemur]

Depends on where you live in America. Places with kick-ass public transportation: Chicago, New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C.

Maybe San Francisco, although I have precious little firsthand knowledge. But I lived eight years in Chicago without a car, and just as long in NYC without a car, and I got along just fine.

[Marshal Murat]

I had a friend move from Chicago to my city. They rode a bicycle across the Chicago, never needed a car. Here, if you bicycle you do so when it isn't oppressively humid. The city is spread out and you need either a car or a horse to get around.

[naut]

I mean, let's look at Kyoto again here for a second. China and India got to actually keep increasing their carbon outputs. The United States took it on the chin. Europe fell somewhere in between. In the end, Kyoto was more about hamstringing the US economy than helping the planet. I'm not on board for that.
Yes that's why the most currently profitable automotive companies are US companies. :rolleyes:

[Veho Nex]

Live in the bay area and we are now in the making of the Corridors project which is going to by back all the old railroad land in the bay area and turn it into a high speed magnetic rail way.

Also if you get fast track, It is pretty cheap. comes to about 300 a year for unlimited traveling over the bay area

[Raz]

Putting the word "Organic" in front of a name is just an excuse to charge twice as more. Putting the words "100% Natural" in front of a name is just an excuse to make it taste bad.

I hate these feel good things, say turn off your lights for an hour, I doubt that has any significant effect at all on the global scale. Sure, I walk to the shops, I ride my bike to school but I doubt that has an effect either. What about the thousands of planes that just burn tonnes of fuel straight out into the atmosphere, what about those millions of officeworkers in the countless cities that use hundreds of computers from 9.00 to 5.00 five days a week... surely targeting the commercial and industrial sectors of society would do more for the environment then targeting the residential sections. :inquisitive:

[Lemur]

Well, do stupid displays of religiosity turn you off religion? Do idiots waving the flag turn you off patriotism? Do stupid people advocating sex make you turn abstinent?

I mean, really, some of these responses are silly. So there are idiots who advocate environmentalism. Oooh, well then, let's not have any of that, no thanks, I hear there are kooks who like that.

Happy to agree that there are causes and advocates of conservation who are off-base, distasteful, and generally wrong. Doesn't change the fact that renewable energy is going to be big in the coming century, nor that perfecting closed-loop living will be key to colonizing something besides this rock called Terra, nor that some form of balancing our power with the ecosystem's will be necessary if we don't want the planet to shrug us off like a bad flu.

(Personal pet peeve -- people who say that "the planet is dying." No, idiots, the planet will be just fine, just dandy. We don't yet have enough power to destroy the planet, or even come close. What we could potentially do is make life very uncomfortable four ourselves, which is bad enough, so no need to go hyperventilating about the planet. It's survived 98% extinctions in the past, and bounced right back. Sure, it might take a few million years, but that's nothing to a planet.)

[Mikeus Caesar]

(Personal pet peeve -- people who say that "the planet is dying." No, idiots, the planet will be just fine, just dandy. We don't yet have enough power to destroy the planet, or even come close. What we could potentially do is make life very uncomfortable four ourselves, which is bad enough, so no need to go hyperventilating about the planet. It's survived 98% extinctions in the past, and bounced right back. Sure, it might take a few million years, but that's nothing to a planet.)

EDIT: Deleted hotlinked picture. C'mon chaps, this is getting tiresome. Do I need to issue warnings to get your attention? BG

[Xiahou]

Or no more logging...Logging has been good for forest conservancy. Land owned by logging companies isn't being clearcut and developed by real estate investors. They actually replant trees- when a subdivision goes up, the trees are gone for good.


Yet, Newt, while sketchy and slimy, is a very intelligent guy.The answer's right there, Don. He's a slimeball, but a smart one. Lots of people like him may not really agree with the official global warming line, but some of them are saying that the writing is already on the wall politically speaking. I figure he's trying to get out in front of it so he can get his piece of the pie.

Hindsight being what it is, it's hard to see why I ever liked Gingrich- I'll try to write it off to my youth when he was in office. The guy was a scumbag....

[Tribesman]

Logging has been good for forest conservancy. Land owned by logging companies isn't being clearcut and developed by real estate investors. They actually replant trees- when a subdivision goes up, the trees are gone for good.

Sorry Xiahou , but if land owned by logging companies isn't being clearcut and sold to developers then why does your government have a program buying out logging companies to stop them doing what you claim they don't do ?

[Xiahou]

Sorry Xiahou , but if land owned by logging companies isn't being clearcut and sold to developers then why does your government have a program buying out logging companies to stop them doing what you claim they don't do ?
I'm sure you could figure it out if you tried hard enough. :yes:

[Tribesman]

I'm sure you could figure it out if you tried hard enough.
Oh it isn't hard to figure out , you are talking rubbish again :yes:
If you were not talking rubbish then logging companies wouldn't clear cut and sell land to developers and you as a taxpayer wouldn't be paying them to sell to the government instead of to developers .

[Quirinus]

Putting the word "Organic" in front of a name is just an excuse to charge twice as more. Putting the words "100% Natural" in front of a name is just an excuse to make it taste bad.
Oh my, I couldn't agree more. :whip:


I hate these feel good things, say turn off your lights for an hour, I doubt that has any significant effect at all on the global scale. Sure, I walk to the shops, I ride my bike to school but I doubt that has an effect either. What about the thousands of planes that just burn tonnes of fuel straight out into the atmosphere, what about those millions of officeworkers in the countless cities that use hundreds of computers from 9.00 to 5.00 five days a week... surely targeting the commercial and industrial sectors of society would do more for the environment then targeting the residential sections. :inquisitive:
I disagree. While one household using recyclable plastic bags for a single day doesn't make any sort of measurable effect on a global scale, half a billion households doing so daily does.

Same with using public transport. One less SUV isn't going to ease up massive traffic snarls at rush hour, but five hundred thousand less of them will. One couple leaving litter on the beach doesn't matter so much, but a thousand couples all having the mentality that 'one more/less won't make a difference' is precisely what makes beaches so dirty and unsightly these days.

Need I go on? The examples can be multiplied indefinitely.


(Of course, I'm hardly one to preach.... here in balmy Malaysia, I use air-conditioning a lot.) :sweatdrop:

[Vladimir]

Anything that promotes environmentalism and conservation is good. After all, what's the downside, fresh air?

Beirut asking Tosa if he can work full-time at the .org because he's out of a job?

[Don Corleone]

Ahahah, ahahhah.

No.

I'm sorry, but i stopped taking you seriously at this point, and don't think i'll be able to take anything else you say in this thread seriously from this point on.

Other than ad hominem attacks, do you have anything intelligent and on point to offer that would contradict my premise? I'm all ears, believe me.

And Rhythmic, I don't know what financial papers you're reading, but if you think the US automotive industry is doing well, I'd demand a refund. There's multiple paths to profitability. If I have a mature industry running and I fire 50% of my R&D staff, my profitability will rise in the short term, but I think we can all agree that's not going to help my long term corporate health.

The Japanese are eating our lunch right now in the automotive industry, and I've heard several analysts declare that within 20 years, GM and Ford (the only two remaining US automobile industries) will be out of business.

If your point is that staying out of Kyoto did nothing to promote their long term health, you have a point, but not as strongly as you might think. First, staying out of Kyoto DID help other American industries that were targeted by Kyoto. And second, I'm not certain that with or without Kyoto the American auto industry could be saved. If they couldn't see the need for more fuel efficient product lines over the past 7 years, they deserve to go belly-up.

[Adrian II]

Well, a scam is a scam. Somebody's making money off of all of this 'green the planet' business.

Like I said, I agree with cutting back on oil consumption and releasing harmful chemicals. But I don't care much for feel-good measures that do little to help the environment but get Uncle Al and his cronies rich.

I mean, let's look at Kyoto again here for a second. China and India got to actually keep increasing their carbon outputs. The United States took it on the chin. Europe fell somewhere in between. In the end, Kyoto was more about hamstringing the US economy than helping the planet. I'm not on board for that.

But things that will actually help, like carpooling, flourescent lights, composting... sure.I agree to almost all of that.

The problem with Kyoto is that global warming isn't the threat it is made out to be and enough politicians know that, but they use the existing scare to form constantly shifting alliances in order to enforce new economic policies. These policies are driven more by considerations of international marketing, productivity and wage competition than by environmental considerations. During the last Kyoto conference for instance the EU was exploiting its competitive advantage over the U.S. in 'green technology' (cleaner and less energy-consuming cars etcetera) by siding with China, India and other large developing nations against the U.S. and some other highly developed superpolluters.

Indeed, if we truly took Kyoto seriously, we would invest in nuclear energy like there was no tomorrow. Ask yourself why we don't. Politicians keep telling us that we have to act on global warming now or face disaster, yet when it comes to policy we are asked to volunteer, to switch off the lights an hour earlier or take out the trash in separate bins. If this were a military threat instead of an ecological one, would they ask us all to go into our backyards and make our own little catapults to scare off the enemy? I don't think so.

[Vladimir]

I don't know for sure if the government *asked* people to build bomb shelters but many did. Did we take the threat of nuclear war seriously?

[Ironside]

And I thought that this past winter wiped out the climate rise of the past century in one season.

I'm actually curious, did those news over there ever mention that it's a La Niña period atm? Always colder (globally, Europe will have it it warmer during a La Niña for example) during those years, like it's always warmer during a El Niño.

[Tribesman]

I'm actually curious, did those news over there ever mention that it's a La Niña period atm?
No but there was a topic here on it a few weeks ago , it turned out the claim about wiping out 100 years of data was of the complete bollox variety

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree to almost all of that.

The problem with Kyoto is that global warming isn't the threat it is made out to be and enough politicians know that, but they use the existing scare to form constantly shifting alliances in order to enforce new economic policies. These policies are driven more by considerations of international marketing, productivity and wage competition than by environmental considerations. During the last Kyoto conference for instance the EU was exploiting its competitive advantage over the U.S. in 'green technology' (cleaner and less energy-consuming cars etcetera) by siding with China, India and other large developing nations against the U.S. and some other highly developed superpolluters.

Indeed, if we truly took Kyoto seriously, we would invest in nuclear energy like there was no tomorrow. Ask yourself why we don't. Politicians keep telling us that we have to act on global warming now or face disaster, yet when it comes to policy we are asked to volunteer, to switch off the lights an hour earlier or take out the trash in separate bins. If this were a military threat instead of an ecological one, would they ask us all to go into our backyards and make our own little catapults to scare off the enemy? I don't think so.

Agreed 100%

It is remarkable how those who are on at the forefront of "green chic" are also the ones who are most easily marketed to.

Everyone should be a conservationist.

[Beirut]

Beirut asking Tosa if he can work full-time at the .org because he's out of a job?

Trees are a renewable resource that if properly managed will last as long as the Earth does. Hence, my job is secure if I do it with respect for the environment.

[Vladimir]

Trees are a renewable resource that if properly managed will last as long as the Earth does. Hence, my job is secure if I do it with respect for the environment.

Sorry, gotta stop treating forums like a conversation and put more in my posts.

No it's not.

The problem is that you think your view of environmentalism is the one that will be enforced. When you state "Anything that promotes environmentalism and conservation is good" I have a problem. Clearly it's not a though out statement. "Anything" is a lot. An example would be a problem a lot of national parks have between environmentalists and firefighting/wildlife managers. The latter attempt to take a responsible logging approach while the former don't want it touched at all. Quite often the enviros win and everyone else looses.

"Anything" includes you loosing your job (I believe that's your full-time occupation, correct? Besides pleasing She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed of course)

[TinCow]

So what do you guys think about WeCanDoIt.Org....

They have stopped me dead in my tracks. Literally. The first time I saw the Sharpton/Robertson version, I was walking past a TV that was just on for background noise. When I realized the pair of people that were sitting there together, I did a double take and stared at it until it was over. I then ran to tell my wife what I saw and she didn't believe me, so I had to go rewind the tivo so she could see it. The exact same thing happened a second time a few days ago with the Pelosi/Gingrich version.

I think they are fabulous. If we can get partisan personages of that caliber to agree on global warming and push for action, something might actually get done.

[Beirut]

The problem is that you think your view of environmentalism is the one that will be enforced.

I think nothing of the sort. I think only that my view of environmetalism will be enforce by me.


When you state "Anything that promotes environmentalism and conservation is good" I have a problem. Clearly it's not a though out statement. "Anything" is a lot. An example would be a problem a lot of national parks have between environmentalists and firefighting/wildlife managers. The latter attempt to take a responsible logging approach while the former don't want it touched at all. Quite often the enviros win and everyone else loses.[QUOTE=Vladimir]

I see your point that extremism is, well, extreme, but after decades (if not centuries) of morbidly bad environmental behaviour, a few instances of over the top tree-hugging isn't going to cause our fat first-world existence to come to a screaching halt.

[QUOTE=Vladimir]"Anything" includes you loosing your job (I believe that's your full-time occupation, correct? Besides pleasing She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed of course)

I am subject to environmental standards, municipal and provincial, when cutting trees and there are several instances where I do not do work that is legal because, though legal, it would be stupid. We've walked off several jobs and refused others outright.

(My dear sir, pleasing She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed is not just a job, it's an adventure.)

[Vladimir]

I am subject to environmental standards, municipal and provincial, when cutting trees and there are several instances where I do not do work that is legal because, though legal, it would be stupid. We've walked off several jobs and refused others outright.

Good story, you may have heard of it. Some guy with too much money and time wants to cut down some trees because they obscured his view of the Potomac river. Cared so much about it that he petitioned the government and won. Later he petitioned the government to build a retaining wall along his property because the river was eroding it. :laugh4:

I don't think he won that one. Error on the side of the tree I guess.

:2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes that's why the most currently profitable automotive companies are US companies. :rolleyes:

The Big 3 are flat at best these days (kind interp) or in the process of flatlining (negative interp). Ford has been losing money for more than two years despite occasional nice quarters, GM is more or less stagnant, and the only part of DaimlerChrysler making money is the Daimler part (okay, the trucks are doing okay too, but Chrysler cars are heading south and hard).