Global Warming: What do you think? What do you know?

Exactly. It changes hourly/daily, not at an exponentialy growing rate trending back 100 years.

Ok grease tits, can we see your data about this "growing trend dating back 100 years?"

So if this "phenonmenon" of "global warming" has lasted 100 years, what was the big tittlywinks about global cooling during the 70s? Hmm, the data stated the earth had been getting cooler since the mid 40s. I am sure you will say this is related to "global warming."

Hmm, I am confused. Earth has had at least 4 ice ages. So where does the supposed Milankovitch cycles fit into all this?

geez you sound like a closeminded hick.

I said it ought to be more on a personal level than government. people can influence each other more efficiently than government.

How is he a close-minded hick? This is because he is correct? Oh that is right, I am one of those bitter Americans who clings to my gun and relgion.

[rwh11385]

Hopefully companies and people can consider the overall picture of the community, the country, the environment when making decisions. Whether its a little more time or a little more money, there may be better choices to be made. No one ought to FORCE them, but encouragement is good. Some people won't need any incentive except doing what is better and setting a good example for others.

http://www.subaru-sia.com/Company/Wildlife/index.htm

http://www.indianalivinggreen.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=191&Itemid=1

And not all choices are costly... some are actually smart if you are looking to improve things.

There are a couple of misconceptions about environmental stewardship, said Thomas V. Easterday, senior vice president, secretary and general council for SIA. One is that it will make money and the other is that it will cost money.

The return is in saving money by reducing costs. For example, a supplier uses brass lug nuts to hold wheels in place during shipping. SIA used to discard 33,000 pounds of brass a year. Now, the lug nuts are returned to the supplier and reused until they no longer are serviceable, when they are recycled. Granted, Easterday said, the payback is longer, but it’s there and it is enhanced by the long-term benefits for the environment.

SIA now has commercials talking about the plant, but I had no idea until Easterday came to speak to the class I was in about cars.


People and companies need to think of ALL the costs, both financial and environmental, when making decisions. Tax, fine, and other forms of negative incentives can only do so much and may not be as effective to handle externalities. BUT, if we think of these with a more open mind, then perhaps a difference can be made. Just like how a company can either solely worry about its profits, or worry about as well its employees, suppliers, customers, and community - it's how you frame it in your mind that sometimes determines what solution you think is best. Thinking about me, me, me, me will continue to have the country for the most part be selfish and using freedom for inefficient own benefit. It's not socialist to think about others - it's being human. Socialism is an inefficient system of forcing people to act a way, where we should just choose to do so with our freedom.

[rwh11385]

Oh dear god, You really need to get into the real world. Crappy parenting is not some thing you should be brushing on. Its a problem yes but do you really want the Govt. to regulate parenting?????? Thats a very dangerous slope you are trying to tread on.

Go read George Orwell's 1984, this is the slope you are wanting this country down.

This country was founded on freedom to do as we wish, these freedoms have been eroded over the years but I assure you there a millions of us AMERICANS that will oppose any law like that.

like i said, not the government so much as the people need to take responsibility for themselves and help influence others actions.

I've read it. I want people to get their neighbors to recycle and incentives for companies to go about more intelligent means. this does not mean forcing anyone to do anything, but recommending advancement

once again, not a law. but you're much too stubborn and closeminded to truly consider anything like that. you're just putting your hands on your ears and going la la la la. that will do the country a lot of good

[rwh11385]

Hey there sparky, the govt. already has its nose in my life and pay check enough as it is. I really dont want my life regulated to what I can and cant drive, what I can and cant eat. So on and so forth, all in the name of the grater good that has been tried before and it didnt work, its called communism. Thanks delfin for the correct comment.

The last thing we need is more govt. regulation on our lives.

geez you sound like a closeminded hick.

I said it ought to be more on a personal level than government. people can influence each other more efficiently than government.

[mrsleeve]

Would you be one of the people in the day who still wanted slavery or women not to have a vote?

Social change is fundamental in civilizations to advance them. Especially with problems being caused by technology and both parents at work, i.e. the myspace generation - the country will need be proactive in dealing with problems instead of avoiding the issue in the name of "freedom".

Oh dear god, You really need to get into the real world. Crappy parenting is not some thing you should be brushing on. Its a problem yes but do you really want the Govt. to regulate parenting?????? Thats a very dangerous slope you are trying to tread on.

Go read George Orwell's 1984, this is the slope you are wanting this country down.

This country was founded on freedom to do as we wish, these freedoms have been eroded over the years but I assure you there a millions of us AMERICANS that will oppose any law like that.

[mrsleeve]

typical.

defense of status quo by saying live with it or leave.

Hey there sparky, the govt. already has its nose in my life and pay check enough as it is. I really dont want my life regulated to what I can and cant drive, what I can and cant eat. So on and so forth, all in the name of the grater good that has been tried before and it didnt work, its called communism. Thanks delfin for the correct comment.

Here I will say it again
I am all for finding better more sustainable energy sources but not for the reason of the climate change hysteria, but because what are we going to do when the petro chemicals run out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The last thing we need is more govt. regulation on our lives.

[rwh11385]

Go back to Soviet Union

Would you be one of the people in the day who still wanted slavery or women not to have a vote?

Social change is fundamental in civilizations to advance them. It's not communist to believe people should influence others in order to make a difference. Do you prefer anarchy then?

[Ral]

Whoa, wait a minute fellas. I'm with heeter on this one to an extent. Trying to encourage the American populous is not a bad thing. There's ways to regulate and encourage more economical and healthier living without being overbearing/socialist. No one's entitled to the right to be wasteful/destructive, and many of these programs, if properly implemented, would be nearly transparent. I would propose a small fine, like a parking ticket, for items in the trash that are recyclable so long as the systems are put into place to accommodate recycling. (Don't be too rough on me, just pulled it out of my ass a second ago- I'm sure you could all poke holes in it, just saying things can be done that don't infringe on your liberty that will encourage people to take care of the environment.)

Also, the problem with "live with it or leave" is that nothing ever gets changed for the better. There's some (well- a lot) of people who will never be satisfied and always find something to complain about. And those people can go to Hell or France, whichever suits them more. But people pointing out what could improve the country don't fit into that category in my mind.

[delfin]

typical.

defense of status quo by saying live with it or leave.

Go back to Soviet Union

[rwh11385]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So go live in one those more progressive countries. Enjoy the much higher taxation an govt regs on your life, on what you can and cant do.

typical.

defense of status quo by saying live with it or leave.

[rwh11385]

Today Americans produce 227.1 million tons of waste per year – that’s 4.4 pounds of trash per person, more garbage per capita than any other country in the world.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So go live in one those more progressive countries. Enjoy the much higher taxation an govt regs on your life, on what you can and cant do.

[rwh11385]

I'm not saying that they don't do more, but I'm saying that I don't think you can say that other societies are not as wasteful by-in-large.

And I do support the freedom to be lazy; it's called choice. What, is the government supposed to make it illegal to be lazy an unemployed? Common. I'm not lazy in the least, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to be as driven as I am.

I don't want to destroy anything, but I'm not willing to impose my beliefs on others or get more government regulation to solve these problems.

Who said the government in needed to force people to be smarter with their wasteful behavior? I believe we need more programs that encourage positive choices, not punish bad ones. Incentives to make ecological-friendly decisions could help shift our culture, along with personal efforts.

I think that an effective society has people working to influence others to do the right thing. Simply sitting by while people be destruction is accepting it and by that, approving. We should have a fine line between influence and stepping upon people's rights, but asking your neighbor not to dump motor oil down the sewer is infringing on their rights to protect your environment. The same is true of other steps to motivate others to be wiser with their wastefulness.

No one can force others to do something, but we can at least make it clear that we care. The more people perceived to be willing to make a difference leads to more people willing to do so as well. A kin to peer pressure if more and more people are seen as making positive choices, then more people will accept that as standard than use and abuse.

The Bavarian brewers re-use bottles, and also give their waste product from brewing - the mash - to local farmers as it still contains some nutrients and is used for feed. No one forces them to do it, but rather it's a conscious effort to not waste.

[rwh11385]

Agreed. Your freedom to be wasteful ends when it hurts other people. It's like the calssic example: "I may have the freedom to swing my fist through the air, but that freedom stops at your face"

Case in point. About ten years ago when the beginning of the 'Big Dry' drought hit in Australia, the gov't mandated that all toilets be 'dual-flush', which use a smaller amount of water for 'number 1's' and a larger amount for 'number 2's'. To date, they estimate that it has saved over 10 GIGA liters of water. Now, did that regulation infringe upon your ability to take a shit? i think not. It's a perfect example of gov't taking necessary, responsible actions to protect the wellbeing of it's citizens. No liberty was trampled on, no one died from a lack of personal freedom and every single person in the whole country is better off because of it.

It's amazing that the same people who advocate being responsible for your own life (ie health insurance, etc) can't stand the idea of taking responsibility for your actions when it comes to the environment. Is personal responsibility really that selective?

Bingo. The 2 mode toilets were very common in Germany as well when I was there.