Carbon footprint? I am so sick of hearing this phrase lately. When did this term become a part of our language? Did I miss something? By using this term, we are agreeing with the language of the liberals who want us to believe that humans have created global warming. By even asking what our carbon footprint is, we are complicit in the push by liberals to politicize free enterprise.
The American way of life is predicated on the idea that I can go and buy whatever I need whenever I need it for whatever reason, as long as I can afford it. I am not ashamed of wealth. I do not think that trying to make those of us who drive larger vehicles feel guilty about the choices we have made for safety’s sake is a productive way to go about things.
There is still a lot of debate out there as to the causes of global warming, and (gasp) there is even still debate [as to] whether or not it is even happening. So can we please, for science’s sake, stop acting as if we know the facts. Stop trying to make us all ride bicycles and be vegetarians.
— Douglas Stronblotz
Asheville
No one is trying to make you a vegetarian. But why on earth wouldn’t people want to make informed decisions about how their lifestyle affects the planet?
Here’s a good (albeit simple) global warming calculator for people interested in learning what their footprint is, http://www.ecofoot.org/ The website includes good suggestions for those who are interested in making changes.
Riding bicycles and not eating animal products are good approaches to consider. So are driving energy-efficient vehicles if you do drive, buying energy-efficient appliances, light bulbs, retrofitting your home (insulation, alternative energy, etc.), and generally consuming less. I guess that sounds un-American to you, but I think it’s patriotic. What could be more patriotic than buying less foreign oil?
To learn more about the environmental devastation of eating animal products, visit http://www.GoVeg.com/eco
sounds like someone wants help to stop making him feel guilty, and is looking for re-assurance. i’m sure he’ll find it amongst like-minded people. if you want your head to be buried in the sand, you’ll find a way.
The idea that humans are not responsible for global warming is not grounded in any science. The only debate is the scale and time it will take. If you have a basic knowledge of physical science it is clear that the Earth is warming due to anthropogenic causation. If you do not have that knowledge, I urge you to look at the very, small number of scientists that argue global warming, and see that their grant money comes from oil, coal, and government run agencies. The overwhelming consensus of scientists around the world is clear. This is not a political issue outside of a few conservatives in the U.S., who have tried to make it such. Outside of CO2, it should also be noted that SOX, and NOX, as well as particulate matter have caused a huge surge in childhood asthma, as well as many other human health risks. This is directly related to how and how much energy we consume. I would not want to suggest to someone how to live, but rather to realize their actions do impact other people, some of them being their own children. If you need a large vehicle, I think it is more of a compensatory issue, than a safety issue. Also, the American way of life is predicated by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all; if your actions are causing physical harm to other people to satisfy material desire, what would Jesus do?
AsheJoe, I hate to pop your balloon, but you have it backwards. There is NO scientific evidence that conclusively proves human-caused pollution is causing global warming. The planet warms and cools in cycles, naturally. Now I am in favor of not polluting the planet. And if Al Gore’s hoax can get people to cut back on energy consumption, it is a good thing. But let us not delude ourselves in believing Gore’s “theory” is absolutely true. It is NOT proved.
“The American way of life is predicated on the idea that I can go and buy whatever I need whenever I need it for whatever reason, as long as I can afford it.”
Really? Then why can’t I buy weed and child porn at the store? Maybe some 80 proof moonshine and a prostitute? Constitutionally guaranteed?
Besides, I don’t believe that that particular ‘right’ was guaranteed by The Framers.
nam vet: it’s not Al Gore’s theory, it’s one postulated and supported by 99% of scientists, please see info. that is not from Rush, Asheville Tribune, or Hannity. Just becuase you can’t definatively prove it doesn’t mean it’s not going on
Can someone give sammule her own website? :)
Back on thread, the point is this. Al Gore’s theory is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, I think it prudent that we all try to conserve resources and lessen pollution of our environment.
AsheJoe, “99% of scientists”? Not so my friend. Do a little research. Here are some arguments to support my point:
1) A UK judge had research done on Al Gore’s theory so he could rule on a request to teach global warming in the public schools. The judge found several errors in Gore’s theory. Here is the website:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=science
2) Prominent scientists debunk the theory of global warming. The opposition is much larger than 1%, AsheJoe. Here a few websites:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/yet-another-earth-scientist-debunks-global-warming/
http://bobmccarty.com/2007/04/08/another-scientist-debunks-gore-global-warming/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html
Read these websites. My point is that Gore’s global warming theory has not been proved scientifically. These sources support my point of view. That said, I do think it prudent for people to try to lessen our pollution impact on the environment. I just don’t hold are true that which is not proven.
once again I agree, I have more in common with Nam Vet than I thought possible after reading his previous posts on Reagan. We’re not so different after all!
Gravity is just a liberal conspiracy to deny us our right to levitate.
I don’t see why it matters whether or not global warming is a proven fact or not. It has been proven that the pollution we create in mass quantity has a negative impact on many things (such as our health) and we know we can do better.
Instead of doing things only as good as we can get by with and being horrifically lazy, why not strive to do things the best we can and take pride in what we do and who we are?
Where would we be if the OP’s mentality applied to other areas, such as health care? I like going to doctors and hospitals that take pride in exceeding the standards.
Cheshire, it DOES matter whether global warming has been proven or not. Because Al Gore and his buddies hold it up as proven science, when clearly is not. Any movement based in a lie is skewed from the getgo. The links I posted above show that many respected scientists say that global warming has not been proven. It remains only a theory.
So if (and they’re all big if’s) global warming isn’t fact…all of a sudden it doesn’t matter that it IS fact that air pollution has a direct link to asthma, for example? Screw the big picture for a minute and look at the small potatoes. Cause and consequence is taking place on EVERY level, like it or not.
Just because the prime source is under debate doesn’t mean the symptoms shouldn’t be treated. It may not be concretely proven what the underlying main problem is, but we DO know we’re doing damage that we don’t have to be doing. To continue knowingly is simply sadistic…by definition.
Cheshire cat, my posts do not mean I am opposed to clean air. Not at all. I want clean air just as much as you do. I personally have allergies that are affected by pollution. I say we should clean up the environment. But not assume that Al Gore’s theory is scientifically proven.
nam vet, once again I must say, it’s not Al Gore’s theory. I learned about global warming and man’s hand in it, ten years ago in environmental science at U.N.C.A. If you increase CO2, the planet gets warmer. It is not theory, and it is not from Al Gore. Look at research done by every international board, not Hannity, Rush, and The Asheville Tribune. There’s a reason they call it a “consensus”
AsheJoe, “consensus” it is not. Check out these sources who dispute Al’s theory. Yes theory. In order to be fact, global warming would have to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And it hasNOT been proven.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=science
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/yet-another-earth-scientist-debunks-global-warming/
http://bobmccarty.com/2007/04/08/another-scientist-debunks-gore-global-warming/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html