Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:51:46 04/24/02 Wed
Author: Patrick
Author Host/IP: dialupD243.logn.uswest.net / 63.230.11.244
Subject:

Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name
In reply to: Richard 's message, "Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name" on 22:09:41 04/23/02 Tue

You might hear my derogatory tone in this response. I use it merely to entertain, and to show that Gore is just a whinner. Its kind of long though I guess.

Gore: "If you go to an auto show today you're going to see technologies for cleaner cars that get 80 miles to the gallon. Even the Republican governor of Michigan is now calling for a replacement for the international combustion engine. That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

(LAUGHTER)

"Yet the Bush administration has stalled efforts that would take these exciting new vehicles from the auto shows out onto our streets and highways."

Its always an accusations, hardly ever a solution it seems. How has Bush stalled efforts? It seems to me what has stalled efforts is that they are not yet as efficient as combusion engines and they are way to expensive! (the main thing).

"If you talk to executives at enlightened energy companies, they will tell you about alternative energy sources that can power our homes and offices and workplaces while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the Bush administration reneged on their commitment to reduce carbon dioxide. "

No hows or whys, just another accusation to build himself up. I don't often read stuff on Gore (because of limited news accesss I guess; I'd be interested on all the environmental stuff though), but it seems that he always refers to Bush as "the monster". I'd be interested if you read some news source that does not have Gore referring to Bush in some manner. I'm just wondering if I'm the only one that thinks Gore sounds bitter against Bush for loosing the election.

"We had a little exchange yesterday about that. I read in this morning's newspapers where the White House attacked my proposals on CO2 and the statements I'd made and they said that the American people rejected my approach in the election of 2000. "

Attacked? I tell that Gore is an exaggerater. I am currently reading from "Satanic Gases" (a good book, I'm gonna use it in the essay). The scientist who wrote the book pretty much proves that Gore exaggerates and is unfounded on much of his accusations (I may provide just a few if any examples).

"Number one, you know, they're overlooking the fact that during the campaign then-Candidate Bush himself pledged to bring about a reduction in greenhouse gases. Of course, the day after he took his oath of honor and integrity... "

Oh my gosh! So much mud slinging! Notice how this is right after he said he lost the election to bush with all the "laughter" (not "cut-and-pasted" here).

"... he made that his very first broken promise. "

The promise isn't broken until he leaves office (sort of). He can still do something about it. Besides, I'm not sure he has broken the "promise" even if it was one. He gives "incentives" (i.e. tax cuts I believe, but don't quote me on that one) to companies who lower their emissions.

"Now, the second thing that's wrong with this--now, as I said I put this behind me long since, but refresh my memory a little bit. "

Huh? He basically says the second thing wrong is that he lost the election (I think). What does that have to do with the environment? Interesting.

"You know, every time we've acted to heal our environment our opponents have said it will ruin the economy; and time and time again we've proved them wrong. In the 1990s, we showed that record economic growth can be coupled with record improvements in the air that we breath. I think Bill Clinton and I did a pretty good job on the economy and on the environment. We moved our country forward. "

That's just candy for his audience. Where are the references? How has Gore "healed" the environment? "Every time we've acted to heal our environment...". Gore thinks to highly of himself. No wonder he is bitter against Bush. "In the 1990s, we showed that record economic growth can be coupled with record improvements in the air that we breath." Even so, it does not mean they are "coupled" as functions of one another. Its almost as if he claiming responsibility for inventing the internet again. Furthermore, it does not mean at all that "healing the environment" was coupled to a "healing of the economy". Perhaps the economy could have been twice as good without "healing the economy". Please don't misinterpret my quoting of "healing the economy" (I don't mean literally, just in light of Gore's quote).

"And now, if we invest of technologies of the future, we can increase the number of jobs and strengthen the long-term economic prospects of our country. So to today's naysayers who still promote the old myth that we can't afford to improve our environment, I say we really can't afford not to. We can't afford to squander the opportunities that are right now before us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our economy here at home."

Great! But guess what!? The government's not going to be doing the investing (at least not a whole lot). Its the companies! So, in this regard, why does the government even have to do anything? Are we going to have a car company called "U.S. cars"? It's not the government's job to invest in new car technology. Leave that to Ford, Chevy, etc., and the Japan and Germany models. I only had economics in high school, and I hardly remember anything. But I did remember learning something about "the invisible hand". Competition will guide us towards this technological investment for clearer fuels and more efficient engines, will it not?

"Now, it's also a health issue and we can't afford to leave our children in a world that is bad for their health. The more scientists learn, the more we understand about what we already intuitively know, particularly those of us who are parents and grandparents, I might say. "

O my! Next he'll be kissing babies (lol)! The nation's health will actually improve with warming around, like 40 billion dollars worth (in my essay).

"More air pollution, dirtier water, more pesticides are harmful to all of us, particularly children."

A bigger scarier enemy with a demon lurking in every shadow. Pesticides can be good used properly. They give us more food, and have allowed forest expansion. More trees also mean clear air (since the trees absorb some of the air pollution). How is our water dirtier? I'm sure the water quality in the past was worse than today's standards. Notice "children". He's kissing babies again.

"Consider this: During the 1980s and early 1990s, the prevalence of asthma increased by 75 percent in America. Today, asthma affects nearly 5 million children, and accounts for more than 10 million missed school days every year. It's now the third leading reason that children are admitted to hospitals.

A recent study in California found that children who play sports in high levels of air pollution are three and four times more likely to develop asthma. So it ought to cause us to ask, what kind of world are we building when parents of Little Leaguers have to be more worried about them catching their breath, than catching a flyball? "

Hmmm, could be a host of things. Genetics? Increased dust mite by products? If you think about it, aren't baseball diamond, by nature..., dusty!? Dust carries bacteria and the fungus Espergillus which could trigger asthma, not to mention common allergies. Obviously I don't know for sure, but I can use my brain. What seems suspicious to me is that lungs need to "sense" a foreign substance in the lungs. Something needs to bind with a molecular lung receptor to trigger bronchole constriction and contraction of the smooth muscle (e.g. microbes, pollen, etc). Um, the lungs don't have any receptors for pollution (at least according to my knowledge). If asthma has increased, perhaps we have higher pollen counts? This would indicate that our planet has gotten greener thanks to increased CO2 and perhaps temperature.

Guess what also is linked? I remember reading somewhere along my studies that scientists have suspected that increased giving of immunization shots (verses the past) don't give the immune system anything to do (something like that - it becomes less active). So, it increases the sensitivity to other foreign objects (e.g. pollen). Sorry this one is so weak, but they have linked less disease to increased allergies (if you are inclined to look it up, let me know if you find anything; I'm not going to actively search for it for the essay though, but if you find anything, then I might; however, don't go searching just because I said "I might" - heh heh).

"Yet instead of working to reduce air pollution, the Bush administration's so-called Clean Skies initiative actually allows more toxic mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur pollution than if we enforced the laws on the books today. It ought to be called the Dirty Skies initiative."

Toxic airborn mercury? Um, isn't mercury a heavy metal? In otherwords, wouldn't it sink to the earth (or act as cloud condensation nuclei eventually sinking anyways)?

"Instead of helping the millions of Americans in communities with dirty water, this administration did try to increase the amount of arsenic in drinking water. They turned the other way even as new studies showed that our rivers are more polluted. "

I'm not sure what is going on with the arsenic thing. Didn't someone say that Bush just lowered an unrealistic standard from 10 ppm (or was it "ppb"?) to 50 ppm? If arsenic is poisonous (its toxic, I believe), who in their right mind will take some of it and actively add it to the water? I think Gore has created another demon (don't worry Gore, we don't need your exorcisism).

"The only time they change direction is when they get caught and when they get embarrassed enough that they start worrying about the re-election campaign."

Get caught doing what exactly? Is this a shadow comparison? Commercials are fond of that technique. "X. It works better." Better than what?

"While they seek to give polluters more leeway to poison our waters, Americans today and for generations to come will pay a heavy price. "

Environmental hell and judgement in a nutshell.

"And now breaking yet another pre-election promise on the environment, they're layering the groundwork for offshore drilling in coastal areas off of California and Florida."

How has he broken the promise. Can Gore ever give a reason? Or is it just accusations from here on out?

"So why are they turning the clock back on the environment when Americans want to move forward? "

A loaded question.

"Well, I don't think it's a great mystery: When it comes to energy and environmental policy, the Bush administration has brought the oil and chemical representatives out of the lobby and into the Oval Office and let them rewrite America's environmental laws during secret meetings that they're still struggling to keep secret. "

Accusations and more mud slinging. What makes Gore privy to this secret knowledge? If Bush is "dirty" in the environmental since, then Gore is dirty with his mudslinging techniques. Its all one big grand conspiracy isn't Al!?

"Their first order of business was to withdraw from the global agreement reached in Kyoto to begin limiting worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases."

Gee, I wonder why? It can't help much at all! (see essay)

"Then they canceled an agreement requiring the automobile companies to make the leap to a new generation of fuel-efficient vehicles. "

How so? Accusation after accusation. He never offers a solution!

"And many less visible acts take place every day behind the scenes, and often behind closed doors."

More secrets and conspiracies...

"Here's one that I think is particular worth noting. Just as Enron executives were allowed to veto candidates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Exxon-Mobil has been given the ability to remove the head of a prestigious scientific panel that monitors global warming."

What was the purpose and what does it so? Just accusations.

"Why would they do this? Well, again, not a mystery. I think it's because Dr. Watson, like the great majority of scientists, says that if left unchecked, climate change will result in more violent storms, more economic disruptions, more tropical diseases in America's heartland and more permanent flooding of coastal areas."

I have learned a thing or two here. You can read about it once I'm done studing the info. and put it in the essay, but basically, Gore's wrong in everyway (I've already talked about the diseases and economic disruptions, I just have to add some more about violent storms and rising sea levels).

"The science speaks unequivocally: If we don't reduce greenhouse gases, we will disrupt our climate and put future generations at risk."

The verdict is still out! Perhaps our paradigm will shift as it did in the 70's from global cooling.

"If there's a hole in the roof, you need to fix it. It's just that elementary. But as Enron needed auditors that wouldn't blow the whistle when they lied about their future liabilities, Exxon and other polluters need a scientific panel in the world that won't blow the whistle on the future damage that will be caused by global warming. Their meetings may be held in secret, but their agenda is clear."

What is their environmental agenda? I don't think its clear. More shadow, more demons.

"And our agenda should be clear as well."

"Should" be: key word, but its not. His agenda is to look good politically.

"This is a moral issue. It is about our values."

No, its about Gore.

"It's about what is important to us."

Which for Gore, is politics.

Is the only thing that matters what can be measured in dollars and cents? If something is priceless, does that mean it's worthless? Just because you can't put a price tag on clean air and clean water and a stable climate balance for our children to enjoy on this Earth, does that mean that it's not deserving of protection and preservation? "

Hmmm, is it a function of price now?

"I believe that this is about who we are as a people and what we're going to do to discharge our responsibilities to our children and grandchildren and future generations."

Well, it IS a noble sentiment after all, but kissing babies and sucking up is NOT leadership.

"If we want to be a nation that honors our responsibilities, values our families and protects our security, we must change course: Stop global warming, reduce levels of pollution and protect our environment."

(APPLAUSE)

More candy (as if Bush doesn't want to do that).

"If we want a nation that is not relying on the dangerous and unstable Middle East, then we must change our course: Get rid of this over-dependence on foreign oil and develop alternative sources of clean, renewable energy for our country. "

(APPLAUSE)

Well, Gore, part of the solution is drilling for oil in America then. We aren't ready for that ultimate fuel yet (to costly and needs the experimental stages and theory).

Also, please tell me why drilling for oil is supposed to hurt the wildlife. I mean, its not that large in square feet is it???

"GORE: If we want our children to drink clean water and breath clean air, and if we don't want to make more of them vulnerable to debilitating asthma, then we must change our course and say to the biggest polluters, "Enough is enough, get the pollution out of our air and out of our water, and clean up the toxic dump sites." "

(APPLAUSE)

And Gore's the right man for the job! He is our savior from the raving demons of despare!

"Here in Tennessee, if we want to protect the great Smoky Mountains from devastating acid rain, we must be willing to stand up and fight. At election time, in the legislature, in the Congress, and every place where this battle is occurring. We will protect our Smoky Mountains. "

(APPLAUSE)

News flash: acid rain is nature is some parts because of the naturally occuring acidic soil. Pines need acidic soil to grow. Furthermore, farmers don't use alkaline fertilizer in the mountains that helps neuralize the soil (the midwest farming areas don't experience acid rain because of it, for example). If acid rain was really a problem, why doesn't the whole globe experience the same problem? Because its localized. Ironically, acid rain increases the albedo of clouds producing a cooling affect. Hmmm, maybe I should put that in the essay. Let me know if you think it necessary.

"When Tennesseans gather 100 years from now to celebrate Earth Day, let's make sure that they too have witnessed the magic of the Smokies and the calm of beautiful and clean lakes in our beloved state."

Um, it will still be acidic there Gore. It's natural. One of the reasons that the northwest U.S. (e.g. around New York, etc) experiences acid rain is because the soil is acidic due to the geologically recent glaciers from the last ice age (for some reason the glaciers make the unlying soil acidic).

"And let's conduct ourselves now so as to give those future celebrants of an Earth Day 100 years from now occasion to look back and say, "At the beginning of the 21st century, things were turned around. We stopped going in the wrong direction, and we started going in the right direction." "

Now he's role playing. Why doesn't he just come out and say it? "And I, Al Gore, your savior, made it all possible" (lol).

"That's the future that we need to aim toward. But in order to have that future, we here and now must be willing to make a commitment in our hearts with our votes, with our actions, as well as our words, to fight for policies that will protect our environment, and to protect this Earth that God has entrusted to humankind. Let's do it. "

Protecting the environment is all noble and stuff, and I hope nobody thinks that I don't think we don't need to, but when it comes to CO2 and warming, I just don't see the need.

"God bless you and thank you for coming on this Earth Day."

Or does he mean accusation day? Endoctrination day? Was Ralph Nader there? How come they don't team up if they want to help us so bad? Hmmm, politics.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name -- Michael, 19:49:17 04/24/02 Wed
- Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name -- Patrick, 00:24:45 04/25/02 Thu