During a speech to Duke University’s graduating class, Oprah talked about the secrets and joys of success. Among them: owning a mansion and a jet.
I don't begrudge Oprah her money or her jet, and neither am I envious of her. In fact, I think she's a fine example of what a common person can accomplish in our great country. I respect her for her doing so well.
But I don't ever want Oprah or her acolytes, including the President with his recent Air Force One fiasco in NYC, to lecture me about "conservation", "carbon footprints", or "climate change". Ever. I just don't want to hear it.
Update, 5/13/09: Here it is. Oprah has done the Global Warming 101 crap. I guess taking care of Mother Earth is for the little people.
26 comments:
All of those idiots - Al Gore and Michael Moore, and all of the big Hollywood elite that live in their big mansions with enormous heated swimming pools, and swim in excesses and decadence that few of us will ever glimpse. Then they get on YouTube and make a video about climate change, and expect us all to do as they say, not as they do.
Or they do some foofy interview about going to a third world country and speaking wistfully of how charming and "green" it is to live without electricity or plumbing, and how freeing it was to "take a poo" in the jungle (Drew Barrymore).
How many of these people are living "green" now. I remember reading that President Bush's Texas Ranch was greener than Al Gore's big Tennessee mansion...Al excused it by saying he buys offsets. They're all hypocrites.
Oh but being "green" is all about attitude. So it's "green" to buy a $350 bamboo designer bag. It's "green" to buy organic food. Never mind that being "green" costs more. Sacrificing is part of the fun.
In reality, being "green" is about false regret in regards to conspicuous consumption by folks with money. Those of us who don't have much, don't waste much. Yet we are the ones who will end up penalized through higher energy and gas prices if cap and trade goes through. I don't think limo companies charge their clients for gas.....
Another reason I'm a global warming skeptic is that all the solutions proposed are never designed to solve the problem. Instead they are designed to lower our standard of living while giving a pass to other countries. Now I have no problem with other countries raising their standard of living for their citizens, but let them earn it. Lowering ours will not help them and will only result in more people having a lower standard of living. I would further state that if the people screaming about global warming were serious about it they would come up with a solution that would accomplish the most good and that would be to start with the worst pollution producers rather than trying to make the cleanest producers improve even more. If the money that will be spent on the silly cap and trade plan advocated by Pres. Obama was instead spent in China, the pollution gains would be many times what can be expected from the the same amount spent in the United States. I better quit now before I really get wound up.
Yes, yes, Al Gore claims global warming is happening and Rush Limbaugh claims it is a hoax. Whatever is a citizen to do.
I suggest one should look at long term trend lines for carbon dioxide, long term trend lines for temperature, long term trend lines for ice cover and long trend lines for permafrost temperatures.
Richard
Richard, when I do that I come to a conclusion different from what you seem to. Hitting the "global warming/environmentalism" tab and scrolling through those posts will explain why and how.
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Just to pick one: As of March 2009, arctic sea ice is down 228,000 square miles from the 1979-2000 average. There is a steady long term trend line down. The other trend lines are about the same.
Richard
Clearly you didn't read any of the other blog posts to which I referred you, with plenty of citations and *other* facts.
Solar fluctuations. The same thing causing Mars' ice caps to retreat--unless Sojourner is a polluting SUV or corporate jet.
Ok, so let's assume global warming is real. If everyone is to believe it's a hoax, then we will continue to release heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere, and we might ruin our climate beyond repair. Then, when we do acknowledge that it's real and we need to do something about it, it will be too late and the damage will be irreversible.
Or, we could try to find alternatives to fossil fuels "just in case" this global warming hoax happens to be real. Not only would that save us from our dependence on foreign fuels and boost our economy by providing local jobs, but it would reduce carbon emissions in case they happen to be correct about global warming. So, is it really that bad that we do something about global warming? We already have the ideas for storing and harnessing alternative energies; why not implement them?
Take a look at some of the ideas, they are quite fascinating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8UwBP4yVgMhttp://www.nano.org.uk/news/april2009/latest1832.htmhttp://www.core77.com/greenergadgets/entry.php?projectid=66http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q4UENGN_Ykhttp://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/index.htmlhttp://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21536/page4/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4riNlqZHCTQ
That doesn't make any sense Darren. We are experiencing a solar minimum, which should result in a cooler earth.
Richard
One's carbon footprint cannot ever be too large. Pardon me while I go out to start my V8 Explorer just to let it run in the driveway and honk off any hippies nearby.
I've got problems with the president flying in special pizzas from Chicago ... way to tighten the belt there, Barack! Yeah, we all have to sacrifice.
I simply can't see anything wrong with trying to reduce levels of pollution in this country.
Who cares about varying degrees of hypocrisy or privilege? Arguing about whether someone flies a private jet is inconsequential is just complaining to complain, and it provides no insight into the issue of alleviating pollution.
I have no problem with trying to reduce pollution. I do have a problem with lying to people and scaring people with Armageddon in order to make it happen, and with decimating our economy and way of life to assuage someone else's guilt about our high standard of living.
I also don't accept the "let's do something stupid just in case the Earth hangs in the balance" argument for reasons I explained in this post from two years ago.
That post didn't seem to explain anything.
"Let's do something stupid"? I look at it as killing two birds with one stone, not doing something stupid. What's wrong with lowering pollution and finding an alternative to foreign fossil fuels? I fail to see how using alternative electricity sources will "decimate our economy and way of life". Darren, your computer will run just as well off solar panels as it will off coal power plants. ;)
As much as I love the idea of solar, it's just not practical. Now, when lefties are OK with nuclear energy, as co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore is, we'll have something in common.
Ok let me rephrase that:
"...computer will run just as well off non-fossil fuel sources..."
In that long list of links, there was a brilliant idea for mini-underground nuclear reactors that I believe can harness more energy out of purified uranium that previous reactors. There was also one for a printed and flexible solar panels using carbon buckyballs and nanotubes, and since carbon is pretty abundant they will be way cheaper than silicon based panels.
But I agree wholeheartedly with you about nuclear power. They are far superior to anything in terms of wattage output per acre and (believe it or not) maintenance costs.
And to anyone who says storing and transporting nuclear waste is a problem, watch this video. I think they've got it figured out...
I'm glad we can agree on that. And I love the idea of the buried, unattended reactors!
Well I would assume there's a myriad of sensors on them so they're not really unattended...
Can't easily fly planes into them, which is one of the fears about current plants.
Who cares about varying degrees of hypocrisy or privilege? I do, when the people who create the policies want to live above them.
Geothermal actually has the most potential of the "new" technologies. As for clean and green, water generated power is the best, but the envirogeeks are tearing down more dams than we are building. As for solar, until our battery technology is better, the area needed for solar array is far larger than the square mile area of the average city. Seimens was working on a solar glass that could be used as the skin of skyscrapers, but the technology just isn't there yet. I don't consider it bad to use resources wisely, I just think it's stupid to cause us economic catastrophe in order for the Prez to look good at world conferences.
"your computer will run just as well off solar panels as it will off coal power plants"...not at night. And while it's easy to store enough electricity to run a computer for an evening, it's not so easy to store enough electricity to run a dishwasher, an electric stove, and an air conditioner.
The real impact of carbon taxes would be to shift a lot of generation from coal to natural gas, at the same time that large amounts of subsidized wind & solar capacity are built. Expect electricity prices to soar--nat gas is already a more expensive fuel, and will become more expensive with growing demand. The capital costs of the solar/wind buildout (much of which will have to be duplicated in nat gas backup capacity) will also have to be paid, through electricity bills, taxes, or both. Also, increased nat gas demand and prices will increase home heating costs and will make many industrial processes unfeasible in the U.S.
Regarding Richard's comment about the solar minimum and cooler earth: It takes a little time for the earth to heat and cool. Take the months of June, July and August. June has the most direct sunlight hitting our northern hemisphere. Thus, You would expect the highest temperatures, right? Wrong. It takes a couple of months for that energy to heat the atmosphere. August is typically the hottest month (Hence the Hurricane season being June 1 thru Nov. 30, but most are early to mid Sept.). The same thing happens in the winter. December has the least direct sun, yet Late Jan./Early Feb. tends to be the coldest months. The same can be predicted regarding the average temp of the Earth in the next 3-8 years. Most "Climate Skeptics" (read Real Scientists, not Political cronies) feel that we are entering a cycle of global cooling. Remember, Correlation does NOT mean Causation.
PeggyU wrote:
I do, when the people who create the policies want to live above them.But if it weren't for that sort of hypocrisy there wouldn't be a political left.
Evidence, one tidbit among a truck-load, of the lefties Obama wanted for his cabinet who didn't pay the taxes they, by virtue, if that word's appropriate, of their political leanings, they would've approved of.
I'm shaking my head and crying! Carbon dioxide is NOT pollution! I'm a conservation biologist and I teach environmental education, but that does not mean I have to be stupid. People CANNOT destroy the climate beyond repair! Please consider learning about the natural history of the Earth before believing that the sky is falling. The Earth has had long periods of time in which carbon dioxide levels were much much higher and life was quite abundant. Guess what, ice ages reduce biodiversity and lots of people freeze to death. I'll take the heat, please. Regardless, when I hear people fearing "ruining the climate beyond repair" it makes me think of ancient people that believed they could control the climate by sacrificing children and virgins. If we all just sacrifice our carbon we'll make the climate gods happy (unless you are very rich, in that case please buy organic Turkish cotton sheets and High Priest Al will beatify you Saint Gaia).
Now I'm off to buy organics at Trader Joes - with my own bags of course.
Post a Comment