What is Digg?196 Comments
- Fhionnlaoch, on 10/12/2007, -13/+63"So you're saying you can only care about the environment if you don't own a car? "
Let's see, we have rich people telling us to consume less, but they go around and consume about as much as 10 North American families. Then they go around and "make it right" by buying credits.
So basically, just they can continue with their lifestyle and not make any changes. But a family of four with an old gas-guzzling hatchback, who can't afford things like credits, are up ***** creek and we have these rich ***** slimeballs preaching and making people like this feel guilty (and yes, a significant part of the environmental movement is based on guilt).
It's a social justice issue when the rich want to deprive us of little things that make our lives better (car, inefficient housing because we can't afford upgrades, etc.) while continuing with their profligate lifestyle. People won't stand for that and it's important to remember that the human brain is still the stone age egalitarian brain. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+57It is a fraud. Did anyone see what David Suzuki did?
i, as a Canadian, hope that our government's take on the environment will start getting serious and not just to get votes - JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34I'm assuming you didn't read the snopes article I linked to. Here's the juicy bit:
It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).
In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf. - tibman, on 10/12/2007, -16/+46A case of do what I say not what I do!!
House 1:
The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place." The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.
The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, which uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home. In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation. A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all." This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.
(Source:Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct, 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001.)
House 2:
This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006. (Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)
PLEASE Scroll down......................
House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas.
House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee. - synapticcleft, on 10/12/2007, -16/+38The Harper government doesn't care about the environment, that is obvious and I think it is great that Gore is taking a shot at them. Baird, the environmental minister is a pitbull who also doesn't seem to care about the government or the Kyoto accord and it is pathetic that he is in charge of enivornmental policy in Canada.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28Actually, no, he never said that. He said he was instrumental in creating the internet but he didn't mean he sat there putting it together.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp - JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21You make it should like he's only doing this to be in the media and you completely disregard the fact that this has been his signature issue for decades. He held hearings while a Senator, he wrote Earth in the Balance in the '80s and George H.W. Bush even called him Mr. Enviro during the '92 campaign. He's not new to climate change or environmental protection.
- Battleloser, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23They don't care? Have you seen the money they're pouring into green and conservation programs?
I mean *****, I voted liberal for both minoritys, but I'm surprisingly satisfied by the conservatives this time around.
And please, people, keep in mind that Canadian politics are probably very different then your own, don't red me just for liking a political party that calls themselves conservatives. - Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21you useless puke. He was picked up by the media, he was giving his slideshow for years, and his passion for the environment and global warming goes back a long time. i dont mind cynics, but thats just a pointless comment.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11spoid,
You're right. It was dumb thing to say but no worse than normal political rhetoric. People exaggerate make it sound like he thinks he was in his basement with computers and cables all over the place and then, "Eureeka!" - sfedak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11At least Canada is doing something, which is more than what we're doing. And while I hear Prime Minister Harper is considered fairly conservative (and a royal *****!) by Canadian standards, that's still pretty liberal and whatnot by US standards. Here in Maryland, people complain endlessly and protest the rising energy costs, while keeping energy inefficient air conditioners and two cars per family. I wonder why energy costs are rising? Maybe it's just my outsider's perception, but Canada seems to be doing a better job of the entire environmental crap than we are. I highly doubt our government would be so brash as to even set a deadline.
- penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The irony here is that your own cited source (the first) indicates several substantial mitigating factors: he works from home, his wife also does, he runs a guest house, he pays the green power premium from the local power company, and claims to purchase offsets to balance his carbon production.
Assuming that the zero-carbon-footprint offset is true, he's actually not being a hypocrite at all. He's applying the 'non-conservational' environment policy, where rather than strictly reducing your overall consumption, you instead consume renewable resources--infinitely recyclable, biodegradable, nonpolluting, and self-generating resources.
The environmental friendliness game isn't strictly about trying to live like a pauper, it's about trying to make responsible choices. And the way things stand right now, it's not feasible for everyone to actually use zero carbon, and actually not pollute at all, because we're dependent on utilities, widespread manufacturing, and so on. Investing in carbon offsets, and other pollution offsets (although that's not something that's really hit the table yet), is really the best a person can do these days to simulate zero-carbon.
To balance things a bit, Bush's house is obviously also a great example of an environmentally friendly house, from a different perspective. I don't know what else Bush does with his life, and it doesn't really matter that much; what you *can* see, right there in the public forum, is that Bush is doing ***** all for the environment with the considerable power afforded him by his office.
Anyway, it's not a competition, it's about what each person can do. Gore seems to be doing what he can, spending money on offsets, and a lot of money on environmentally proactive campaigning. Bush seems not to be doing what he can; he has an environmentally friendly house, but terrible environmental policies in the political part of his life. - beosnitch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
--H. L. Mencken - MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19@giddieon
He can still voice his opinions. How many times have us Americans heard you guys criticizing every aspect of our society, from our culture to our elected officials? Climate change is an international issue, and, if Mr. Gore feels that the Canadian plan is as phony as the Canadian dollar, then, as a denizen of this planet, he has every right to voice his concerns. - strax, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16John Baird, Canada's Environment Minister, has well documented ties with Exxon. He is not credible.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10No, really, Baird is not credible. His retort to specific criticism is to increase the volume of his voice.
- MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1115 years of fantastic times, especially for Liberal friendly ad agencies in Quebec who receives millions in direct funding from taxpayers. Nothing better than kickbacks, well deserved for a party in power for so long of course!
15 years of fantastic times, including nonstop economic growth, which was completely unaccountable to the environment, resulting in Canada being almost 35% above its Kyoto targets. Targets agreed to by the Liberals, who did nothing at all to reduce emissions.
The Conservatives are cleaning up the mess the Liberals left behind after 15 years of corrupt, negligent rule. - loker269, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7One of the things that came out of this was the Canadian Flick Off campaign...trying to get more Canadians to be energy concious...unfortunately they curved the L in flick too much BUT it is to our benefit! :)
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8680/tobrotenflick2f93bcbrs9.jpg
http://www.flickoff.org/
SO PLEASE EVERYONE GO FLICK OFF!! - LMControl, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19Please, don't bring facts into a perfectly irrational argument.
- LMControl, on 10/12/2007, -17/+23This proves without a doubt this whole global warming thing with Gore is political. Canada is doing more than Gore's own administration ever did, yet he's crititcal. Somehow I think this would be a different story if Canada's PM wasn't listed as a conservative.
Heck, Bush's own house is far more environmentally friendly than Gore's and he takes shots at him all the time as well. Check out Snopes if you don't believe me. - CohibaVancouver, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14I'm getting a little tired of this hypocrite who flies to Canada on a private jet and then complains about our climate policies. If he was truly serious he'd've flown on a regularly scheduled commercial flight, which has a much smaller CO2 footprint per person.
...and don't give me the standard bunk about his buying 'carbon offsets' - They do nothing to actually reduce his carbon footprint. - batmanjr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Funny, Gore calls Canada's plan a fraud, just a few days after it is reported that his precious carbon trading market was also called a fraud. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
- penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm kind of with sfedak. Harper is duping the Canadian public with silence. Granted he's not a really bad prime minister in some ways, but most of the actual policies he approves run counter to what I feel will actually help people in this country; and his silent treatment is letting him get away with murder, giving the newspapers nothing to write about.
Although, we have to be held partially responsible too, for forgetting what he did last night when it's not headline news again this afternoon. - Yazilliclick, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I'm not going to comment as to how much the current government 'cares' about the environment since that's just speculation.
I will say that if you honestly believe that we houls have kept on with kyoto and anything less is a horrible travesty then you're just one of the few gullible fools that are falling victim to the slandering of the government from the other parties as they try to gain votes. Kyoto failed long ago back when the liberal government did ***** all to put it in place and enforce it. By the time the conservatives gained the current minority government it was far far FAR too late to try and meet the goals in it without drastically damaging the economy.
And besides that several of the points my by Gore make absolutely no sense. How exactly is it wrong to let a company's greenhouse gas emmisions increase if their production increases provided that they are implemented methods to rude the emmision:production ratio? Anything else is just asking the impossible. Then again he is a hypocrite and is only doing it to boost his sales and make more appearance money. - MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Nice. Any proof? I can show you proof of Liberals funnelling public money to their private coffers.
Seems like the Liberals were more interested in taking public money, than solving Environmental problems. - penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Something to think of here is that Gore, as vice president, is not carrying a whole lot of power over policymaking. Gore may personally be an environmentalist, but that doesn't mean that his running mate, the President, or the rest of his political party, agree with him.
- penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Conflict of Interest". It's real, check it out.
Granted, you can also look at someone's policies to get a better indication of their outlook, but I've done that too, and they *are* essentially fraudulent. - JoeyJermiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ok I personally believe there is truth in both sides about global warming. I do believe we do pollute to much but at the same time the change in weather can also be a trend in the earths weather system. But to say Canada should be the moral leader of the world is stupid. Currently we recycle everything from cardboard, glass, plastic, paper we have fairly strict emission testing on all vehicles. What has the states actually implemented? On any given day in Canada a short drive and you will find recycling bins outside waiting to be picked up, it has become a normal habit among us Canadians. You very seldom see trash littering our streets or water systems because we are taught to respect our surrounding's. I have been to the states numerous times and I have seen way more trash laying around way worst then I have ever seen here in Canada. And the thing that bothers me the most about the trips i have taken is I have only ever seen one recycling bin and that was in universal studios. It angers me that while us Canadians make these sacrifices to help our environment it all becomes null and void when our neighbors don't do *****. So Mr Gore if you read this which i highly doubt how about you get your own country up to snuff first before you condemn us and our attempts to help the environment.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7 You have to concern yourself with someone's ties - it speaks to possible conflicts of interest don't cha know? Don't you think it is a good idea to know if your lawyer has ties with your prosecutor? Wouldn't you want to know if your doctor was getting kickbacks from a certain pharmacutical company? Clearly, conflicts of interest are seen as a potential serious problem - so then I ask why isn't the same transparency expected - nay DEMANDED from our public officials?
His ties to big oil does disregard his views as being rational - or at least potentially diregards his views. - penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5His scientific errors and exaggerations are not easily pointed at, as far as I can tell; I have looked at several of the recent scientific reports, and I'm not seeing clear contradictions or exaggerations. His movie is certainly a blend between the most conservative estimates on the severity of climate change, and the more alarming ones, although I think it actually leans more towards the conservative than the alarming.
It's important to note that the job of Al Gore and the job of the scientists are different. The scientists' job is to produce absolute, provable fact; to that end, they cannot reasonably say anything that they can't show at least a strong statistical correlation for, and therefore must by necessity be conservative. Al Gore's job is to try to make the picture of climate change visible, easily comprehensible, and realistic. It's hard to know how well Al Gore is doing his job on the realistic front, but he seems to be echoing the personal, unpublished views of almost all of the scientists who wrote the conservative scientific papers, based on their personal endorsements of his work.
I don't think scientists are always right, mind you; I am skeptical of the position of the majority of scientists on several key issues. But usually I base my disagreements of this nature on convenience and lack of evidence. For example, string theory is very convenient, and fundamentally untestable. I don't really buy it.
On the other hand, the climate change issue isn't particularly convenient for the scientists, or anyone for that matter; if the pleas of the environmental scientists were followed, even most of *them* would be out of a job due to the temporary decrease in free wealth. And yet, they still sing the same song. And there is statistical evidence, extensive evidence. So, on this issue, I don't see a really good reason to argue. - EarthAndStars, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Perhaps he should first point out that many carbon offset programs are a fraud. Physician heal thyself.
- archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7And by "facts", of course, you mean "ExxonMobil-sponsored propaganda"...
Look at the *real* science, talk to *real* scientists, and you'll see that AGW is unfortunately very highly probable. Too probable to risk doing nothing. - alpha_male76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If Harper had any Nads he would appoint Dr. David Suzuki as the environment minister. Or at least a special liaison to the Environment Minister. That would be a very expensive situation for the Canadian people, but it would really get them on side.
- and if it didn't get them on side, they could start hating Dr.Suzuki. At least that would shut him up. - penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ooh, that's great. 'We won the economic game, to hell with you other poor sods.' Would you feel the same if you lived in a developing country?
Also, 'damn sanctions, screwing people out of a job'. What about 'damn lack of breathable atmosphere, screwing people out of a survivable habitat?' Think a tad further into the future. It's important. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Trusting the environment to a Calgarian is like trusting the Keebler factory to Cookie Monster. Harper doesn't give a crap about anything but oil drilling and tax exempt status for Alberta.
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparties/leaders/pdf/firewall.pdf - canadianbaking, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9synapticcleft:
The conservatives are enacting legislation to lower greenhouse gases. Does it kind of suck that we'll miss our Kyoto targets? Yup. Did they even care about the environment 18 months ago? Probably not. But our liberals (whose environment minister was Stephane Dion) allowed greenhouse gas emissions to increase 30% during their 14 years in office, and Gore's 8 years in office were an environmental nightmare (all greenhouse gases and SUVs). So for these 2 douchebags to be complaining about the environment instead of apologizing for it makes me think I should really question their motives when they claim to be 'speaking' for the environment. ''Cause they had their chance to speak for it. And didn't. - walkable, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ absurdparadox
I believe that most of the effects of global warming are man-made. I would be willing to wager that most of the people in my state (California) do as well.
I would love to see your facts and arguments. In fact, I'll provide you a forum to do so. You're free to write an intelligent article on my website (http://www.walkableneighborhoods.com/) and present the facts that show that indeed there is no causal relationship between man-made actions and global warming. Just let me know. I've never seen any arguments to lead me to believe otherwise, and believe me, I have always been cautiously skeptical about global warming. - tmbrwolf19, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If it helps...
The greenhouse effect is a natural earth process... it cycles. The planet also goes through regular cycles of warm and cold (mostly do to variations in the orbit occurring over 1000s of years). The concern is, that CO2 is second largest greenhouse gas. This is behind water vapor, which its effect is usually disregarded because it self regulates so very well. CO2 doesn't. It took millions of years of accumulating vegetation and organic matter to capture it, and trap it in what we call fossil fuels. The issue is we are burning and re-releasing this trapped carbon at a rate which the natural earth processes can't properly handle.
And while yes, Ontario does place lots of blame on Alberta for its emissions, it is also the home to over 1/3 of the population. Per person, emissions are much lower for Ontario, and the provincial government there has been taking pro-active steps to help reduce pollution. Alberta oil sands are good for the Canadian economy, but its not because Albertians did something good that they have that oil sand... Its been there for millions of years, and will probably be gone in about 50. The economic impacts of not preparing for that will be more devastating to the economy then the most radical changes in environmental policy. Look at the problems of what not looking after the environment has done to the Atlantic fishery. Its been devastated and many in Atlantic Canadians have had to move just to Alberta just to find a job. Thats what happens when you don't prepare, and when you let companies dictate environmental policy.
None of the major political parties are doing this country any great good in my opinion. Probably going to vote Green Party next election simply for the fact they have a solid environmental plan on all fronts, and believe in regionalizing the economy, so my money and tax dollars support my local economy, and not some large corporation on the other side of the country. - spect3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Green Party is a happy medium
- nighttrain2007, on 10/12/2007, -14/+17Well of course it's a fraud isn't it? I mean their chief 'global warming' specialists aren't living in massive houses with horrible electric bills, meanwhile bilking, I mean collecting, funds for carbon credits from the well meaning sheep in Canada. That's the only real sort of climate plan Gore could accept
- SilverBlade2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Canadian climate plan IS a fraud. The polluting companies have to pay a 'carbon tax' for every ton of greenhouse gases they produce, but they will just pass that cost onto the consumer. There is NO incentive for the industries to cut back. Any 'Carbon tax' will just be paid by the consumer.
Instead of a carbon tax, it should be "reduce emissions, or shut down to install technology to reduce them" There should be no middle ground, no carbon tax at all. - gtluke, on 10/12/2007, -23/+26gore is a fraud
- shieldss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Many? Try all.
wife: "Hi honey what'cha eatin'? "
husband: "a Double Whopper with cheese."
wife: "you know that's bad for you."
husband: "It's cool, it's offset with cholesterol credits." - penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@railer:
I think the fit is being thrown because they want to see more done. When the Liberals were in power, they ***** it up pretty good too; the environment, however, is a political issue *this year*, and an interested party who wants to see public movement on an issue will recognise that to get any followance, they have to strike hard, when the iron is hot, so to speak. Suzuki and Gore are hitting harder now probably to some extent because there are conservatives in power, and there probably is some bias in there based on dislike of the party's policies or approaches in general. But moreso, I think they are hitting hard because now is a great opportunity, and what the conservatives are currently doing is not sufficient to ensure us a healthy future. Regardless of whether the Liberals ***** it up before also. - mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I am a Canadian. I agree with Gore's comment, the new environment minister's plan is lip service. It doesn't tackle the environmental problem and the environment minister said that following Kyoto was bad economic policy. It very well might be bad economic policy, but so are labour laws.
I usually don't vote Conservative, but I've been impressed by most of Harper's initiatives and this Government in general...Environment is the only issue they are completely screwing up, IMO. - MrPotato, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No, it needs to be said loudly so that EVERYONE knows it. It's because nobody says anything anymore that our neighborhoods have gone to crap, our school systems, by and large, have gone in the crapper and we don't really have any representation in Congress anymore. When someone is a fraud, a hypocrite, or a left-wing or right-wing whack job, it MUST be said.
- spoid_, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10From that Snopes article:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet."
I know he didn't mean it to sound that way, but it sure sounds like he is saying he created it. - ajkrik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ever tried having a rational conversation about 'global warming' with a liberal? You're a convenient hypocrite. The subject is: AL GORE'S COMMENTS.
- manray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Mudslinging from a country who would not even ratify Kyoto?
I guess that's allright. - JamesGolick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
-
Show 51 - 100 of 190 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 