Great argument


Thi is where I was eventually going with MonkeyAB...

 

You missed my point entirely, but have illustrated it quite nicely. My point is that marketing has replaced science. People believe what they want to believe based in part on emotions. The integrity of science regarding environmental issues has been called into question from both sides of the issue. FWIW, I agree with you regarding Bush's terrible record of environmental stewardship. I do care about the environment, and actively pursue progress towards stewardship in my personal and professional life. All the catalytic converters are in my car. I take light rail to work whenever I can. Little things which don't negatively impact my quality of life are easy to do, and if we all did them it would have a large effect.

The reason I put environmentalism in quotes is because in my career I have seen some pretty stupid things done in the name of "environmentalism". One example is Hunter's Point and Portrero Hill power plants in San Francisco. These units must be dispatched from time to time in order to maintain the integrity of the power grid. However, self-proclaimed "environmentalists" continually block modernization of these units which would more than double their fuel effficiency per kilowatt-hour and reduce NOx emissions by close to 2 orders of magnitude. It is similar to commuting in a 50's era vehicle on leaded gas vs. a modern Impreza, where the "environmentalists" force you to drive the old, polluting tank of a vehicle.

 

Salty - typical republican response, you know Bush's environmental policies are ignorant, so you try to discredit me.

The U.S. including Alaska has an insignificant portion of oil when compared to the rest of the world. If we do choose to use domestic oil, it will run out and we will be completely dependent on imported oil. The U.S. can NOT support it's demand w/o importing oil and the effect of any supplementary oil coming from off-shore drilling will be negligible.

http://www.opec.org/ -- check out the faq
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/SohailAhmed.shtml -- some interesting facts on U.S. oil reserves.

The next largest oil reserve outside of the Middle East is South America. According to the OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin's World Proven Oil Reserves table on page 34, North America has 27,200.0 million barrels, while South America has 116,437.5 million barrels and the Middle East has 735,866.3 million barrels. OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin (2.4MB): http://www.opec.org/Publications/AB/AB.asp

 

This has nothing to do with if I think Bush's policies are ignorant or not.

It's not a republican jibba jabba, it's common sense and basic reasoning… the more oil you use, the more we’ll need to find it elsewhere.

I just find it amusing when someone like yourself points the finger about what others are doing when you're not doing your part.

At least my Father's gas guzzling Chevy is legitimately used for hauling building supplies as he's a mason foreman & contractor. What's your excuse for wanting a small car with minimal room that gets 19mpg? Can you honestly justify wanting to go 0-60 in 5 seconds with a turbocharged engine and being able to control your car around the twisters with gas guzzling AWD?

You could have the purchased countless cars that get 20+mpg and are better for the environment. Even better, a crotch rocket, vespor, Trek or pair of walking shoes if you were so concerned.

 

I think comparing an individuals personal choice in vehicles with a nations environmental practices is beyond absurd.

 

Why is it so absurd?

I think the fact he opted for the poor environmentally friendly option paints a pretty picture on the type of person MonkeyAB is, don't you? Everyone has to do their part in protecting the environment, right?

I have to defend myself and opinions all the time here... Most of you question my "biased posts as a moderator" and my "flag-waver" veteran/conservative attitude when you honestly have no idea who I am.

So why can't I go to similar extremes with MonkeyAb?

 

The absurdity is the extremes. It's hard to compare pissing in the bathtub to pissing in the ocean. I agree, we must all do our part.

Strange how in one sentence you claim to understand MonkeyAB because of only a choice, but then claim no one knows you (or maybe no one understands your politics?).

 

You contradicted yourself by suggesting one man doesn’t make a difference with the bathtub analogy by following it up with "I agree, we must all do our part”.

My point is: If everyone is pissing in their bathtubs then we can compare it to pissing in the ocean.

 

How is it absurd to bring up hypocrisy? And, did you not just say "I agree, we must all do our part."? What does that mean, if not "what individual people do matters" on a larger scale???

I'm confused. Comparing national environmental practice to individual choices is absurd, yet you find it important enough to remind me that I must do my part. Can you explain this one to me?

Edited to add--what salty said. Didn't see that.

 

[QUOTE=Salty]You contradicted yourself by suggesting one man doesn’t make a difference with the bathtub analogy by following it up with "I agree, we must all do our part”. QUOTE]


Sorry, I think you misunderstood, my fault.

The point is NOT that one man doesn't make a difference. The point is the scale or magnitude you were trying to compare.

It seemed you were trying to vilify Monkey by aligning his taste in vehicles with the current presidents environmental agenda. I don't see how one has to do with the other.

 

You contradicted yourself again! Scale and magnitude regarding the environment is one and the same... if it wasn't then one man wouldn't make a difference if he threw his paper cup out the window or pissed in a bathtub.

MonkeyAB is up in arms about Bush's proposal to drill for oil in the states:

The irony of this matter is that we're running out of oil or else we wouldn't come to the understanding that we need alternative fuels. Meanwhile, MonkeyAB is questioning where the oil is coming from when he obviously has no problem wasting more than the person with the hybrid, bike or walking shoes. Worst case scenario, his abuse of fossil fuels may eventually force us into drilling in CA!

*Let me continue to beat that horse like you guys do all the time with my posts.*

 

To Salty - soon as I get the job, the crotch rocket is top priority, but for now, I take the train to the city. My car is siitting in my parents garage in FL, safe from hurricane season, which is worse than ever thanks to global warming and you're darned AWD-turbo car. Thanks a lot!

As evident with the current argument, there are two sides to everything. My car is not the paradigm of efficiency in fossil fuel engines. This fact however does not revoke my right to free speech. I am still guaranteed that right by the constitution, Patriot Act or not. My right to criticize federal policy on the environment is still intact. I personally believe that performance cars could achieve better efficiency and better performance if the hybrid concept was fully funded and researched. I am part of that market segment that can and will purchase a high performance vehicle. Call me a hypocrite all you want, but I'm not as bad as Cheney. Think about it. Instant torque via an electric motor and a high-horsepower top end provided by a high-pressure turbo engine. No lag and better fuel economy. Can't fault that. I am a realist when it comes to fuel efficiency of vehicles. I understand that the U.S. auto market is not going to make an abrupt jump to hybrid and or alternative fuel vehicles. The industry has to make those vehicles marketable fist. And this won't happen until the infrastructure is there. At present the only hybrid vehicles that are marketable are those in the economy segment. It's up to you to decide if you want the government to continue in the current inefficient direction. If you don't like envionmentally friendly policies, then exercise your rights and vote for the incumbent, if you would like to see average fuel economy standards increase and see the automotive industry evolve past the internal combustion engine, than by all means don't vote for him.

 

There is no contradiction in what I wrote. You are confusing your own ideas with my own. Forget about 'one man making a difference.' The scale is important to the arguement because you are arguing that parts per thousand is easily comparable to parts per trillion. These are not realistically comparable.

In addition, how can you possibly compare the sum of all individuals impact Vs. National (corporate/gvt./industrial/etc...). These national laws affect industrial waste, which FAR (many many many many times) exceeds waste and consumption on an individual level.

Even if 'we all did our part' we would still be a drop in the bucket (forgive this analogy, you seem to have trouble with it) compared to corporate/industrial impact.

Example:
That's like you donating a penny to the United Way, and then claiming you helped raise billions of dollars for needy people.
And lets say Monkey did donate money to the United Way. Using your own logic, you could then bash him for his beleif in social welfare. After all, because he gave money to needy people, he must believe in a system that taxes the well to do and gives the poor, right? After all, because he drives a WRX his opinion is irrelevant when it comes to oil drilling and consumption.

What gives you the impression that we are eminently running out of oil? Where is this idea of urgency coming from? It's coming from people who want to drill oil.

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2003 (amount)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

1. Saudi Arabia (261.7)
2. Iraq (115.0)
3. Iran (100.1)
4. Kuwait (98.9)
5. United Arab Emirates (63.0)
6. Russia (58.8)
7. Venezuela (53.1)
8. Nigeria (32.0)
9. Libya (30.0)
10. China (23.7)

...hmmmm not seeing US on there......why is that? Because *our* reserves are insignificant to everyone else. Oil companies make money from drilling oil (duh). The more oil they drill, the more money they can make (US is the second largest oil producer). Can anyone in the room tell me who benefits the most from the US drilling oil offshore? It's not me.

We want to stop our dependency on oil. We don't control the price, and it just happens to be our largest import. We could make more money by controlling the price ourselves, and drilling more oil. OPEC controls the flow, and the US doesn't like that. It is a supply/demad=price issue.

There is no need (other than financial gain) to drill for oil off the coast of CA. I hardly think Monkey's abuse of fossil fuels is going to put us over the edge.

 

You sir, are a moron Way to bring meaningful conversation to the table.