2007/03/21

As The Phrase Turns

"If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action."
Former Vice President, Al Gore In Testimony to the House House Energy and Commerce Committee

"You're not just off a little, you're totally wrong..."
Rep. Joe Barton (R TX), During Gore's Testimony

KK: Gives you a real sense of Republican priorities, huh?

---

"All irrelevant. Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant. I am not his servant... [I'm] the people's servant of California. What they call me — Democrat or Republican or in the center, this and that — that is not my bottom line."
California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger on NBC's Today Show

"If he had the leadership skills to articulate conservative principles and win over the public as (former President) Reagan did, then he would have stayed conservative."
Rush Limbaugh's Response

KK: I didn't vote for Schwarzenegger, but if you ever wonder why he won reelection, that quote tells you most of what you need to know. As for Rush, if Schwarzenegger had followed that windbag's advice, he'd have lost just like every Republican presidential nominee since 1988.

24 Comments:

I don't know why Republicans are so insistent on denying global warming. Even a lot of businesses are starting to acknowledge it and make adjustment where they can.

Conservatives have global warming so closely associated with leftwing treehuggers, they're afraid that if they admit global warming is a problem it'll come across as "I was wrong and those pinko moonbats were right."
I figured Schwarzenegger would end up being more liberal than conservative, but I didn't like him as governor. Mostly because of the process to get to the recall though.

Rush isn't a Reagan conservative. He is a marketing conservative who sees ideology in dollars and cents.

I would rather do something about be wrong about global warming than do nothing and hope I am right. I think the oil buddy friends have built up enough of a nest egg to deal with a little innovation and responsibility.
Tom has a point there. Love that you called Rush a WINDBAG...just what I was thinking. I watched Uncle Al today and it was interesting. Inhofe was quite the spectacle. I didn't vote for Arnie either...bad karma.
Global Warming. Yeah. The new religion. First, whatever changes Global Warmists claim are overtaking us, have more to do with the natural cycles of an ever-changing environment than anything humans are up to.

Second, the only way to reduce hydrocarbon consumption is by genocide. It is simply impossible to force 6.5 billion people to use less oil.

But, if the population were to drop by half, well, then consumption would fall.

There's no global warming problem. But Al Gore is going to lose his mind attempting to prove otherwise.
kvatch, your post included:

"As for Rush, if Schwarzenegger had followed that windbag's advice, he'd have lost just like every Republican presidential nominee since 1988."

First, as I've said, Rush and his fellow conservative pundits are nothing more than entertainers whose schtick is politics. There's no reason to think he could run a campaign. That's not what he does.

As far as the quote itself, since 1988 there have been THREE different Republican candidates who ran for the presidency. The Democrats have run FOUR. Thus, the comment lacks meaning.
Tom... I actually think that combating global warming--both in order to reduce our carbon emissions and to mitigate the effects of climate change--will be the biggest money-making, economic lifting period in human history.

Scott... Not every oil company is angling to pump every drop from the earth. BP, for example, has huge investments in natural gas, Royal Dutch Shell in wind and geothermal. We'll see if they decide to profit from combatting climate change.
Slappz... Sorry should have been more clear: Every GOP presidential nominee since 1988, has lost California, as would Schwarzenegger if he took Limbaugh's advice.

Second, the only way to reduce hydrocarbon consumption is by genocide. It is simply impossible to force 6.5 billion people to use less oil.

That's hyperbole right? Though you may not be able to force anybody, reducing hydrocarbon consumption is easy--a matter of personal responsibility--entirely within our own hands. The Frogette I have reduced our's by 40%, and guess what...we didn't kill anybody doing it. What-the-f*ck have you done?
BTW Slappy...I left a missive on the post for the 19th for you...minus the flowery music of course.
Here's another quote for ya:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up." - Tony Snow

Ol' Two-Step himself...
sumo,

The only post from you on 3/19 is the one in which you mentioned your dates with a conscientious objector who was followed by the FBI.

I responded to that. But if you wrote another message, it didn't appear.
kvatch, you wrote:

"That's hyperbole right?"

Mildly. Energy consumption is an aggregate issue. Even if every energy user cuts back -- which won't happen -- the population grows, increasing the number of energy consumers, and hence, energy consumption.

Meanwhile, the people of the world are becoming more prosperous. That prosperity is manifested in the increassing number of energy-consuming devices each person has.

Iraqis are now buying air conditioners. When the middle east emerges from the middle ages, every home will be air-conditioned, and most households will have a car instead of a mule.

China and India are rampaging along the road of consumerism. Cars, trucks, air travel, freight movement, electricity, all the stuff we have in abundance, they will too. And there's a whole lot more of them. In less than 50 years both of those countries will consume more energy than the US.

You erroneously claimed:

"Though you may not be able to force anybody, reducing hydrocarbon consumption is easy--a matter of personal responsibility--entirely within our own hands."

Like I said, if everyone on earth today cuts back 10%, it won't matter because in a few years the population will increase more than 10% and some economies are growing so fast that energy supplies will lag demand no matter how fast power stations are built.

You wrote:

"The Frogette I have reduced our's by 40%, and guess what...we didn't kill anybody doing it."

Your efforts may be laudable, but even if others follow your lead, global aggregate oil consumption will continue to rise. All you're doing is stretching the life of a finite resource.

You inquired:

"What-the-f*ck have you done?"

I live in New York City where I ride the subway and rarely drive my car, which gets better than 30 miles per gallon.

But the subway runs 24 hours a day, and from midnight to 6 am, most subway cars are close to empty. Ridership is much lower on weekends. The buses run 24 hours a day and they too are empty for a third of the day.

Due to restrictive rent laws, there are many old buildings in NY City that have poor heating and cooling characteristics. That includes my house, which is a drafty old Victorian.

Meanwhile, the population of NY City is growing. It is now over 8 million; it will reach 9 million in less than another decade.

The subway system is undergoing an expansion to accomodate the expanding crowds. New apartment buildings are rising, and they are much larger than the buildings they are replacing.

We're a society that needs vast quantities of energy to run. Oil is our chief vitamin. It's the stuff that makes it possible for us to have such abundance.

Feel free to replace some oil consumption with energy from the wind, the sun and the hot rocks deep in the earth, but don't fool yourself into thinking that these alternate sources can match oil.

Oh. You mentioned natural gas as an alternative, I think. That's methane -- CH4 -- which yields CO2 and H2O when burned in a car engine, your stove or heating system. CO2 is the chief greenhouse gas, which suggests that this abundant and domestic energy source is on Al Gore's hit list.
Maybe if SlappZ would stop writing fucking treatises as comments we'd save some oil. What do you think?
Oh. You mentioned natural gas as an alternative,

You've taken that out of context. What I did say is that some oil companies are diversifying into greater production of natural gas, mostly as a hedge against the end of petroleum production. Since natural gas produces 30% less carbon emissions (as compared to oil) it is an attractive alternative, especially for those companies that control significant reserves.
I live in New York City where I ride the subway and rarely drive my car, which gets better than 30 miles per gallon.

Great! As you put it...very laudable. Now get rid of your car and use public transit for those few remaining trips. As you also said, they're running the subways 24 hours. Why not use them. Getting rid of one's car means a change in lifestyle--a willingness to live with certain restrictions. I've done it for 9 of 11 years in the Bay Area. NYC is even easier.
kvatch, you suggested:

"Now get rid of your car and use public transit for those few remaining trips."

No can do. Some trips cannot be made with public transportation, especially those involving trips out of the city. Some trips inside the city are way too difficult.

The subways all run through Manhattan, but they don't run between Brooklyn and Queens. Well, one does, but it's schedule is so infrequent that it's impractical.

Thus, a 15-minute drive in the car can take two hours on the subway because you have to go from Point A in Brooklyn to Manhattan, switch to another subway line and then proceed to Point B in Queens or the Bronx.
Slappy - Condensed Version:

"I can't be a responsible citizen of the planet because it would be inconvenient for me! And I'm all that matters!!"
Ahhh, sewmouse, lol. Doodz clownshoes.
Sewmouse, Fred... (I can't beieve that I'm going to defend no_slappz, but...)

The man's not wrong about the transit issue between Brooklyn and Queens. It is a problem. So here's a different suggestion:

Slappz, have you considered car sharing? I know that ZipCar (zipcar.com) is in NYC, most heavily concentrated in Brooklyn and Manhattan. If you live in Brooklyn, it might make it possible to give up the car, if for no other reason than the economics. Being carless saves me about $8K a year, and my car was paid off. Factor in the car payment...and...what...$14K/year. I use CityCarShare (about twice a month) for those trips that I just can't make with public transit.
kvatch, you wrote:

"Slappz, have you considered car sharing? I know that ZipCar (zipcar.com) is in NYC, most heavily concentrated in Brooklyn and Manhattan."

I take the subway most of the time. My non-subway trips are either out of the city or to destinations not easily reachable from my place or when time constraints play a role.

You wrote:

"If you live in Brooklyn, it might make it possible to give up the car, if for no other reason than the economics."

I suppose anyone can live without a car if he chooses. But I'm not willing to choose that option.

You said:

"Being carless saves me about $8K a year, and my car was paid off. Factor in the car payment...and...what...$14K/year."

I paid cash for this car, thus, no car payment; insurance is about $1,500 and I burn less than 300 gallons of gas a year. Driving isn't terribly expensive.

Meanwhile, as I said, people are fooling themselves if they think that individual energy cutbacks will matter against the reality of increasing world prosperity coupled with a rapidly growing world population.

As I said, the ONLY path to a NET decrease in energy consumption is a NET reduction in the number of people on Earth. There is no other strategy that will reduce energy consumption.

Both China and India are experiencing booms in their domestic car industries. Cars will become ubiquitous in China in two more decades. India will see a similar rate of absorption of vehicles.

In two decades the combined populations of those two countries will probably reach 3 BILLION people.

Three billion people using 10% as much energy -- per capita -- as the US will still consume as much energy as the 300 MILLION people in the US. But Indian and Chinese energy consumption won't linger at 10% of ours.

They both need huge energy supplies to build the infrastructure that will provide the setting for the cars, trucks, trains, planes, boats and railroads that will eventually travel those countries via the new roads and waterways.

Meanwhile, if Africa ever emerges from its long dark night, it too will become a continent of heavy energy consumption.

The population of Africa is around 700 million. If they weren't dying in huge numbers from AIDS, war, famine, water-borne-diseases and ignorance, the population would surpass a billion faster than anyone would imagine.

Such a turnabout results from modernization which is manifested by high energy consumption.

Clean water takes energy. Economic development takes lots of energy. Building a modern society takes huge quantities of energy.

It's coming from oil. Moreover, if we reduce oil consumption in the US, the price of oil will drop, making it more affordable for emerging economies. If oil prices fall, emerging economies will then use more of it, again kicking up aggregate worldwide consumption.

The idea of punishing emerging economies by forcing them to purchase unaffordable alternative energy supplies is beyond cruel and will never happen.
The list of fantastic Gore quotes is long. Thanks for posting this one
P.S. what's wrong with developing green and sustainable business as a wholely new market emerges to defeat the global warming problem? Too me, those that object to the idea that global warming is a problem are simply fans of old world industrial complex business like Coal, Gasoline, Auto etc...they can't see beyond their profits to realize that the profit margin opens wide in this new direction
Maria and her liberal Kennedy upbringing must be rubbing off on Arnold. I could almost see myself voting for him now!

(I don't know how to explain the liberalizing of Guiliani.)
Windspike... No_slappz has a valid point about population, but also agree with you. I believe that mitigating the effects of climate change could be the most profitable venture in human history.

I could almost see myself voting for him now!

Kathy... Well, let's not go overboard on this. ;-)
no_slappz...you are right...it's not there...I guess I didn't make sure I'd signed in properly after publishing the first time. Oh well!

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link