Last one out of California turn off the lights.

[Cessnaflyer]

I am a conservative but an environmentalist too. The reason I do it is because it saves me money from buying oil. Another thing I find interesting is when things are recycled or re-purposed and the ingenuity that went into it. I love wind energy and someday would like to power my house completely by solar and wind.

I don't feel because I like to conserve, make my own energy and play with new technologies makes me a pinko though.

 

[WacoFan]

"Green" is incredibly awesome...if it can be economically feasible without subsidy and is a "win" for the consumer. For example:

One of my huge interests is in ICF houses (Insulated Concrete Forms). These are like Styrofoam Lego's that you can build a house with...except in the middle they are hollow, with ties across them to place rebar. Then, you fill the blocks with concrete. What you end up with is a wall that is probably 10 inches thick, six of which is steel reinforced concrete and then the drywall on the inside and exterior finish on the outside (Brick, Stucco, Lap, whatever). This leaves something like R1,000,000 for insulation. Also, it won't support fire, and Texas Tech shot a two-by-four at a wall like this with a special cannon at 250mph and it hit the wall and shattered without penetrating the wall (as opposed to other traditional building methods where the board penetrated the wall like it was hot butter and didn't even slow down). The advantage is remarkably lower heating and cooling costs, the ability to use much smaller HVAC equipment for a huge house, and the obvious safety aspects (tornado's, fire, etc). The cost to build a house like this is maybe ten-percent more than a "real" house - but the immediate cost savings (utilities, insurance) and cash-flow improvement pays you back quickly. This is an example of a "green" technology that makes sense. Couple a house like that with geothermal and you'll never really pay the utility companies anything ever again - another example of sensible "green" technology. I think the key is, these things stand on their own two feet. Biodiesel, Ethanol, Wind, Solar, etc do not - they need significant government subsidies to make any kind of sense.

EDIT - in fact, a wet-dream for me would be an earth-contact house made with ICF and geothermal. And heavy-machinegun nests out the exposed side.

 

[derg]

I really don't give a poop about the party system and will kick anyone in the nads who tries to pigeon-hole me into left/right/whatever but I recycle, believe in taking care of the Earth (the only one we've got!) and believe in leaving the world a little better than I found it, rather than some scarred, nasty, depleted moonscape.

The world isn't ending May 21, 2011 so some of us need to stop partying like it's 1999 and realize that Prince woke up to a nasty-assed hangover on January 1, 2000.

 

[Apophis]

I don't feel because I like to conserve, make my own energy and play with new technologies makes me a pinko though.

This is called being responsible. I really despise people who are quick to label other people as liberal tree-huggers, just because they want to leave this planet in a (somewhat) liveable condition for their children/future generations. There are too many selfish pigs on this planet. Actually, there are too many people on this planet, period. You can trace an overwhelming amount of our problems on that fact; of course, that is another discussion.

I do think the fact that we haven't been able to find a suitable replacement for 100LL is ridiculous. It's pathetic that we can go from barely having a space program, to landing on the moon within a decade, yet we can't find a seemingly simple replacement for a toxic subtance like tetraethyl-lead. I have no doubt that politics play just as big a role in the transition to unleaded fuel as much as the chemistry of finding a suitable replacement.

 

[Apophis]

I really don't give a poop about the party system and will kick anyone in the nads who tries to pigeon-hole me into left/right/whatever but I recycle, believe in taking care of the Earth (the only one we've got!) and believe in leaving the world a little better than I found it, rather than some scarred, nasty, depleted moonscape.

Like I said, this is the default, responsible position. Yet many people (even here) will slander you as being a tree-hugging hippy. Absolute nonsense. This is a view that every person should share.

Of course, maybe if humanity could stop breeding at a rate that would make most viruses and bacteria jealous, we wouldn't have as many problems as we do either.

 

[darrenf]

Actually, there are too many people on this planet, period. You can trace an overwhelming amount of our problems on that fact; of course, that is another discussion.

Of course, maybe if humanity could stop breeding at a rate that would make most viruses and bacteria jealous, we wouldn't have as many problems as we do either.

This is an odd position to me. I haven't seen anything that would suggest the world is overpopulated. What lead you to that conclusion?

 

[Murdoughnut]

I always thought environmentalism was a conservative policy - lest we forget that conservation and conservative share a root word. As for me, I got my pinko liberal environmental beliefs from the Boy Scouts.

 

[Apophis]

This is an odd position to me. I haven't seen anything that would suggest the world is overpopulated. What lead you to that conclusion?

Is this a joke? Overpopulation has nothing to do with running out of space, rather the issue is more about having enough resources to sustain such a large (and ever increasing) human population. All sources I've researched indicate that the human population is only forcast to continue growing for the forseeable future. Do you honestly NOT see a problem with this? How are we going to feed all of these people without leading to mass starvation?

And where does it end? What would be a good total population number for you? 10 billion people? 20 billion people? Maybe you are one of these nutters who believes that this planet (a finite system) can support an infinite amount of people. Furthermore, you can't deny the serious environmental impact a huge human population in any one area has on the local environment. Have you ever been to China? What about India?

Your response really leads me to think that perhaps you should do your own research, and rely less on what other people/media tell you.

 

[darrenf]

Is this a joke? Overpopulation has nothing to do with running out of space, rather the issue is more about having enough resources to sustain such a large (and ever increasing) human population. All sources I've researched indicate that the human population is only forcast to continue growing for the forseeable future. Do you honestly NOT see a problem with this? How are we going to feed all of these people without leading to mass starvation?

And where does it end? What would be a good total population number for you? 10 billion people? 20 billion people? Maybe you are one of these nutters who believes that this planet (a finite system) can support an infinite amount of people. Furthermore, you can't deny the serious environmental impact a huge human population in any one area has on the local environment. Have you ever been to China? What about India?

Your response really leads me to think that perhaps you should do your own research, and rely less on what other people/media tell you.

Wow, not the response I was expecting. Is your position so weak that you immediately stoop to ad hominem and straw men? Where did I say it had anything to do with space? It appears you only focus on the areas that are highly populated, and extrapolate that out to the "world". That's like saying because it's hot in Florida that global warming is occurring. Like I said, nothing I have seen suggest that overpopulation on a global scale is of any near future concern. So, can you show me how you drew your conclusion? That was all I asked.

 

[Apophis]

Wow, not the response I was expecting. Is your position so weak that you immediately stoop to ad hominem and straw men? Where did I say it had anything to do with space? It appears you only focus on the areas that are highly populated, and extrapolate that out to the "world". That's like saying because it's hot in Florida that global warming is occurring. Like I said, nothing I have seen suggest that overpopulation on a global scale is of any near future concern. So, can you show me how you drew your conclusion? That was all I asked.

Do you even know what an ad-hominem attack is? I see this term being thrown around all the time, and 90% of the people who use it have absolutely no idea what it means. If I discredit your argument using facts and evidence, and then call you an idiot afterwards, or something similar, this does not constitute an ad hominem argument.

If, however, my entire argument is based upon trashing you as an individual and invalidating your argument based on nothing but personal attacks, rather than responding to the argument you originally presented to me, this would be an ad-hominem fallacy. Do you see the difference here? My entire argument (in this case) would be based upon debasing the individual making the claim, and not on facts or evidence, and thus would be ad-hominem.

Now, back to the original topic.

In my previous response, I told you that a fininte system cannot support an infinite population, and then used the word nutter to describe a person who would make such an argument. Where is the ad-hominem here?

Perhaps you can answer several questions for me. Why does this planet need more people than it already has? What good could possibly come from this? I have already presented my argument, yet I'm not exactly sure what yours is. It seems like you are simply being argumentative for its own sake.

Seriously, just go to google and type in "overpopulation." I'm sure you can find plenty of information if you so desire.

 

[darrenf]

Do you even know what an ad-hominem attack is? I see this term being thrown around all the time, and 90% of the people who use it have absolutely no idea what it means. If I discredit your argument using facts and evidence, and then call you an idiot afterwards, or something similar, this does not constitute an ad hominem argument.

If, however, my entire argument is based upon trashing you as an individual and invalidating your argument based on nothing but personal attacks, rather than responding to the argument you originally presented to me, this would be an ad-hominem fallacy. Do you see the difference here? My entire argument (in this case) would be based upon debasing the individual making the claim, and not on facts or evidence, and thus would be ad-hominem.

Now, back to the original topic.

In my previous response, I told you that a fininte system cannot support an infinite population, and then used the word nutter to describe a person who would make such an argument. Where is the ad-hominem here?

Perhaps you can answer several questions for me. Why does this planet need more people than it already has? What good could possibly come from this? I have already presented my argument, yet I'm not exactly sure what yours is. It seems like you are simply being argumentative for its own sake.

Seriously, just go to google and type in "overpopulation." I'm sure you can find plenty of information if you so desire.

Ok, Got it, you can't support your position. Way to win people over to your side. I simply asked how you arrived at your conclusion, because what I have seen didn't support that. I am not arguing that a finite system can support an infinite population. YOU said we ALREADY have TOO many people on the planet. You don't see the straw man there? You haven't discredited anything.

 

[darrenf]

Some food for thought...

This is globally.

 

[averyrm]

I do my part too...for the oil industry. Radial engines. I have an El Dorado with a 500 CuIn V-8. I operate on the theory that anything that gets over 20 MPG is boring. Aeronautically...if it doesn't make copious amounts of sweet noise and mark its territory with oil whenever parked - not interested. We are working in opposition to each other.

>20mpg.

 

[derg]

Nice Lotus my friend!

 

[averyrm]

And trust me, it's anything but boring.

 

[jtrain609]

"Green" is incredibly awesome...if it can be economically feasible without subsidy and is a "win" for the consumer. For example:

One of my huge interests is in ICF houses (Insulated Concrete Forms). These are like Styrofoam Lego's that you can build a house with...except in the middle they are hollow, with ties across them to place rebar. Then, you fill the blocks with concrete. What you end up with is a wall that is probably 10 inches thick, six of which is steel reinforced concrete and then the drywall on the inside and exterior finish on the outside (Brick, Stucco, Lap, whatever). This leaves something like R1,000,000 for insulation. Also, it won't support fire, and Texas Tech shot a two-by-four at a wall like this with a special cannon at 250mph and it hit the wall and shattered without penetrating the wall (as opposed to other traditional building methods where the board penetrated the wall like it was hot butter and didn't even slow down). The advantage is remarkably lower heating and cooling costs, the ability to use much smaller HVAC equipment for a huge house, and the obvious safety aspects (tornado's, fire, etc). The cost to build a house like this is maybe ten-percent more than a "real" house - but the immediate cost savings (utilities, insurance) and cash-flow improvement pays you back quickly. This is an example of a "green" technology that makes sense. Couple a house like that with geothermal and you'll never really pay the utility companies anything ever again - another example of sensible "green" technology. I think the key is, these things stand on their own two feet. Biodiesel, Ethanol, Wind, Solar, etc do not - they need significant government subsidies to make any kind of sense.

EDIT - in fact, a wet-dream for me would be an earth-contact house made with ICF and geothermal. And heavy-machinegun nests out the exposed side.

Ever heard the "Cowboys on a space station" theory?

 

[Maurus]

This is called being responsible. I really despise people who are quick to label other people as liberal tree-huggers, just because they want to leave this planet in a (somewhat) liveable condition for their children/future generations. There are too many selfish pigs on this planet. Actually, there are too many people on this planet, period. You can trace an overwhelming amount of our problems on that fact; of course, that is another discussion.

The biggest reason Liberals are associated with environmentalists is that they try and make their changes through more government regulation. More regulation means bigger government. Small government is a bigger conservative principle than environmentalism. Here is my question. Are some liberals only environmentalists because of the ability to grow government through the laws and regulations that can be imposed? Environmental legislation has an impact on everyone and that is what control is about.

I do think the fact that we haven't been able to find a suitable replacement for 100LL is ridiculous. It's pathetic that we can go from barely having a space program, to landing on the moon within a decade, yet we can't find a seemingly simple replacement for a toxic subtance like tetraethyl-lead. I have no doubt that politics play just as big a role in the transition to unleaded fuel as much as the chemistry of finding a suitable replacement.

Good replacements are out there in aviation. Here is the deal. The replacement is engine based, not fuel based. The engines we have today need an STC in order to run on non-lead fuels and people will not want to pay for an expensive STC to appease a vocal minority. The other alternative is to buy a diesel engine that uses Jet-A. Again, way too expensive for the consumer.

 

[Blackhawk]

Stunningly wrong. Then again, I'm not most people.

I think the word "environmentalist" has been distorted almost to the extent "liberal" has been. I'm sure even you would not want someone dumping de-ice fluid into the stream that is used for water at your house (trust me, it makes your water taste like antifreeze). Every winter evening I drive on I-10 by Juarez and my eyes begin to water from the garbage (literally), that everyone burns to stay warm over there in the workers' paradise. I've had to dive in a bay where, when I came up to get some equipment, it became evident that someone had dumped their lav into the water. Yum yum.

 

[WacoFan]

I really don't give a poop about the party system and will kick anyone in the nads who tries to pigeon-hole me into left/right/whatever but I recycle, believe in taking care of the Earth (the only one we've got!) and believe in leaving the world a little better than I found it, rather than some scarred, nasty, depleted moonscape.

The world isn't ending May 21, 2011 so some of us need to stop partying like it's 1999 and realize that Prince woke up to a nasty-assed hangover on January 1, 2000.

You're clearly a leftist and a tree-hugging hippy.

I have taken to wearing a cup and jockstrap as part of my daily attire. Nad kick away comrade.

 

[Mike H]

but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. .

Sounds more like these are sacrifices you're willing to force everyone else to make.