** What's the Big Idea? Contest voting has ended! **
View: thread | inline
-
What's the Big Idea? Contest voting has ended! Posted on May 9 2007 at 5:24pm by Hello all,
Just a quick message to let everybody know that the voting period for the 'What's the Big Idea?' contest has now begun and will run until the end of May 31. Visit our contest page to view the entries and vote for your favorite Big Idea to save the environment. Note that you need to be logged in to vote, although you can view the entries without logging in.
UPDATE: The voting period is now closed. Check the contest page linked above for the five finalists - one of these five will be the grand prize winner!
Feel free to leave comments about the contest or the entries here.
- Sundance Channel
-
Spit in the ocean... Posted on May 11 2007 at 12:21am by It is disappointing that Sundance would involve itself in a campaign that uses the serious problem of global warming as an automobile promotion. More importantly, the campaign pretends that we have some chance of resolving this global issue with gimmicks. US energy consumption alone has exceeded 100 quadrillion BTU - that's QUADRILLION!
We need real help in promoting an international governmental approach to this issue. We need an Energy Department that is actually working to harness the infinite sources of energy that exists around us. I don't get anything like that from this contest and I - for whatever reason - expected more from Sundance.
One a personal note, I would offer congratulations to all of the contestants. They displayed amazing creativity when faced with an impossible task. Just one safety note: I'm not too sure if the garden by the driveway (see finalist videos) is the best idea. At the very least, you should first take a water hose and soak the driveway and nearby streets to see where runoff is going (hopefully, not into your planned garden area). Even then, you should consider that hard rains could defeat the natural flow. The point is; it is widely recognized that road and driveway runoff is a significant source of pollution.
Regards-
RE: Spit in the ocean... Posted on May 11 2007 at 5:50pm by I keep making posts like this on these boards because I think we as green enthusiasts have to be more positive. It's easy to get negative. We have to use whatever opportunities that we get, to try and inspire each other, people and companies alike, to make positive change in the world. You can find lots of holes in any corporations attempts to do something green, but rather than look for those things, why not look at the positives. We are starting to make contact around green in a new place and maybe in a new way. New people are being galvanized to think about ways of greening their world. Who cares if Lexus is tied to that. It's good that they are at least doing that. It's a step in the right direction no? It can be tough being someone that has long been passionate about green and the environment to suddenly hear the term co-opted by corporations and see it become a fad but if you are feeling that way you are losing site of the forest for the trees, The goal here is to build awareness, excitement, and drive change for the environment. I encourage all people who post on these boards to be thoughtful and supportive of others maybe new to the enviromental movement and encourage them to make change no matter how small or who the sponsor. Lets use this opportunity we have here for good not slamming each other. -
If it feels good... Posted on May 12 2007 at 11:39am by I'm all for people getting a warm and fuzzy inside, but you avoid the fact that full, worldwide implementation of all 25 contest submissions is not only impractical, but wouldn't accomplish any meaningful change in the cycle of pollution that comes from corporations. To endorse the use of such an important issue as a corporate marketing gimmick should be unacceptable to anyone that understands the problem.
After all, let's not forget this is the same auto maker that the US Govt sued for violating Clean Air Act by selling 2.2 million automobiles on which 'check engine' light would not illuminate -- even when the vehicles were emitting excessive pollution; the same auto maker that sponsored a campaign that asserted that automobiles are 'virtually emission-free', and; the same that sued California to block regulation to curb global warming emissions.
The point is not that they are any worse than the others, it's just corporations are not unilaterally going to do anything that doesn't benefit their shareholders - that's their legal responsibility. There's nothing wrong with joining hands and singing Kumbaya, but don't expect corporations to join in unless there's a buck in it. And you should know by now the fat cats at the dinner table aren't going to be the ones washing the dishes.
Just ask yourself this: if you were a leader in the US government -- the most powerful nation in the world (or is that China now) -- wouldn't you have already created a NASA-like agency to address this problem before now? Then consider that the first sun energy battery was invented in the early 50's -- before we figured out how to land on the moon.
I'm all for creativity and I appreciate the time and effort that went into making the entries. It's just the gimmicks promoted in the contest (mandated by the offer of such negligible financing to the winner) makes a mockery of the action that's needed on a governmental and global scale. I know we can do better and my goal is only to point that out. And if the folks on the cutting edge of the issue are busy with gimmicks, then who are we expecting to promote the real changes needed? Where will the sense of urgency ever come from?-
RE: If it feels good... Posted on May 14 2007 at 5:49pm by The real change, if we truly want anything to happen, has to begin in each and every one of our minds. Part of the problem with abrogating responsibility to governments and corporations is that it is tantamount to doing nothing. That's because as you rightly point out, these leviathans tend not to initiate change unless there is a buck or vote in it. I feel therefore that we have to take responsibility for our own actions individually. It is incumbent upon each of us to understand environmental issues and to commit to bonafide changes in our own minds first. Then we can begin building awareness amongst others so that they too can make these conscious changes themselves. Pretty soon this impassioned group voice, powered by commited individuals will begin to make an impact. Look at the religious right? They are able to implement change based on a perception of morality that begins with their leaders but which is subsequently instilled in the individuals of their congregations. I say this because every little bit of education counts. To dismiss the potential positive increased mindshare of individuals interested and thinking about green just because their is a corporate sponsor attached is missing the bigger goal and cutting off the nose to spite the face. We have to start somewhere. This is not kumbaya this is the way change begins.
The ideas put forth may not save the planet but they may help the planet which is a great place to start.-
Avoiding the issues... Posted on May 16 2007 at 9:38pm by First of all, you completely ignore every factual issue presented. The same issues have been building for decades. The 'Don't Make a Wave Committee' was formed in the 60's (changing its name to the Greenpeace Foundation in the 70's) and for all their hard work and good intentions have made only a modest difference. And if you took a look, you'd see that their call to take action [members.greenpeace.org] is pointed toward legislation.
Failing to demand that your govenment take action is abrogating responsibility. And pretending that gimmicks and home remedies can be an 'environmental inititive that would lead to sustainability of life and resources on our planet [www.sundancechannel.com]' is misleading, condescending, and should be an embarrassment to Mr. Redford and the Sundance Channel.
If you wish to continue to talk about the feel-good factor of doing your tiny part to improve the situation, that's fine. There is certainly a place for that. You don't have to be too creative to turn off the lights when you leave a room or turn off your computer and monitor at night. But don't insult my intelligence by suggesting corporate promotions like this one will lead to any meaningful improvement in our current pollution problems.-
Avoiding the issues? I don't think so. Posted on May 17 2007 at 10:32am by Believe me I understand your frustration with the state of the world, however I'm afraid you continue to miss my point. The contentions you make about the auto manufacturing industry and Greenpeace are not things that I am avoiding they just aren't germane to the issues I am trying to address. That's why I haven't focused on your, "factual issues." Quite simply stated my contention is that before any changes of the magnitude that you are discussing (substantial governmental reform and legislative solutions with teeth)can build any real momentum, a fundamental shift must begin to take place in the minds of the individuals living in the various societies that would drive them. How are these changes in government you are talking about going to take place without a major shift in the mindset of the collective sociological zeitgeist? Half-baked Petitions? Hand painted anti-Bush signs bandied about haphazardly in front of city hall? I don't think so. The changes that you support aren't going to magically occur. You can't blow your frustrated contentions over congress like pixie dust and expect things to suddenly change. If you think the invention of the Sun battery in the 60's constitutes the heights of environmental innovation, nobody should therefore bother applying themselves to solutions now because they are destined for similar failure, then you are insulting my intelligence.
THink about it for a second, all your arguments really prove is that not enough minds have shifted yet. The sun battery and Greenpeace were starts not finishes. An Inconvenient Truth, another starter not finisher. Although to you, Green may now be faddish, to the vast majority of civilization it means absolutely nothing. A real movement that can drive the change you want needs to begin taking root now, much more effectively then in the past. That start has to be won, one mind at a time.
One way to build that kind of a groundswell quickly is through media opportunities like this contest, discussions like this one and other efforts like them. It is by bringing these issues to the mass public and inspiring them to create around it, (however meager the prize) so that more and more minds begin to focus on the issues. Maybe gimmicks, maybe not it doesn't really matter. The fact that 25 finalists and who knows how many submissions applied themselves towards something constructive instead of texting in their picks for the next American Idol is good. I can't see how you argue against that. The more efforts like this that take place the better, especially if the end result is a movement of real mass. Without that type of ciritical mass coming to the green your claims of relying on government is an abrogation of responsibility. It's spit in the wind.-
Again, if it feels good... Posted on May 19 2007 at 12:17am by You assume that the people that entered the contest would otherwise have been wasting their time watching another channel. I do not make that assumption about the entrants and, other than recognizing their well-intentioned efforts, have said nothing about them. My comments were directed toward the condescending suggestion made by the "contest" - the idea that one could create an "environmental inititive that would lead to sustainability of life and resources on our planet" with startup funding of $10,000.
Even the nonprofit Action for a Sustainable Earth organization is offering $600,000 in prizes to six winners [www.cacleantechopen.com]. Yet, Toyota, with $13.68 billion profit [www.nytimes.com] for the fiscal year that ended in March offered $10,000 to one winner. And more importantly, the Sundance Channel involved itself with the promotion.
And finally, if your point is that once some critical mass occurs that the pixie dust will work, I disagree. I believe it is the elites, such as Mr. Redford, that make things happen. There are many issues that Americans would change if they had any power to do so. Outsourcing of jobs, amnesty for illegal aliens, and continuing the war in Iraq are just a few issues that a majority of Americans are admantly against. Now consider the correlation between the general elitist opinion and Congressional direction (or lack thereof) for such issues. And no, I don't believe elitist influence is a bad thing. But I do think using it for a car promotion is.-
RE: Again, if it feels good... Posted on May 21 2007 at 11:54pm by You are right to be critical and wary of the systems that shuffle global environmental calamity to the bottom of the deck and provide the impetus and encouragement for people to live in exurban, sprawl communities, drive gas guzzlers, and to consume as if there are no natural limits. However, I also believe that it's necessary to keep our eyes on the prize and to believe that each individual who makes a conscious effort to reduce their impact or to play a role in changing the way we live and consume--which is ultimately seems to be the premise of these 25 shorts--is a good thing. Each one of these clips came from someone who is challenging the conventionally held notions about what it means to live in America today, and I applaud that. I believe that the environmental movement has been largely ineffective in the last 15 years in addressing climate change because of the distinct lack of coalition building, and reaching out to new communities outside the tired, middle-class Americans who would rather focus on saving charismatic mega-fauna then to really address climate change by directly challenging their own behaviors and consumption patterns. It's time to move beyond the same old stuff and to get people aware and interested in any way possible. If it has to be through a contest that offers a free Lexus to lure people to visit the site and explore the humble and earnest propositions of their fellow citizens for reducing our impact, then so be it. The sea-change cannot come through five environmentalists arguing in a room about which tactic to take...it's way past that point. -
One more time... Posted on May 22 2007 at 8:28am by "...middle-class Americans who would rather focus on saving charismatic mega-fauna then to really address climate change by directly challenging their own behaviors and consumption patterns. It's time to move beyond the same old stuff and to get people aware and interested in any way possible."
I don't know what you mean by your mega-fauna reference, but I do understand what you're saying about the middle class. And therefore I know that you, too, have missed the point.
Consumption patterns of the masses are dictated by the products and services offered. The products and services offered are dictated by government regulation (or lack thereof) and the technologies released by the government for commercial exploitation. Beyond this, there is only fact and perspective.
For instance, it is a fact that the Internet we are now using is the result of the government's decision to release the infrastructure and technology for commercial exploitation. Clearly, had they not done that, immeasurable energy would have already been saved from the absence of the millions of computers and monitors that have been in use for the past 13 years.
One perspective may be that we should correct our consumption patterns and discontinue use of the Internet for anything other than the most important communications. I mean, what's more important, our environment or watching a YouTube video? But again, this question misses the point. You see, the way I perceive the problem, REAL improvements in pollution are beyond the capability of the masses. I believe it requires our collective effort to be more focused and concentrated.
Think source.
Humor me for a moment and imagine this: imagine that we as a people, through our government, hired Ball Aerospace to create some derivative version of their Hubble Telescope. And imagine we had it designed to work like a magnifying glass in space that was targeted on a receiver here on earth. (Visualize kids using a magnifying glass to fry ants or start a fire in the yard.) Well, now wouldn't that put solar power on a whole new footing? And what if there were a hundred of those floating around and feeding receivers all over the country?
I'm not a scientist and I have no idea how to implement this as a citizen, but I imagine that if the GPS in my car is accurate enough to tell me to turn right at the red light 30 feet in front of me, then we should be able to target a beam of sunlight down to a fixed receiver. I also have no doubt that if the power from such a contraption were fed into the power grid that we could make a REAL difference in pollution levels. And obviously, any such source of energy feed into the grid could easily be distributed to consumers using the existing infrastructure.
You will NEVER make that kind of difference with gimmicks.
Maybe if the Sundance Channel contest had asked, "What can we do while we're waiting on the Big Idea", or "What can we do to motivate our leaders to get to work on the Big Idea", I could buy it. But they didn't, and the facts of the situation are such that we really do need some Big Ideas.-
RE: One more time... Posted on May 23 2007 at 12:30am by Am I missing something here? What is it about your "sun harnessing ray gun" that isn't gimmicky? Not that what you propose is foolish and I don't mean to patronize you. In fact I praise you for your creativity as I do all the contestants that have gone out on a limb and put their own ideas out there for public consumption. But you have to admit that what you propose is no more valid than any of the ideas posed by the other contest entrants. All of which might never have seen the light of day were it not for this contest which you continually deride. I Give up. Posted on May 24 2007 at 9:19am by Yes, what you missed is scale.
As I said, I'm not a scientist, but the first part of the point is that even if I were, I couldn't implement something like that as a citizen. The second part of the point is that surely something of such scale could be accomplished by the government. AND, to make any meaningful change in the pollution patterns contributing to global warming you are eventually going to have to look at changing the source of energy - and not by 1% per decade.
Doing the hard work of taking political action will never be as fun as pretending that you're changing the world; so just forget it. Besides, I'm obviously ruining the high school science fair..
-
RE: One more time... Posted on May 23 2007 at 4:57am by Consumption patterns of the masses are dictated by the products and services offered. The products and services offered are dictated by government regulation (or lack thereof) and the technologies released by the government for commercial exploitation. Beyond this, there is only fact and perspective.
Actually, consumption patterns are not necessarily dictated by the products and services offered. If that was true, why aren't we all using canvas grocery bags? How come we don't all use waxed paper to wrap sandwiches instead of plastic baggies? Those products are available to us and are far less wasteful. But is there anyone hawking these products on television or print ads? No. Consumption patterns are more directly tied to the advertising industry, and the advertising industry is directly tied to corporate interests. Corporations got smart after cashing in on WWII and realized that they could engineer obsolescence in the form of disposable products, and the advertising industry was born with the purpose of engineering and creating the demand. We are now exposed to more than 3000 ads on any given day. Advertising is what creates the desire in American consumers to consume without fear of world limits. They tell us it's sexy and cool to drive gas-swilling vehicles, to live in McMansions with "lawyer foyers" that are impossibly ridiculous to heat and cool, and to buy food from 3000 miles away. The American appetite for these incredibly destructive eco no-nos is voracious.
Point being, before we attempt to create giant magnifying glass techno fixes in orbit , perhaps we should further analyze what is truly at the heart of the crisis: our consumer culture, values, and ethics. None of these can be cured with technology. It doesn't take rocket science to see that globalization has created a race-to-the-bottom environmental calamity around the world and that free markets simply will not provide for environmental protection or social responsibility beyond that which makes profit. These silver-bullet regs do not work in the countries making our $5.00 WalMart jeans and that see our most grievous environmental externalizations. Moreover, ever notice how sparse government regs have been over the last 20 years? Could it be that having corporate money at the very heart of our election process (and therefore environmental protections) is the culprit?
Something to think about. I'll get off the soapbox now.-
RE: One more time... Posted on May 24 2007 at 11:09am by Actually, consumption patterns are not necessarily dictated by the products and services offered. If that was true, why aren't we all using canvas grocery bags? How come we don't all use waxed paper to wrap sandwiches instead of plastic baggies?
Because the use of paper and plastic for such uses hasn't been outlawed.
Consumption patterns are more directly tied to the advertising industry, and the advertising industry is directly tied to corporate interests. Corporations got smart after cashing in on WWII and realized that they could engineer obsolescence in the form of disposable products, and the advertising industry was born with the purpose of engineering and creating the demand. We are now exposed to more than 3000 ads on any given day. Advertising is what creates the desire in American consumers to consume without fear of world limits.
Maybe, maybe not. But when is the last time you saw a cigarette or liquor commercial on TV? Are those the only products with advertising that we can ban from public mediums? If not, how would we accomplish that? Might that be a job for the government?
They tell us it's sexy and cool to drive gas-swilling vehicles, to live in McMansions with "lawyer foyers" that are impossibly ridiculous to heat and cool, and to buy food from 3000 miles away. The American appetite for these incredibly destructive eco no-nos is voracious.
Agreed. But you aren't going make any real changes in energy consumption by guilt triping people into lower ceilings. And as far as gas-swilling vehicles are concerned, it's not like we haven't already thought of making mileage laws. So how do we get the minimum mpg raised? Show them how cool our Lexus is? Or might that be a job for the government?
Point being, before we attempt to create giant magnifying glass techno fixes in orbit , perhaps we should further analyze what is truly at the heart of the crisis: our consumer culture, values, and ethics.
To understand the fallacy in your assertion, you would have to actually look at the Energy Consumption by Sector data I linked to above. Anyone bothering to do so would see that industrial consumption is approximately equal to residential and commercial consumption combined. Further, the Transportation sector not only exceeds both, residential and commercial consumption, but is rapidly approaching the 30 quadrillion BTU consumed by the Industrial sector.
In other words, if we completely shut down ALL residential energy consumption, we would only reduce the total energy consumption by about 17%. This is the fundamental basis for my objection to the idea that we can individually do anything meaningful to address the pollution causing global warming. It's a misleading and condescending idea and Sundance should have no part of it.
Moreover, ever notice how sparse government regs have been over the last 20 years? Could it be that having corporate money at the very heart of our election process (and therefore environmental protections) is the culprit?
I think we're finally on the same page! :)
Something to think about.
Indeed.RE: One more time... Posted on May 25 2007 at 12:04am by Not trying to pick on you
Ok...just playing devil's advocate for a moment. Now how is it that these regulations are going to stop the environmental degradation/carbon emissions in China, Mexican maquiladoras, and other fantastically polluting industries used for producing many American consumer products? Don't you need to have votes in the house and senate to pass these regs? Aren't there corporate interests involved who would be hostile to the idea that we would damage their profits...and wouldn't they--in turn--lobby against regs by saying that so many "jobs" would be lost? This is why we've been in stalemate for decades on these issues. The free-hand of capitalism will help itself, over and over again, to the detriment of people, communities, and the environment.
What about NAFTA and WTO? These laws make it improbable that we could enact any regs you think would alter that situation. Again, the problem lies in consumption. I know you've got your statistics that you believe bears out your point, but please, be aware that "industrial" energy uses and "transportation" sectors are energies used to transport your kiwi fruit from New Zealand, lettuce from California's central valley, and your orange juice oranges from Brazil. So, obviously, when I am talking about needing to change our values, ethics, and consumption patterns, I am not just hitting on residential power use. I would like you to consider that we can't simply regulate industry and fix this problem...it goes MUCH deeper, and it strikes at the very heart of how most American's live, and THAT is why no one wants to take this on...not even so-called "environmentalists." Nobody wants to hear that they shouldn't hop in their car to go shop at Wal-Mart for $5 jeans and $2 shampoo.
Do you ever wonder why there are so many other countries who are successful at efforts to cut emissions? It's because their values, ethics, and consumption patterns are different than ours. They don't expect to live in a 5000 square foot house and to keep it a temperate 65-degrees inside when it's a sweltering 100-degrees outside. Many don't have 22cu feet refrigerators and clothes dryers. They also do not insist on driving mega-vehicles on the premise that two times a year they need to carry six people. In most areas outside the U.S.--except possibly Canada--, people live in smaller spaces, they live in denser, walkable, mixed-used buildings where that can house retail on the bottom. They don't usually have HVAC systems and 50-gallon water heaters; they use public transit or they walk or bike. Moreover, many of the world's people can purchase food at markets that showcase local foods. Somehow, in our "technological" inventions of the last 50 years, American's have moved away from need-based living in a relatively short period to want-based living. We are living in a society that depends on biosphere-level (i.e. whole world) resources instead of eco-sphere level (local) resources. The effect is that we have 5% of the world population, yet we consume 25% of the planetary fuel resources. If that doesn't lead you to question consumption issues, I don't know what will.
Regulations are fine and dandy, but who's going to support them? Industry wont, this administration wont, the house and senate may, but then you'll probably get some sort of lawsuit and it will need to be heard in front of the Supreme Court. So, what I am saying is that you need to dig deeper to understand what's really driving our environmental problems and begin to understand that the poor planet has limits which do not support our American way of life, whether we have some new miracle technology or not. Technology won't save us, and neither will regulations (I'm sure watered down at best). What will save us is a change in the way people think and consume...that's what this contest is suggesting that people do, so I think they're on the right track.
Reduce-reuse-recycle...Emphasis on REDUCE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RE: If it feels good... Posted on May 17 2007 at 7:41am by just the gimmicks promoted in the contest
Have you even looked at the entries? Yes some are simple gimmicks, but those easy little things are the ones that will be easier for the general public to pick up on and actually do.
And there are a few that are not gimmicks.
And I know of at least one entrant who isn't doing it for the prize.
So while none maybe the ultimate answer, which I don't think we will ever find, each one in it's own simple way is trying to help. And if folks adopt just one or two to do, then that's a pretty big step.
I remember when just recycling was an issue. For a long while, people talked about it, but in many places it wasn't practical as it took a lot more work and effort for individuals to do and it wasn't clear that it was worth it (why should i spend time separating my recylcable from the garbage if it was all going to the same dump?). Now that more and more cities and towns have dedicated recyclable pickups as well as easy to find recyclable delivery points, and that the recyclables are being processed, more and more people are recycling.
The point is, you need some of the "gimmicks" that you see as too simple in order to hook the average person into doing evironmentally friendly stuff. Not everyone is a treehugger and will go out of their way. So it has to be just as easy or easier than the "bad" way for people to act on.-
Point in case... Posted on May 21 2007 at 8:11am by I didn't think anyone was doing it for the money; the money was for implementation as I understood it. And yes, some are not gimmicks, but they also are not practical. As an example, check the bylaws for your neighborhood and see if you can put up a half dozen wind turbines in your yard; mine won't allow it.
But let's be clear what we're talking about: the promotion of an inadequate response to a serious problem.
Recycling is actually a great example.
Imagine if every corporation were required to accept back from the consumer all waste from their products. Do you think they would care more about the waste they generate? Do you think we might see more reusable product containers? You know we would.
The real success stories in recycling are those mandated by the government. Consider that after decades of pounding recycling into the public's head we still only recycle about 22% of the our glass waste. Yet over 95% of battery cases are recycled and more than 80 percent of scrap tires are pulled from the waste stream and reused in some way. This is absolutely the result of state and federal requirements to recover them - not some critical mass consensus.
If we all take turns pushing on a boulder, chances are none of us could move it. If we all push together we might see some small movement. But if we all chipped in and rented a backhoe we could put the thing anywhere we wanted. I understand that individually you may be pushing as hard as you can; I'm just saying the job is too big for that. And that's what government is supposed to be - the backhoe that none of us can individually afford to own.
To continue the analogy, a contest to see who can push the hardest isn't going to get the boulder moved. And worse yet, it distracts the most motivated people from figuring out how to get a backhoe.
All the while, the problem only gets worse.
Do this: take a minute to verify that the largest Energy Consumption by Sector [www.eia.doe.gov] is industrial. Then note the Energy Consumption by Energy Source [www.eia.doe.gov] data reflects less than 10% is renewable. You may also be shocked to find the government projections out to 2030 for Energy Consumption by Fuel [www.eia.doe.gov] don't show that percentage increasing!
Finally, take a gander at the U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector and Fuel [www.eia.doe.gov] projections through 2030. Now, if you still think influential people should involve themselves in promotions like this one, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
======================================================================
ADDED JUNE 2, 2007 - AS SUNDANCE FELT I NEEDED TO BE BLOCKED FROM RESPONDING TO COMMENTS BELOW, I WILL USE THE EDIT FEATURE TO ADDRESS THEM HERE. READ IT HERE BEFORE IT'S DELETED (OR LOOK FOR COPIES OF THE ENTIRE POST ELSEWHERE ON THE NET)
======================================================================
shawroy:
Check your facts; they're all wrong:
- NAFTA has enviromental consideration legislated into law. Contact your local representative to demand they are enforced.
- The average American home is less than half the 5000 feet you ramble on about...
Look up the rest on your own.
======================================================================
Turnip:
As long as you and like-minded others continue to sell your snake oil and tout the value of placebos, we can look forward to more of the same.
Your earlier choice to use the religious right as your model is both, appropriate and telling. Just as they choose to believe in creationism and resist any evidence of evolution, you too have the right to believe changing to a different light bulb will have enough collective magic to make a difference. And it's a free country, so it's your right to teach your children to wash out cans and convince them they are saving the planet.
I'm just hopeful that enough of us will refuse to set aside the math and science required to make the real changes needed on this plant. Hopefully, a enough of us will be foolish enough to look at the the "ray gun" idea that you refer to as James Bondish and will see something different. Some of us may believe that it is based on currently available technology and could heat enough water fast enough to replace an entire coal-fired power plant.
No matter though; we really don't have to worry that your gandchildren's grandchildren would still be washing out cans and driving Hybrid Lexuses trying to make a difference. (Even though their efforts wouldn't offset the energy consumed by population growth.) The important thing is that they feel good about their self.
Let's just hope there are some people that realize waste needs to be reduced at the corporate source. Maybe the same folks will realize we already have the technology to build things like hydrogen powered cars and world govenments need to subsidize the reasearch needed to make those technologies practical for the masses. And maybe they can find a way to explain those things to their children so their children understand the important role of math and science for the future of mankind.
Whew! You know, come to think of it, it would be a lot easier to leave that to someone else.
RE: Point in case... Posted on Jun 27 2007 at 11:26pm by Sheesh! Put down the pipe and re-read the posts--then read some books and stop trying to piece together your arguments with one-off reports from various sources that are not germane to the issues being discussed. You are swirling around in a tornado of your own ignorance. That being said...have a nice day.
-
-
-
-
-
The boat you continually Miss. Posted on May 27 2007 at 1:53pm by High school science fairs. Governmental regulation and everything inbetween, There's room for all of them in this world and no matter how you try to position it and jaw your way out of it, that's the point that somehow seems to elude you. I cannot see how you can make any argument to the contrary. All creativity that's applied whether by you brainstorming about James Bondian laser guns or a high schooler learning about recycling, is all positive energy as far as I'm concerned. I don't really care what you call this contest. The idea before the big idea or whatever. It's good that it's out there. It's good that people are thinking environmentally. There's room for your ideas and the those of others and hopefully all in aggregate will help to improve the state of life on earth. American Idol Posted on Jun 2 2007 at 5:26am by As long as you and like-minded others continue to sell your snake oil and tout the value of placebos, we can look forward to more of the same.
Your earlier choice to use the religious right as your model is both, appropriate and telling. Just as they choose to believe in creationism and resist any evidence of evolution, you too have the right to believe changing to a different light bulb will have enough collective magic to make a difference. And it's a free country, so it's your right to teach your children to wash out cans and convince them they are saving the planet.
I'm just hopeful that enough of us will refuse to set aside the math and science required to make the real changes needed on this plant. Hopefully, a enough of us will be foolish enough to look at the the "ray gun" idea that you refer to as James Bondish and will see something different. Some of us may believe that it is based on currently available technology and could heat enough water fast enough to replace an entire coal-fired power plant.
No matter though; we really don't have to worry that your gandchildren's grandchildren would still be washing out cans and driving Hybrid Lexuses trying to make a difference. Even though their efforts will offset the energy consumed by population growth, they will feel good about their self. And that is important.
Let's just hope there are some people that realize waste needs to be reduced at the corporate source. Maybe the same folks will realize we already have the technology to build things like hydrogen powered cars and world govenments need to subsidize the reasearch needed to make those technologies practical for the masses. And maybe they can find a way to explain those things to their children so their children understand the important role of math and science for the future of mankind.
Whew! You know, come to think of it, it would be a lot easier to leave that to someone else.
RE: What's the Big Idea? Contest voting has begun! Posted on Jun 2 2007 at 9:19am by When will the results be posted???
RE: Nonsustainability Posted on Jun 3 2008 at 8:20pm by [size=18]The idea that you are promoting the jewelry of John Hardy as sustainable, when it includes skeletons of animals killed for the jewelry trade is bizarre. Coral is made of the skeletons of living animals ripped from their homes on the coral reefs. Already we have lost over 30% of our planet's coral reefs and with the help of people buying coral as jewelry, it is estimated that we could loose 32% of our remaining coral reefs by in the next 30 years. A green business is only green if it is green in the ocean and on the land and air. Coral is much too precious to wear.
Brion Battin Black
The Coral Reef Alliance
www.coral.org
-