|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
Sustainability, as it relates to the "greening" of our environment, has become the new mantra of the religion / cult that sprang up from the modern environmental movement. This article, linked at the Financial Post, exposes the movement for what it is.
You greens and progressives aren't going to like being called on your junk... but the truth is not always a pleasant thing. Deal with it before our economies are destroyed and we all become slaves of government dependent upon the all powerful state for our daily crumbs of bread.
|
|||
|
I think that what both you and the Canadian author are forgetting is that just as things are not only black & white, there are many many many shades of green.
This entire argument is framed in a sense of a world of absolutes. Obviously that is not the world we live in. |
||||
|
In no way would I assert that things are "black & white". I don't think the author of the article was trying to argue from that premise either.
What, specifically, is the article wrong about? |
||||
|
It's an opinion piece, so obviously there's really no judgement needed.
It is written in a tone of 'the sky is falling those greenies have taken over our whole life as we know it', which is odd, for sure. Did I pull a Rip Van Winkle here and miss a whole lotta years? Because the article is really written in a futuristic panic sort of way. What do you feel is the most important point of the article? Which is terribly funny, however I'm quite sure that humour was not the writer's intent. I guess if I knew anything about Canadian politics and policies I'd have a better scope of the article, but it kinda feels "Greek" to me, and therefore it's not a compelling argument. |
||||
|
I really think that the biggiest problem in the article is that the excellent and intruiging headline does not get backed up by the text.
The title is great but the article does not deliver. What do you think is the strongest point made in it? |
||||
|
Interesting responses. I don't think you've necessarily missed anything. I think, given the tone and timbre of some of what is finally filtering into mainstream reporting of the fallacies and follies that are being forced upon us in the name of controlling "global climate change" is catching up to the green rhetoric that has been almost exclusively what we've been told the past few years. The strongest point, the theme really, is calling out the methodology and motivation behind the movement. The parallels between the failed socialist policies of the past and the current impetus of government intervention in the name of "just doing something" when there really is not any conclusive evidence that man can cause or control it is frightening. That people buy into it so readily is what brings it home. This paragraph makes the case clearly...
You and I have a difference of opinion. I don't believe that man can have that profound an influence on global climate when nature, from volcanic eruption to bovine flatulence, produces far more "greenhouse gases" than we do. And the entire hysteria about controlling CO2? What is that exactly? CO2 is processed by plants, has been for hundreds of millions of years, to refresh our atmosphere. It's not a pollutant, it's a fertilizer. As you said, it's an opinion piece. Something, by it's nature and design, is supposed to make people think and perhaps re-examine their conventional wisdom. And it is that CW that do drives our societies in this sound bite world. So if the CW is going to drive us off an economic cliff, are you going to go along for the ride just because it's the CW? |
||||
|
CW? Ya lost me on that abbreviation.
Also, do you or anyone you know have asthma? Human engineered combustion engines are a great contributor to particulate matter that goes with all the CO2. That may make you rethink the whole human component factor of this situation. |
||||
|
CW = conventional wisdom
My wife is asthmatic and has profound allergies as well. Nature makes far more particulate matter every day than our cars are producing. CO2... perhaps the greatest canard of the global warming hysteria. Do you support the ongoing biofuels intiatives, including ethanol? |
||||
|
I don't believe that subsidizing major agri-business to grow monolithic corn crops for our soon to be new ethanol addiction is the answer. I find it hard to believe that with all the advances that humans have made, that there isn't a way to run vehicles on a (dare I say 'sustainable') power source, such as solar.
Biofuels alone are not the answer. American planning departments needs a serious high-colonic cleaning to clear out the old auto-based design plans since the beginning with the Model-T. End that vicious cyle please! Don't get me wrong, I love cars (my '64&1/2 Mustang convertible especially) but the shortsightedness of our country's long mad love affair has got to change one way or the other. |
||||
|
Oh The Big Dog wherefor art thou? I've missed our healthy debate.
|
||||
|
Besides Solar/battery power combinations, I believe that within City Limits that perhaps golf cart type vehicles should be allowed to use the streets with the use of a proper City Authorized permit of course. Since most of the ATV haulers have little beds they are perfect for hauling groceries and equipment around the town. The cabs already have windshields and an overhead for incliment weather, proper lighting such as tail lights, turn signals, headlights, even seatbelts. I have not seen a city go to this level of usage, although I believe it would really be accepted by most City Traffic users. Just my personal thoughts on this subject. Vehicles, parts and maintenance costs would be a lot less out of our pockets. I believe in between the usage of the new technology that we alerady have vehicles that could replace our expensive fuel burners and allow us to save not only some money but our environment at the same time. Just a personal thought that I believe that is overlooked because it seems so easy and logical to implement on a city permit level. Just to remind some out there that we still have horse and buggy and slower moving (SMV's) out on our roads in some areas of our country and the accident-incident rates are very low. Posting signs and getting use to the vehicles would happen in a very short length of time. Sure you will have some people complain, but that is the norm anytime...just think of the bike lane issues/complaints. PERHAPS this better belongs in yet another area of the BLOG...but it follows the subject in this one as well
|
||||
|
A sustainable practice is defined as the ability to continue said practice for ever without depleting the sinks for it's produced waste and without depleting the resources required for it's effective exercise.
That said, many will use the words as a green brush to appear environmentally friendly, words mean diddly, actions save lives and careers. Big Dog change is good and true sustainability is also good. Sorry I am so late in the dialog. |
||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|