Gore, peace and the “errors” 12 Oct 2007 The International Herald Tribune worries that Gore’s receiving the Peace Prize is going to denigrate the award because it “strays from traditional Nobel definitions of peace work”. Huh. As Tom Lehrer said, when Henry Kissinger can win the Peace Prize, the time for political satire is long past. If anything, this improves the standing of the prize. What could be more concerning to the peace of the world than dealing with climate change? Gore’s raising awareness and bringing climate change out of the Rethuglican spin cycle will do more to promote peace than any number of activists on particular issues. The award was justified, timely and important. Of course, the MSM is also spinning in their mental graves on account of the fact that there were supposedly nine errors in An Inconvenient Truth, according to a British judge. James Hrynyshyn at Island of Doubt shows that there were two and a half errors, and all were justified at the time of the making of the film. But don’t expect that to stop the slathering pitbulls of antiscience… Ecology and Biodiversity Politics
Creationism and Intelligent Design The theological mindset 10 Feb 2009 Theologians can be monumentally stupid when they look at things through their doctrinal spectacles, especially when it comes to science. Since they think everything is theological, it must have a theological standing, either good or bad, and so they will undergo the most amazing gymnastics to achieve this outcome. Here’s… Read More
Censorship ISP filtering for Americans too? 8 Dec 2008 So it looks like Australia won’t be the sole idiot child of the Internet. FCC chair Kevin Martin wants… you guessed… an “opt out” smut filter at the ISP. In your face American First Amendment! All you smug Mericans, wipe of that goofy smile, now, OK? Read More
Book Unscientific America 17 Jul 2009 I can’t yet speak about this book, because my review copy is presently on what passes as Australia’s international mail service, which involves yaks hiking across the Himalayas and then taking the parcels via the Silk Road to Beijing, where they will be brought to northern Australia by junks, and… Read More
Now will Al be flying in his private jet to collect the award? Who gets the peace prize long ago became more a matter of politics than adhereing to Noble’s will, but big Al strikes me as a tad hypocritical and not a great role model for the environmental movement.
Now will Al be flying in his private jet to collect the award? Who gets the peace prize long ago became more a matter of politics than adhereing to Noble’s will, but big Al strikes me as a tad hypocritical and not a great role model for the environmental movement.
Now will Al be flying in his private jet to collect the award? Who gets the peace prize long ago became more a matter of politics than adhereing to Noble’s will, but big Al strikes me as a tad hypocritical and not a great role model for the environmental movement.
Now will Al be flying in his private jet to collect the award? Who gets the peace prize long ago became more a matter of politics than adhereing to Noble’s will, but big Al strikes me as a tad hypocritical and not a great role model for the environmental movement.
Now will Al be flying in his private jet to collect the award? Who gets the peace prize long ago became more a matter of politics than adhereing to Noble’s will, but big Al strikes me as a tad hypocritical and not a great role model for the environmental movement.
Climate change is going to be, in this century, the single biggest economic, social and political challenge the world faces (unless the Peak Oil theory is true, in which case we’ll have a not-so-delightful perfect storm). Gore is a populizer, a man who is using his stature and influence to get the word it. All the climatologists in the world couldn’t do in fifteen years what Gore did with a single film. Yes, it’s entertainment, and yes it probably does exagerate at points, but you know what, it’s raising the consciousness of this most important issue throughout the world. People in the Industrialized World are beginning to ignore the oil industry shills and pseudo-scientists, and are recognizing that humanity’s activites over the last few centuries have had a substantial influence on climate, and that those changes are going to become increasingly pronounced. Gore is still a politician, and I’ll wager you won’t find a politician out there who isn’t hypocritical to one degree or another, so if that’s the standard, then we might as well simply forbid career politicians from winning Nobel Prizes. But he, despite whatever flaws and failings he has, is accomplishing something incredibly important, he’s slowly but surely forcing the governments of the industrialized world to listen by the most fundemental kind of democratic communication; talking directly to the people. The Peace Prize isn’t a perfect fit for what Gore is doing (though when you start seeing wars over water and viable agricultural land as this century progresses, it will make more sense), but I think he does deserve recognition. And of course all the deniers out there, having fixated on Gore as the symbol of climate change, are now going to go about trying to assassinate his character. Their attempts at casting dispersions on the science are failing, so they, like the anti-evolutionist forces and Darwin, believing it’s all some sort of cult of personality, are going after Gore. But I think the tide has turned, and that the politicians, even if they don’t buy it, are faced with the reality that those that actually elect them are accepting the climatological realities. Yes, they’re being dragged into all of this kicking and screaming, but the mood even in the United States is changing, and I think Al Gore deserves a significant amount of credit for that.
…..then we might as well simply forbid career politicians from winning Nobel Prizes…. That strikes me as an excellent idea Aaron, I’ld go further and ban the non-career politicians as well. As for the deniers going after Gore, perhaps he shouldn’t make himself such an easy target :o) this is why I don’t think that he is a good role model. Do as I say not as I do doesn’t work very well and, like security, I suspect that lots of politicos will be happy to use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes and keep the hoi polloi in their place. As for raising consciouness, he may have done so in the USA but as for increasing peace. I think that the changes required worldwide will increase tensions between nations, especially those nations whose economies are booming and are amongst the worst polluters. It isn’t just global climate change that is a problem and focusing on it to the exclusion of the other pollutions may not be such a great idea.
…..then we might as well simply forbid career politicians from winning Nobel Prizes…. That strikes me as an excellent idea Aaron, I’ld go further and ban the non-career politicians as well. As for the deniers going after Gore, perhaps he shouldn’t make himself such an easy target :o) this is why I don’t think that he is a good role model. Do as I say not as I do doesn’t work very well and, like security, I suspect that lots of politicos will be happy to use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes and keep the hoi polloi in their place. As for raising consciouness, he may have done so in the USA but as for increasing peace. I think that the changes required worldwide will increase tensions between nations, especially those nations whose economies are booming and are amongst the worst polluters. It isn’t just global climate change that is a problem and focusing on it to the exclusion of the other pollutions may not be such a great idea.
…..then we might as well simply forbid career politicians from winning Nobel Prizes…. That strikes me as an excellent idea Aaron, I’ld go further and ban the non-career politicians as well. As for the deniers going after Gore, perhaps he shouldn’t make himself such an easy target :o) this is why I don’t think that he is a good role model. Do as I say not as I do doesn’t work very well and, like security, I suspect that lots of politicos will be happy to use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes and keep the hoi polloi in their place. As for raising consciouness, he may have done so in the USA but as for increasing peace. I think that the changes required worldwide will increase tensions between nations, especially those nations whose economies are booming and are amongst the worst polluters. It isn’t just global climate change that is a problem and focusing on it to the exclusion of the other pollutions may not be such a great idea.
…..then we might as well simply forbid career politicians from winning Nobel Prizes…. That strikes me as an excellent idea Aaron, I’ld go further and ban the non-career politicians as well. As for the deniers going after Gore, perhaps he shouldn’t make himself such an easy target :o) this is why I don’t think that he is a good role model. Do as I say not as I do doesn’t work very well and, like security, I suspect that lots of politicos will be happy to use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes and keep the hoi polloi in their place. As for raising consciouness, he may have done so in the USA but as for increasing peace. I think that the changes required worldwide will increase tensions between nations, especially those nations whose economies are booming and are amongst the worst polluters. It isn’t just global climate change that is a problem and focusing on it to the exclusion of the other pollutions may not be such a great idea.
…..then we might as well simply forbid career politicians from winning Nobel Prizes…. That strikes me as an excellent idea Aaron, I’ld go further and ban the non-career politicians as well. As for the deniers going after Gore, perhaps he shouldn’t make himself such an easy target :o) this is why I don’t think that he is a good role model. Do as I say not as I do doesn’t work very well and, like security, I suspect that lots of politicos will be happy to use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes and keep the hoi polloi in their place. As for raising consciouness, he may have done so in the USA but as for increasing peace. I think that the changes required worldwide will increase tensions between nations, especially those nations whose economies are booming and are amongst the worst polluters. It isn’t just global climate change that is a problem and focusing on it to the exclusion of the other pollutions may not be such a great idea.
Chris, if the GOP has taught me anything, EVERYONE is an easy target to those who are willing to lie, when filtered by a press willing to report lies and facts alike as “He Said, She Said”. It doesn’t help that the political situation in the United States is heavily polarized between a political party of moderate compromisers, and a party long lost to fire-breathing radicals who seem to believe that any global warming is a myth, that evolution and intelligent design are equally valid theories, and that the Bill of Rights is for suckers.
LeftWingFox: as I don’t live it that ‘nation under Canada’ I am just an outsider looking in; luckilly I know what GOP is, I suspect by “party of moderate compromisers” you mean the democrats. As an outsider looking on with bemusement I see a different image. Both the elephants and donkeys are happy to lie and gild the truth to forward their agenda. This is what the medias love of soundbites and dissension has helped create and few politicians seem to object. (applies as much to any politician in any country) That said, when I hear big Al pontificate on how others have to sacrifice but it is ok for him to buy offsets I do worry. One law for the rich another for the poor? Any how, just to be clear. I don’t argue that climate change isn’t occuring nor that humans should continue poisioning the planet; we should clean up our act a toute vitesse. Simply that Al isn’t the best advocate and that the nobel peace prize is more politically based than on any actual enhancement of peace. Also politicians of all stripes will be tempted to claim that their proposals are green/anti-global warming whilst eroding our freedoms and increasing taxes.
LeftWingFox: as I don’t live it that ‘nation under Canada’ I am just an outsider looking in; luckilly I know what GOP is, I suspect by “party of moderate compromisers” you mean the democrats. As an outsider looking on with bemusement I see a different image. Both the elephants and donkeys are happy to lie and gild the truth to forward their agenda. This is what the medias love of soundbites and dissension has helped create and few politicians seem to object. (applies as much to any politician in any country) That said, when I hear big Al pontificate on how others have to sacrifice but it is ok for him to buy offsets I do worry. One law for the rich another for the poor? Any how, just to be clear. I don’t argue that climate change isn’t occuring nor that humans should continue poisioning the planet; we should clean up our act a toute vitesse. Simply that Al isn’t the best advocate and that the nobel peace prize is more politically based than on any actual enhancement of peace. Also politicians of all stripes will be tempted to claim that their proposals are green/anti-global warming whilst eroding our freedoms and increasing taxes.
LeftWingFox: as I don’t live it that ‘nation under Canada’ I am just an outsider looking in; luckilly I know what GOP is, I suspect by “party of moderate compromisers” you mean the democrats. As an outsider looking on with bemusement I see a different image. Both the elephants and donkeys are happy to lie and gild the truth to forward their agenda. This is what the medias love of soundbites and dissension has helped create and few politicians seem to object. (applies as much to any politician in any country) That said, when I hear big Al pontificate on how others have to sacrifice but it is ok for him to buy offsets I do worry. One law for the rich another for the poor? Any how, just to be clear. I don’t argue that climate change isn’t occuring nor that humans should continue poisioning the planet; we should clean up our act a toute vitesse. Simply that Al isn’t the best advocate and that the nobel peace prize is more politically based than on any actual enhancement of peace. Also politicians of all stripes will be tempted to claim that their proposals are green/anti-global warming whilst eroding our freedoms and increasing taxes.
LeftWingFox: as I don’t live it that ‘nation under Canada’ I am just an outsider looking in; luckilly I know what GOP is, I suspect by “party of moderate compromisers” you mean the democrats. As an outsider looking on with bemusement I see a different image. Both the elephants and donkeys are happy to lie and gild the truth to forward their agenda. This is what the medias love of soundbites and dissension has helped create and few politicians seem to object. (applies as much to any politician in any country) That said, when I hear big Al pontificate on how others have to sacrifice but it is ok for him to buy offsets I do worry. One law for the rich another for the poor? Any how, just to be clear. I don’t argue that climate change isn’t occuring nor that humans should continue poisioning the planet; we should clean up our act a toute vitesse. Simply that Al isn’t the best advocate and that the nobel peace prize is more politically based than on any actual enhancement of peace. Also politicians of all stripes will be tempted to claim that their proposals are green/anti-global warming whilst eroding our freedoms and increasing taxes.
LeftWingFox: as I don’t live it that ‘nation under Canada’ I am just an outsider looking in; luckilly I know what GOP is, I suspect by “party of moderate compromisers” you mean the democrats. As an outsider looking on with bemusement I see a different image. Both the elephants and donkeys are happy to lie and gild the truth to forward their agenda. This is what the medias love of soundbites and dissension has helped create and few politicians seem to object. (applies as much to any politician in any country) That said, when I hear big Al pontificate on how others have to sacrifice but it is ok for him to buy offsets I do worry. One law for the rich another for the poor? Any how, just to be clear. I don’t argue that climate change isn’t occuring nor that humans should continue poisioning the planet; we should clean up our act a toute vitesse. Simply that Al isn’t the best advocate and that the nobel peace prize is more politically based than on any actual enhancement of peace. Also politicians of all stripes will be tempted to claim that their proposals are green/anti-global warming whilst eroding our freedoms and increasing taxes.
Any how, just to be clear. I don’t argue that climate change isn’t occuring nor that humans should continue poisioning the planet; we should clean up our act a toute vitesse. Simply that Al isn’t the best advocate and that the nobel peace prize is more politically based than on any actual enhancement of peace. Also politicians of all stripes will be tempted to claim that their proposals are green/anti-global warming whilst eroding our freedoms and increasing taxes. He seems to be very much the best advocate of educating about climate change. Climatologists don’t seem to be able to do it, because largely no one seems interested in what they have to say. Gore comes along with a film and a speel, and it works. And it’s working beyond the US as well. There are worse things in this world than increasing taxes. Targeted tax hikes, particularly when it comes to trying to wean industrialized economies off of wanton burning of fossil fuels to produce energy may very well be the only way. At the very least it’s a club that governments do have to make people and industry behave. I simply do not buy into the notion that somehow or other the economy will just magically become more climate-friendly, and I do think the time has come to start forcing industry to become greener. Back to Gore, he is no longer a politician. He’s not a member of Congress, he’s not a vice-president (save that I think he gets to keep the title). He’s not running for public office. So what’s the problem here?
#6 Aaron: He seems to be very much the best advocate of educating about climate change… I disagree, for the point I made above he is or appears to be a big hypocrite. He clearly isn’t going to change his proflugate ways so is ill placed to order others to do so. …There are worse things in this world than increasing taxes. Targeted tax hikes, particularly when it comes to trying to wean industrialized economies off of wanton burning of fossil fuels to produce energy may very well be the only way. … How about just making some things illegal, thats how the Health & Safety Act in the UK managed to improve the conditions of workers in factories. Taxation on basic things such as power and transport hurts the poor far more than the rich. Worse things than taxes! Of course there are, doesn’t mean that they are good or an effective method of implementing policy. If goverments believe that some things shouldn’t be done then, if they can get the majority, they should have the honesty to implement the changes into law. I guess it is a choice between the politicians and apparatchick spending our money on what they deem good (1st class flights for them, no flights for us) or keeping taxes lower and having goverments spend taxes only on those things best supplied at a state/nation level. ….Back to Gore, he is no longer a politician. He’s not a member of Congress, he’s not a vice-president (save that I think he gets to keep the title). He’s not running for public office. So what’s the problem here? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then what do you call it? Didn’t he stop being an elected official because he failed to get elected?
#6 Aaron: He seems to be very much the best advocate of educating about climate change… I disagree, for the point I made above he is or appears to be a big hypocrite. He clearly isn’t going to change his proflugate ways so is ill placed to order others to do so. …There are worse things in this world than increasing taxes. Targeted tax hikes, particularly when it comes to trying to wean industrialized economies off of wanton burning of fossil fuels to produce energy may very well be the only way. … How about just making some things illegal, thats how the Health & Safety Act in the UK managed to improve the conditions of workers in factories. Taxation on basic things such as power and transport hurts the poor far more than the rich. Worse things than taxes! Of course there are, doesn’t mean that they are good or an effective method of implementing policy. If goverments believe that some things shouldn’t be done then, if they can get the majority, they should have the honesty to implement the changes into law. I guess it is a choice between the politicians and apparatchick spending our money on what they deem good (1st class flights for them, no flights for us) or keeping taxes lower and having goverments spend taxes only on those things best supplied at a state/nation level. ….Back to Gore, he is no longer a politician. He’s not a member of Congress, he’s not a vice-president (save that I think he gets to keep the title). He’s not running for public office. So what’s the problem here? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then what do you call it? Didn’t he stop being an elected official because he failed to get elected?
#6 Aaron: He seems to be very much the best advocate of educating about climate change… I disagree, for the point I made above he is or appears to be a big hypocrite. He clearly isn’t going to change his proflugate ways so is ill placed to order others to do so. …There are worse things in this world than increasing taxes. Targeted tax hikes, particularly when it comes to trying to wean industrialized economies off of wanton burning of fossil fuels to produce energy may very well be the only way. … How about just making some things illegal, thats how the Health & Safety Act in the UK managed to improve the conditions of workers in factories. Taxation on basic things such as power and transport hurts the poor far more than the rich. Worse things than taxes! Of course there are, doesn’t mean that they are good or an effective method of implementing policy. If goverments believe that some things shouldn’t be done then, if they can get the majority, they should have the honesty to implement the changes into law. I guess it is a choice between the politicians and apparatchick spending our money on what they deem good (1st class flights for them, no flights for us) or keeping taxes lower and having goverments spend taxes only on those things best supplied at a state/nation level. ….Back to Gore, he is no longer a politician. He’s not a member of Congress, he’s not a vice-president (save that I think he gets to keep the title). He’s not running for public office. So what’s the problem here? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then what do you call it? Didn’t he stop being an elected official because he failed to get elected?
#6 Aaron: He seems to be very much the best advocate of educating about climate change… I disagree, for the point I made above he is or appears to be a big hypocrite. He clearly isn’t going to change his proflugate ways so is ill placed to order others to do so. …There are worse things in this world than increasing taxes. Targeted tax hikes, particularly when it comes to trying to wean industrialized economies off of wanton burning of fossil fuels to produce energy may very well be the only way. … How about just making some things illegal, thats how the Health & Safety Act in the UK managed to improve the conditions of workers in factories. Taxation on basic things such as power and transport hurts the poor far more than the rich. Worse things than taxes! Of course there are, doesn’t mean that they are good or an effective method of implementing policy. If goverments believe that some things shouldn’t be done then, if they can get the majority, they should have the honesty to implement the changes into law. I guess it is a choice between the politicians and apparatchick spending our money on what they deem good (1st class flights for them, no flights for us) or keeping taxes lower and having goverments spend taxes only on those things best supplied at a state/nation level. ….Back to Gore, he is no longer a politician. He’s not a member of Congress, he’s not a vice-president (save that I think he gets to keep the title). He’s not running for public office. So what’s the problem here? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then what do you call it? Didn’t he stop being an elected official because he failed to get elected?
#6 Aaron: He seems to be very much the best advocate of educating about climate change… I disagree, for the point I made above he is or appears to be a big hypocrite. He clearly isn’t going to change his proflugate ways so is ill placed to order others to do so. …There are worse things in this world than increasing taxes. Targeted tax hikes, particularly when it comes to trying to wean industrialized economies off of wanton burning of fossil fuels to produce energy may very well be the only way. … How about just making some things illegal, thats how the Health & Safety Act in the UK managed to improve the conditions of workers in factories. Taxation on basic things such as power and transport hurts the poor far more than the rich. Worse things than taxes! Of course there are, doesn’t mean that they are good or an effective method of implementing policy. If goverments believe that some things shouldn’t be done then, if they can get the majority, they should have the honesty to implement the changes into law. I guess it is a choice between the politicians and apparatchick spending our money on what they deem good (1st class flights for them, no flights for us) or keeping taxes lower and having goverments spend taxes only on those things best supplied at a state/nation level. ….Back to Gore, he is no longer a politician. He’s not a member of Congress, he’s not a vice-president (save that I think he gets to keep the title). He’s not running for public office. So what’s the problem here? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then what do you call it? Didn’t he stop being an elected official because he failed to get elected?
Chris Willis wrote: I wrote: He seems to be very much the best advocate of educating about climate change… I disagree, for the point I made above he is or appears to be a big hypocrite. He clearly isn’t going to change his proflugate ways so is ill placed to order others to do so. Oh come on, he’s not as bad as that. I’m no big fan of Gore, I prefer my science from the scientists rather than from populizers, but this seems to me to be little more than shooting the messenger. Just how is Gore so hypocritical that he’s harming the message, and do you think anyone else wouldn’t be the object of serious attacks by climate change deniers? These people are intensely dishonest, quite willing to invent “facts”, take scientists’ words out of context and repeat discredited arguments. Please provide the person who has Gore’s stature and communication abilities who will replace him and who won’t be immediately attacked personally and professionally. How about just making some things illegal, thats how the Health & Safety Act in the UK managed to improve the conditions of workers in factories. Taxation on basic things such as power and transport hurts the poor far more than the rich. How do you propose to make the large-scale use of fossil fuels to produce energy illegal? Didn’t he stop being an elected official because he failed to get elected? Perhaps you could explain this to me. I simply don’t understand the statement. If one is not sitting in an elected position, then, by definition, one is not an elected official.
Chris Willis wrote: I wrote: He seems to be very much the best advocate of educating about climate change… I disagree, for the point I made above he is or appears to be a big hypocrite. He clearly isn’t going to change his proflugate ways so is ill placed to order others to do so. Oh come on, he’s not as bad as that. I’m no big fan of Gore, I prefer my science from the scientists rather than from populizers, but this seems to me to be little more than shooting the messenger. Just how is Gore so hypocritical that he’s harming the message, and do you think anyone else wouldn’t be the object of serious attacks by climate change deniers? These people are intensely dishonest, quite willing to invent “facts”, take scientists’ words out of context and repeat discredited arguments. Please provide the person who has Gore’s stature and communication abilities who will replace him and who won’t be immediately attacked personally and professionally. How about just making some things illegal, thats how the Health & Safety Act in the UK managed to improve the conditions of workers in factories. Taxation on basic things such as power and transport hurts the poor far more than the rich. How do you propose to make the large-scale use of fossil fuels to produce energy illegal? Didn’t he stop being an elected official because he failed to get elected? Perhaps you could explain this to me. I simply don’t understand the statement. If one is not sitting in an elected position, then, by definition, one is not an elected official.
If Al Gore lived in a cave, depended on daylight, and walked everywhere he went, I doubt he would have made much impact on world awareness of climate change. You can’t save the world without a carbon footprint.
If Al Gore lived in a cave, depended on daylight, and walked everywhere he went, I doubt he would have made much impact on world awareness of climate change. You can’t save the world without a carbon footprint.
Aaron: Oh come on, he’s not as bad as that. I’m no big fan of Gore, I prefer my science from the scientists rather than from populizers, but this seems to me to be little more than shooting the messenger. Just how is Gore so hypocritical that he’s harming the message, and do you think anyone else wouldn’t be the object of serious attacks by climate change deniers? These people are intensely dishonest, quite willing to invent “facts”, take scientists’ words out of context and repeat discredited arguments. Please provide the person who has Gore’s stature and communication abilities who will replace him and who won’t be immediately attacked personally and professionally. Anyone who flies a personal jet rather than going economy or by train and then claims to be against pollution is a hypocrite. Anyone who lives in a mansion but tells others to be frugal with their energy and material consumption appears to be a hypocrite. Someone who salves his conscience publicly by buying offsets rather than reducing his consumption is hypocritical. This option is only available for the rich, I don’t like the concept of offsets in principle and I would think that any one wishing to effect change in others would change their own actions first to set a good example. As for someone who could do a better job, perhaps not with democrats, and who has actually implemented some changes and is a US citizen. How about Arnie from California, manages to create unity between republicans and democrats and implements policy changes and communicates well. As for the deniers, you are correct they will continue to deny but I don’t think that Al Gore helps except amongst those inclined to his view already and then mostly on his side of the political fence or who can see ways to make political capital out of it. How do you propose to make the large-scale use of fossil fuels to produce energy illegal? It isn’t the use of fossil fuels that is the problem it is the pollution they produce. So, require that utilities reduce their CO2 emmissions (worked for sulphur when we all worried about acid rain) per watt transmitted into peoples homes. How they do it is their problem, though upgrading the transmission grid would help a lot and it would be a good incentive to use waste as a fuel source (get rid of a lot of pollution from landfills) and invest in alternative energy sorces such as wave power. Require new homes to have insulation and double glazing to a minimum standard, require cars to be more fuel efficient i.e. better mpl (mpg for USAians) etc lots of things some small some large but imposed on all equally unlike road tolls and other taxes. Perhaps you could explain this to me. I simply don’t understand the statement. If one is not sitting in an elected position, then, by definition, one is not an elected official. My point is he is a failed politician, when he was elected he was a succesful politician. You may have guessed that I have a visceral reaction against big Al. I don’t find him to be a good communicator (comes across as arrogant and condescending) and I don’t like people who paint the lily. Though as this post was originally about the peace prize, perhaps you could explain what he has done for peace? Has he organised peace conferences, reduced the size of any armies, negotiated any peace settlements?
Aaron: Oh come on, he’s not as bad as that. I’m no big fan of Gore, I prefer my science from the scientists rather than from populizers, but this seems to me to be little more than shooting the messenger. Just how is Gore so hypocritical that he’s harming the message, and do you think anyone else wouldn’t be the object of serious attacks by climate change deniers? These people are intensely dishonest, quite willing to invent “facts”, take scientists’ words out of context and repeat discredited arguments. Please provide the person who has Gore’s stature and communication abilities who will replace him and who won’t be immediately attacked personally and professionally. Anyone who flies a personal jet rather than going economy or by train and then claims to be against pollution is a hypocrite. Anyone who lives in a mansion but tells others to be frugal with their energy and material consumption appears to be a hypocrite. Someone who salves his conscience publicly by buying offsets rather than reducing his consumption is hypocritical. This option is only available for the rich, I don’t like the concept of offsets in principle and I would think that any one wishing to effect change in others would change their own actions first to set a good example. As for someone who could do a better job, perhaps not with democrats, and who has actually implemented some changes and is a US citizen. How about Arnie from California, manages to create unity between republicans and democrats and implements policy changes and communicates well. As for the deniers, you are correct they will continue to deny but I don’t think that Al Gore helps except amongst those inclined to his view already and then mostly on his side of the political fence or who can see ways to make political capital out of it. How do you propose to make the large-scale use of fossil fuels to produce energy illegal? It isn’t the use of fossil fuels that is the problem it is the pollution they produce. So, require that utilities reduce their CO2 emmissions (worked for sulphur when we all worried about acid rain) per watt transmitted into peoples homes. How they do it is their problem, though upgrading the transmission grid would help a lot and it would be a good incentive to use waste as a fuel source (get rid of a lot of pollution from landfills) and invest in alternative energy sorces such as wave power. Require new homes to have insulation and double glazing to a minimum standard, require cars to be more fuel efficient i.e. better mpl (mpg for USAians) etc lots of things some small some large but imposed on all equally unlike road tolls and other taxes. Perhaps you could explain this to me. I simply don’t understand the statement. If one is not sitting in an elected position, then, by definition, one is not an elected official. My point is he is a failed politician, when he was elected he was a succesful politician. You may have guessed that I have a visceral reaction against big Al. I don’t find him to be a good communicator (comes across as arrogant and condescending) and I don’t like people who paint the lily. Though as this post was originally about the peace prize, perhaps you could explain what he has done for peace? Has he organised peace conferences, reduced the size of any armies, negotiated any peace settlements?
Aaron: Oh come on, he’s not as bad as that. I’m no big fan of Gore, I prefer my science from the scientists rather than from populizers, but this seems to me to be little more than shooting the messenger. Just how is Gore so hypocritical that he’s harming the message, and do you think anyone else wouldn’t be the object of serious attacks by climate change deniers? These people are intensely dishonest, quite willing to invent “facts”, take scientists’ words out of context and repeat discredited arguments. Please provide the person who has Gore’s stature and communication abilities who will replace him and who won’t be immediately attacked personally and professionally. Anyone who flies a personal jet rather than going economy or by train and then claims to be against pollution is a hypocrite. Anyone who lives in a mansion but tells others to be frugal with their energy and material consumption appears to be a hypocrite. Someone who salves his conscience publicly by buying offsets rather than reducing his consumption is hypocritical. This option is only available for the rich, I don’t like the concept of offsets in principle and I would think that any one wishing to effect change in others would change their own actions first to set a good example. As for someone who could do a better job, perhaps not with democrats, and who has actually implemented some changes and is a US citizen. How about Arnie from California, manages to create unity between republicans and democrats and implements policy changes and communicates well. As for the deniers, you are correct they will continue to deny but I don’t think that Al Gore helps except amongst those inclined to his view already and then mostly on his side of the political fence or who can see ways to make political capital out of it. How do you propose to make the large-scale use of fossil fuels to produce energy illegal? It isn’t the use of fossil fuels that is the problem it is the pollution they produce. So, require that utilities reduce their CO2 emmissions (worked for sulphur when we all worried about acid rain) per watt transmitted into peoples homes. How they do it is their problem, though upgrading the transmission grid would help a lot and it would be a good incentive to use waste as a fuel source (get rid of a lot of pollution from landfills) and invest in alternative energy sorces such as wave power. Require new homes to have insulation and double glazing to a minimum standard, require cars to be more fuel efficient i.e. better mpl (mpg for USAians) etc lots of things some small some large but imposed on all equally unlike road tolls and other taxes. Perhaps you could explain this to me. I simply don’t understand the statement. If one is not sitting in an elected position, then, by definition, one is not an elected official. My point is he is a failed politician, when he was elected he was a succesful politician. You may have guessed that I have a visceral reaction against big Al. I don’t find him to be a good communicator (comes across as arrogant and condescending) and I don’t like people who paint the lily. Though as this post was originally about the peace prize, perhaps you could explain what he has done for peace? Has he organised peace conferences, reduced the size of any armies, negotiated any peace settlements?
Aaron: Oh come on, he’s not as bad as that. I’m no big fan of Gore, I prefer my science from the scientists rather than from populizers, but this seems to me to be little more than shooting the messenger. Just how is Gore so hypocritical that he’s harming the message, and do you think anyone else wouldn’t be the object of serious attacks by climate change deniers? These people are intensely dishonest, quite willing to invent “facts”, take scientists’ words out of context and repeat discredited arguments. Please provide the person who has Gore’s stature and communication abilities who will replace him and who won’t be immediately attacked personally and professionally. Anyone who flies a personal jet rather than going economy or by train and then claims to be against pollution is a hypocrite. Anyone who lives in a mansion but tells others to be frugal with their energy and material consumption appears to be a hypocrite. Someone who salves his conscience publicly by buying offsets rather than reducing his consumption is hypocritical. This option is only available for the rich, I don’t like the concept of offsets in principle and I would think that any one wishing to effect change in others would change their own actions first to set a good example. As for someone who could do a better job, perhaps not with democrats, and who has actually implemented some changes and is a US citizen. How about Arnie from California, manages to create unity between republicans and democrats and implements policy changes and communicates well. As for the deniers, you are correct they will continue to deny but I don’t think that Al Gore helps except amongst those inclined to his view already and then mostly on his side of the political fence or who can see ways to make political capital out of it. How do you propose to make the large-scale use of fossil fuels to produce energy illegal? It isn’t the use of fossil fuels that is the problem it is the pollution they produce. So, require that utilities reduce their CO2 emmissions (worked for sulphur when we all worried about acid rain) per watt transmitted into peoples homes. How they do it is their problem, though upgrading the transmission grid would help a lot and it would be a good incentive to use waste as a fuel source (get rid of a lot of pollution from landfills) and invest in alternative energy sorces such as wave power. Require new homes to have insulation and double glazing to a minimum standard, require cars to be more fuel efficient i.e. better mpl (mpg for USAians) etc lots of things some small some large but imposed on all equally unlike road tolls and other taxes. Perhaps you could explain this to me. I simply don’t understand the statement. If one is not sitting in an elected position, then, by definition, one is not an elected official. My point is he is a failed politician, when he was elected he was a succesful politician. You may have guessed that I have a visceral reaction against big Al. I don’t find him to be a good communicator (comes across as arrogant and condescending) and I don’t like people who paint the lily. Though as this post was originally about the peace prize, perhaps you could explain what he has done for peace? Has he organised peace conferences, reduced the size of any armies, negotiated any peace settlements?
Aaron: Oh come on, he’s not as bad as that. I’m no big fan of Gore, I prefer my science from the scientists rather than from populizers, but this seems to me to be little more than shooting the messenger. Just how is Gore so hypocritical that he’s harming the message, and do you think anyone else wouldn’t be the object of serious attacks by climate change deniers? These people are intensely dishonest, quite willing to invent “facts”, take scientists’ words out of context and repeat discredited arguments. Please provide the person who has Gore’s stature and communication abilities who will replace him and who won’t be immediately attacked personally and professionally. Anyone who flies a personal jet rather than going economy or by train and then claims to be against pollution is a hypocrite. Anyone who lives in a mansion but tells others to be frugal with their energy and material consumption appears to be a hypocrite. Someone who salves his conscience publicly by buying offsets rather than reducing his consumption is hypocritical. This option is only available for the rich, I don’t like the concept of offsets in principle and I would think that any one wishing to effect change in others would change their own actions first to set a good example. As for someone who could do a better job, perhaps not with democrats, and who has actually implemented some changes and is a US citizen. How about Arnie from California, manages to create unity between republicans and democrats and implements policy changes and communicates well. As for the deniers, you are correct they will continue to deny but I don’t think that Al Gore helps except amongst those inclined to his view already and then mostly on his side of the political fence or who can see ways to make political capital out of it. How do you propose to make the large-scale use of fossil fuels to produce energy illegal? It isn’t the use of fossil fuels that is the problem it is the pollution they produce. So, require that utilities reduce their CO2 emmissions (worked for sulphur when we all worried about acid rain) per watt transmitted into peoples homes. How they do it is their problem, though upgrading the transmission grid would help a lot and it would be a good incentive to use waste as a fuel source (get rid of a lot of pollution from landfills) and invest in alternative energy sorces such as wave power. Require new homes to have insulation and double glazing to a minimum standard, require cars to be more fuel efficient i.e. better mpl (mpg for USAians) etc lots of things some small some large but imposed on all equally unlike road tolls and other taxes. Perhaps you could explain this to me. I simply don’t understand the statement. If one is not sitting in an elected position, then, by definition, one is not an elected official. My point is he is a failed politician, when he was elected he was a succesful politician. You may have guessed that I have a visceral reaction against big Al. I don’t find him to be a good communicator (comes across as arrogant and condescending) and I don’t like people who paint the lily. Though as this post was originally about the peace prize, perhaps you could explain what he has done for peace? Has he organised peace conferences, reduced the size of any armies, negotiated any peace settlements?
Chris’ Wills wrote: Anyone who flies a personal jet rather than going economy or by train and then claims to be against pollution is a hypocrite. Anyone who lives in a mansion but tells others to be frugal with their energy and material consumption appears to be a hypocrite. Someone who salves his conscience publicly by buying offsets rather than reducing his consumption is hypocritical. This option is only available for the rich, I don’t like the concept of offsets in principle and I would think that any one wishing to effect change in others would change their own actions first to set a good example. So your big objection is that he’s rich and uses his wealth. Playboy once asked John Lennon about the nature of being wealthy and wanting to change things: PLAYBOY: John, do you really need all those houses around the country? LENNON: They’re good business. PLAYBOY: Why does anyone need $150,000,000? Couldn’t you be perfectly content with $100,000,000? Or $1,000,000? LENNON: What would you suggest I do? Give everything away and walk the streets? The Buddhist says, “Get rid of the possessions of the mind.” Walking away from all the money would not accomplish that… You may have guessed that I have a visceral reaction against big Al. I don’t find him to be a good communicator (comes across as arrogant and condescending) and I don’t like people who paint the lily. Now we’re getting into subjective territory. You don’t like him. You react with strong emotions against him. Though as this post was originally about the peace prize, perhaps you could explain what he has done for peace? Has he organised peace conferences, reduced the size of any armies, negotiated any peace settlements? I already said it wasn’t a perfect fit, but I can guarantee that within the fifty to a hundred years, climate change is going to become a major factor, if not THE major factor in geopolitics. When rain belts change, and populations that once sat in reasonably arable land suddenly find themselves in deserts, we’re going to see massive migrations, political instability and yes, wars. I think there’s some argument to be made that it’s already under way. As a Canadian (I’m one too, eh), you ought to know the intense interest the US is showing in the vast stores of fresh water sitting north of the 49th parallel. With the way that governments, bought and owned by Big Oil and Big Industry, are dragging their feet and really moving forward only at a snail’s pace, I think people like Gore are rather important in speaking directly to the consumer/voter, but if you can name somebody who can do it better, then by all means do so.
Aaron: So your big objection is that he’s rich and uses his wealth. Playboy once asked John Lennon about the nature of being wealthy and wanting to change things: I’ve no problem with people being wealthy, seems like a good idea to me and I am trying to join them at the trough. I did make the simple comment that if someone wants to effect change they should set a good example. Al Gore doesn’t set a good example and so makes himself an easy target. I am too young to remember much about John Lennon but I don’t recollect him asking people to do things that he wouldn’t or hadn’t. He set a good example, so my elder sisters told me. It isn’t about how wealthy someone is, it is the example they set. Now we’re getting into subjective territory. You don’t like him. You react with strong emotions against him. I react with strong emotions for the reasons I gave. To me he comes across as disingenuous. I actually do want less pollution and more efficient use of resources, it is how that comes about that is my concern. With the way that governments, bought and owned by Big Oil and Big Industry, are dragging their feet and really moving forward only at a snail’s pace, I think people like Gore are rather important in speaking directly to the consumer/voter, but if you can name somebody who can do it better, then by all means do so. I did name someone I thought could do better and who is effecting real change. Hopefully his example will be followed. Big Business can buy some goverments, this is true as money talks. but I can guarantee that within the fifty to a hundred years, climate change is going to become a major factor, if not THE major factor in geopolitics. When rain belts change, and populations that once sat in reasonably arable land suddenly find themselves in deserts, we’re going to see massive migrations, political instability and yes, wars. I think there’s some argument to be made that it’s already under way. As a Canadian (I’m one too, eh), you ought to know the intense interest the US is showing in the vast stores of fresh water sitting north of the 49th parallel. Water and food shortages have been a problem in this part of the world for a while now and have led to tension, also between India & Pakistan and between Russia & some former soviets; nothing new there. Even if I disagreed with your prognosis about the future (which I don’t, even without climate change it would be the probable scenario given human population growth) how would I collect if you are wrong :o) Even though I’m not a Canadian I do know about the political turmoil going on about who owns what in the Artic and rights to use the NW passage, personally I think Canada has the better claims, especially vis-a-vis USA and Russia. But the artic problem can’t be blamed on climate change per se, the Russians are interested in possible oil deposits and Artic drilling had commenced, though was very expensive, many years ago; most notably by Canada & Norway. The melting of the ice just makes it less expensive. I didn’t know about the fresh water and US interest. I’ll have to look that up.
Aaron: So your big objection is that he’s rich and uses his wealth. Playboy once asked John Lennon about the nature of being wealthy and wanting to change things: I’ve no problem with people being wealthy, seems like a good idea to me and I am trying to join them at the trough. I did make the simple comment that if someone wants to effect change they should set a good example. Al Gore doesn’t set a good example and so makes himself an easy target. I am too young to remember much about John Lennon but I don’t recollect him asking people to do things that he wouldn’t or hadn’t. He set a good example, so my elder sisters told me. It isn’t about how wealthy someone is, it is the example they set. Now we’re getting into subjective territory. You don’t like him. You react with strong emotions against him. I react with strong emotions for the reasons I gave. To me he comes across as disingenuous. I actually do want less pollution and more efficient use of resources, it is how that comes about that is my concern. With the way that governments, bought and owned by Big Oil and Big Industry, are dragging their feet and really moving forward only at a snail’s pace, I think people like Gore are rather important in speaking directly to the consumer/voter, but if you can name somebody who can do it better, then by all means do so. I did name someone I thought could do better and who is effecting real change. Hopefully his example will be followed. Big Business can buy some goverments, this is true as money talks. but I can guarantee that within the fifty to a hundred years, climate change is going to become a major factor, if not THE major factor in geopolitics. When rain belts change, and populations that once sat in reasonably arable land suddenly find themselves in deserts, we’re going to see massive migrations, political instability and yes, wars. I think there’s some argument to be made that it’s already under way. As a Canadian (I’m one too, eh), you ought to know the intense interest the US is showing in the vast stores of fresh water sitting north of the 49th parallel. Water and food shortages have been a problem in this part of the world for a while now and have led to tension, also between India & Pakistan and between Russia & some former soviets; nothing new there. Even if I disagreed with your prognosis about the future (which I don’t, even without climate change it would be the probable scenario given human population growth) how would I collect if you are wrong :o) Even though I’m not a Canadian I do know about the political turmoil going on about who owns what in the Artic and rights to use the NW passage, personally I think Canada has the better claims, especially vis-a-vis USA and Russia. But the artic problem can’t be blamed on climate change per se, the Russians are interested in possible oil deposits and Artic drilling had commenced, though was very expensive, many years ago; most notably by Canada & Norway. The melting of the ice just makes it less expensive. I didn’t know about the fresh water and US interest. I’ll have to look that up.
Aaron: So your big objection is that he’s rich and uses his wealth. Playboy once asked John Lennon about the nature of being wealthy and wanting to change things: I’ve no problem with people being wealthy, seems like a good idea to me and I am trying to join them at the trough. I did make the simple comment that if someone wants to effect change they should set a good example. Al Gore doesn’t set a good example and so makes himself an easy target. I am too young to remember much about John Lennon but I don’t recollect him asking people to do things that he wouldn’t or hadn’t. He set a good example, so my elder sisters told me. It isn’t about how wealthy someone is, it is the example they set. Now we’re getting into subjective territory. You don’t like him. You react with strong emotions against him. I react with strong emotions for the reasons I gave. To me he comes across as disingenuous. I actually do want less pollution and more efficient use of resources, it is how that comes about that is my concern. With the way that governments, bought and owned by Big Oil and Big Industry, are dragging their feet and really moving forward only at a snail’s pace, I think people like Gore are rather important in speaking directly to the consumer/voter, but if you can name somebody who can do it better, then by all means do so. I did name someone I thought could do better and who is effecting real change. Hopefully his example will be followed. Big Business can buy some goverments, this is true as money talks. but I can guarantee that within the fifty to a hundred years, climate change is going to become a major factor, if not THE major factor in geopolitics. When rain belts change, and populations that once sat in reasonably arable land suddenly find themselves in deserts, we’re going to see massive migrations, political instability and yes, wars. I think there’s some argument to be made that it’s already under way. As a Canadian (I’m one too, eh), you ought to know the intense interest the US is showing in the vast stores of fresh water sitting north of the 49th parallel. Water and food shortages have been a problem in this part of the world for a while now and have led to tension, also between India & Pakistan and between Russia & some former soviets; nothing new there. Even if I disagreed with your prognosis about the future (which I don’t, even without climate change it would be the probable scenario given human population growth) how would I collect if you are wrong :o) Even though I’m not a Canadian I do know about the political turmoil going on about who owns what in the Artic and rights to use the NW passage, personally I think Canada has the better claims, especially vis-a-vis USA and Russia. But the artic problem can’t be blamed on climate change per se, the Russians are interested in possible oil deposits and Artic drilling had commenced, though was very expensive, many years ago; most notably by Canada & Norway. The melting of the ice just makes it less expensive. I didn’t know about the fresh water and US interest. I’ll have to look that up.
Aaron: So your big objection is that he’s rich and uses his wealth. Playboy once asked John Lennon about the nature of being wealthy and wanting to change things: I’ve no problem with people being wealthy, seems like a good idea to me and I am trying to join them at the trough. I did make the simple comment that if someone wants to effect change they should set a good example. Al Gore doesn’t set a good example and so makes himself an easy target. I am too young to remember much about John Lennon but I don’t recollect him asking people to do things that he wouldn’t or hadn’t. He set a good example, so my elder sisters told me. It isn’t about how wealthy someone is, it is the example they set. Now we’re getting into subjective territory. You don’t like him. You react with strong emotions against him. I react with strong emotions for the reasons I gave. To me he comes across as disingenuous. I actually do want less pollution and more efficient use of resources, it is how that comes about that is my concern. With the way that governments, bought and owned by Big Oil and Big Industry, are dragging their feet and really moving forward only at a snail’s pace, I think people like Gore are rather important in speaking directly to the consumer/voter, but if you can name somebody who can do it better, then by all means do so. I did name someone I thought could do better and who is effecting real change. Hopefully his example will be followed. Big Business can buy some goverments, this is true as money talks. but I can guarantee that within the fifty to a hundred years, climate change is going to become a major factor, if not THE major factor in geopolitics. When rain belts change, and populations that once sat in reasonably arable land suddenly find themselves in deserts, we’re going to see massive migrations, political instability and yes, wars. I think there’s some argument to be made that it’s already under way. As a Canadian (I’m one too, eh), you ought to know the intense interest the US is showing in the vast stores of fresh water sitting north of the 49th parallel. Water and food shortages have been a problem in this part of the world for a while now and have led to tension, also between India & Pakistan and between Russia & some former soviets; nothing new there. Even if I disagreed with your prognosis about the future (which I don’t, even without climate change it would be the probable scenario given human population growth) how would I collect if you are wrong :o) Even though I’m not a Canadian I do know about the political turmoil going on about who owns what in the Artic and rights to use the NW passage, personally I think Canada has the better claims, especially vis-a-vis USA and Russia. But the artic problem can’t be blamed on climate change per se, the Russians are interested in possible oil deposits and Artic drilling had commenced, though was very expensive, many years ago; most notably by Canada & Norway. The melting of the ice just makes it less expensive. I didn’t know about the fresh water and US interest. I’ll have to look that up.
Aaron: So your big objection is that he’s rich and uses his wealth. Playboy once asked John Lennon about the nature of being wealthy and wanting to change things: I’ve no problem with people being wealthy, seems like a good idea to me and I am trying to join them at the trough. I did make the simple comment that if someone wants to effect change they should set a good example. Al Gore doesn’t set a good example and so makes himself an easy target. I am too young to remember much about John Lennon but I don’t recollect him asking people to do things that he wouldn’t or hadn’t. He set a good example, so my elder sisters told me. It isn’t about how wealthy someone is, it is the example they set. Now we’re getting into subjective territory. You don’t like him. You react with strong emotions against him. I react with strong emotions for the reasons I gave. To me he comes across as disingenuous. I actually do want less pollution and more efficient use of resources, it is how that comes about that is my concern. With the way that governments, bought and owned by Big Oil and Big Industry, are dragging their feet and really moving forward only at a snail’s pace, I think people like Gore are rather important in speaking directly to the consumer/voter, but if you can name somebody who can do it better, then by all means do so. I did name someone I thought could do better and who is effecting real change. Hopefully his example will be followed. Big Business can buy some goverments, this is true as money talks. but I can guarantee that within the fifty to a hundred years, climate change is going to become a major factor, if not THE major factor in geopolitics. When rain belts change, and populations that once sat in reasonably arable land suddenly find themselves in deserts, we’re going to see massive migrations, political instability and yes, wars. I think there’s some argument to be made that it’s already under way. As a Canadian (I’m one too, eh), you ought to know the intense interest the US is showing in the vast stores of fresh water sitting north of the 49th parallel. Water and food shortages have been a problem in this part of the world for a while now and have led to tension, also between India & Pakistan and between Russia & some former soviets; nothing new there. Even if I disagreed with your prognosis about the future (which I don’t, even without climate change it would be the probable scenario given human population growth) how would I collect if you are wrong :o) Even though I’m not a Canadian I do know about the political turmoil going on about who owns what in the Artic and rights to use the NW passage, personally I think Canada has the better claims, especially vis-a-vis USA and Russia. But the artic problem can’t be blamed on climate change per se, the Russians are interested in possible oil deposits and Artic drilling had commenced, though was very expensive, many years ago; most notably by Canada & Norway. The melting of the ice just makes it less expensive. I didn’t know about the fresh water and US interest. I’ll have to look that up.
Chris, I don’t see how your complaints about Gore make a bit of sense. Hypocrisy? The challenges posed by global warming are not going to be addressed by saintly individuals voluntarily reducing their consumption of fossil fuels. Why would you hold it against Gore that he is not making enough pointless and counterproductive symbolic gestures? Suggesting that individuals being virtuous will make a difference in global warming is to be dishonest. It’s a global challenge that has to be met by international cooperation.
Daryl #13 If someone tells me to sacrifice for the common good I would expect them to be an exemplar. I wouldn’t listen to someone telling me to become a vegetarian for the common good whilst they continue eating steak and saying that it is OK for them to eat steak because they can afford to pay others to grow lots of vegetables as an offset. You are incorrect, it is lots of people being “virtuous” that will make a difference (“many a mickle makes a muckle” as the saying goes), in fact nothing else will do unless you envision draconian laws and preventing the peasants from travelling. People vote and politicians see votes, also what people buy affects the producers. But people are unlikley to be moved when one of the most visible proponents of a movement doesn’t practice what they preach. People have to be convinced not threatened and, in democracies, it should be clear that the actions are equitable. It isn’t hypocrisy on my part, I’m not telling people to cut back on their consumption whilst not reducing my own. I’m not proposing to increase fuel/energy taxes claiming it is for the common good knowing perfectly well that it will hurt the poor more than me.
Daryl #13 If someone tells me to sacrifice for the common good I would expect them to be an exemplar. I wouldn’t listen to someone telling me to become a vegetarian for the common good whilst they continue eating steak and saying that it is OK for them to eat steak because they can afford to pay others to grow lots of vegetables as an offset. You are incorrect, it is lots of people being “virtuous” that will make a difference (“many a mickle makes a muckle” as the saying goes), in fact nothing else will do unless you envision draconian laws and preventing the peasants from travelling. People vote and politicians see votes, also what people buy affects the producers. But people are unlikley to be moved when one of the most visible proponents of a movement doesn’t practice what they preach. People have to be convinced not threatened and, in democracies, it should be clear that the actions are equitable. It isn’t hypocrisy on my part, I’m not telling people to cut back on their consumption whilst not reducing my own. I’m not proposing to increase fuel/energy taxes claiming it is for the common good knowing perfectly well that it will hurt the poor more than me.
Daryl #13 If someone tells me to sacrifice for the common good I would expect them to be an exemplar. I wouldn’t listen to someone telling me to become a vegetarian for the common good whilst they continue eating steak and saying that it is OK for them to eat steak because they can afford to pay others to grow lots of vegetables as an offset. You are incorrect, it is lots of people being “virtuous” that will make a difference (“many a mickle makes a muckle” as the saying goes), in fact nothing else will do unless you envision draconian laws and preventing the peasants from travelling. People vote and politicians see votes, also what people buy affects the producers. But people are unlikley to be moved when one of the most visible proponents of a movement doesn’t practice what they preach. People have to be convinced not threatened and, in democracies, it should be clear that the actions are equitable. It isn’t hypocrisy on my part, I’m not telling people to cut back on their consumption whilst not reducing my own. I’m not proposing to increase fuel/energy taxes claiming it is for the common good knowing perfectly well that it will hurt the poor more than me.