Mostirritatingnewaccoundever’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What JMC said

  Yup.  Worry about the organic content of your bottled water, in your oversized fuel efficient SUV, eating Trans-fat-free fast food.  
    Most people that are using hypocracy to slam Al Gore for not using a bike to travel to China for an environmental summit are doing so as they themselves are contributing to the problem in more ways than not recyling.  To be honest, I'm not drinking fair trade organic coffee as I write this.  My shoes are partially leather and i don't live in a sustainable hollowed log, eating only what falls on the forest floor.  But my jeans are second hand and I'm taking the bus home.  I do a lot less damage to the movement than people that try to discredit all environmentalism because they can find examples of hypocracy and in some cases, insanity.  
    Gr$$npiece bashing the i-Phone because it has flame retardents in the circuitry is one example.  How much carbon offset is created when your house burns down?  Many people dispute God because of the corruption of the Church.  It's a great example of flawed logic.  Finding 9 inconsistant facts in a movie (Inconvienient Truth) with over a thousand true facts discredits the whole thing.  One being the hottest days in history.  While the film was made, NASA's research stated the figures were true, so it was considered true.  When they learned of their error, every person trying to convince themselves that Global Warming doesn't exist had the flawed logic they needed.  If you carry over that logic, since NASA was the one that provided the research, that must mean that the Moon Landing is a big myth too.  Look at the 60's movement.  Can we discredit peace and love because the majority of people that supported the hippie movement are now seniors that vote for Bush and hate Mexicans?  When you remove the human factor of manipulation and self serving logic, it's pretty clear.  We have all the documented evidence we need to prove that irresponcible development hurts lives, jobs, freedom, equality, and quite possibly our chances of survival, if not to the courts, then to ourselves.  If Global Warming is a natural occurance that would happen anyways, and not caused by humans, shouldn't our concern be surviving it, not saying "Oh well, it's not our fault"  And take absolutely no action to reduce the damage and increase our chances of survival?  
    September 11, 2001, did they decide to stall all efforts of saving people in the rubble to focus their attention on who financed the attack?  (Actually they decided that the identity's of the financeer's of the attack were 'irrelevant.')On Talking Rain adds organic water flavors posted 2 years ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Carbon sink, more like eco-trash compacter

  Its simply a flawed arguement.  But I'll bite.  Say that somehow, the US sucks up more carbon that it spits out (quite the feat, considering only 10% of its forrests are left, and US'ers are responcible for 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the pollution)  That means that everyone else is more of a carbon sink, so no bragging rights.  Then there's the fact that the US is actively trying to make sure that no countries recieve compensation for being a carbon sink from the UN, cuz their afraid of big scary countries like the Congo lording their rainforrests over poor little USA.  Then theres the fact that if it was true, the only environmental contribution that the States has ever given the world is completely co-incidental, un-intentional, and soon to be rectified.  Yup, we should be grateful to the US.  Now we know what BS smells like.On Only if you ignore fossil fuel emissions posted 2 years ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Risk Management

  This is how I see the present: Dedicated environmentalists counting carbon and figuring out wheither its more productive to ride a bike or walk, or reuse cups, as corporations are getting better at greenwashing every day.  

  This is how I see the future:  Every single person being so greenwashed that we sit in unheated homes, eating cold soy product, as super ethenol tankers drive by, origionally designed to save the planet but ended up replacing fossil fuels as the leading source of pollution.  Nanotechnologies that were railroaded through the system to address environmental concerns being used to compost the dead to be fed introveniously to the living.  

    We can't solve problems with the same thinking that created them.  Albert Einstein said that.  We can't use super technologies to keep an unrealistic standard of living, because it only results in super disasters and a lower standard of living.  Chemichal pesticides were created to solve food shortages.  They failed.  What we come up with next will fail.  Fossil fuel failed, and so will ethenol and bio-fuel and "safe" nuclear energy.  The reason: what do you think?  Major corporations turn everything into a disaster.  We could have used fossil fuel for hundreds of years without anything bad happening.  But instead of pulling out oil as we needed it, we pulled out everything all at once, as cheap as possible and got everyone to use it as much as possible.  Untill we address our acceptance of this as the standard business model, we could destroy the environment with cute bunny rabbits, bubbles and sandals.  

    I hope I can sum it up with this: Corporations have no intention of changing themselves.  They have every intention of changing us.  To them, the waste they produce is neccissary, the waste we produce is not.  They will come up with figures that say its more environmental to continue polluting, and create less, than to stop polluting and make more.  And we will accept these figures.  On Bjorn Lomborg's new book misunderstands risk and investment posted 2 years ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Godly must be crazy

  I almost find this unbelievable.  Unfortunately, as a religious person, I am familiar with the willingness for Christians to do Satans work for Jesus.  Just like burning witches, hardcore Christians are always willing to lend a hand in the damnation of the human race.  The social implications of rushing Doomsday aside, it's a moral sin to tarnish Gods works whether or not the big guys planning a big demo-project.  Imagine... Jesus at the last supper; telling his desciples to remember him and his sacrifice.  Oh, and by the way... in about 2000 years, I'm going to make it OK to poison children, since my dad is going to be making things better after.  On Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment posted 2 years ago 3 Responses