Comments Angelsnecropolis has made

P vs R

Im not an expert but I think progressive is you make more you pay more and vice versa. Hence the high tax brackets. The regressive tax is everyone pays the same whether youre poor or rich. Bill gates would pay as much as I would. Anyone can correct me if Im wrong. I cant wikipedia at work =þOn More on conservatives and carbon taxes posted 10 months ago 15 Responses

because...

I can't afford to pay 20k to 30k for enough solar pv to put on my roof. Plus I have a lot of trees where I live. Don't get much sun and the trees block a lot of wind. I've looked at residential wind turbines and they cost 12k each. A small $300 version makes enough electricity to run my toaster.

The average person can't afford to go all solar pv (at current prices) and the govn isn't going to front the bill to put PV on every rooftop.

BTW, how do you get your electricity?On Seeing the light in the Pew poll on Americans' top priorities posted 10 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

To Debate the Science Is Pointless

There is no adequate way to debate with a liar. IMO, the best way would be to act as if it was a criminal trial. When one side makes a claim they will need to provide evidence to support the claim. The other individual in the debate would then need to make a counter-argument and show evidence to support his claim which would also need to state the other claim is false. Make it a point system. The side with the most claims that have been verified as factual would win. Any statements based on assumptions or "expert opinions" would be thrown out without some sort of data behind the statement.

But there is no way to do that in a standard debate with a liar. The liar knows the scientists can't provide convincing evidence to counter the lie. Both persons would have to bring an innumerable amount of research papers or sit down with a laptop and research each claim to find a counter-argument. Therefore, there is no point in having a standard debate.

Besides, science isn't meant to be debated, it's meant to be proven true or false by tests and observations. This is why science won't win in debates. It's the wrong format for discussion. It should be more like a criminal trial where each side has to prove their points.
On The idiocy of crowds or, rather, the idiocy of (crowded) debates posted 10 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

Grave Digging

Humanity, as a whole, doesn't care about the future. They only care about the here and now. Mitigating climate change isn't in the best interests of corporate America NOW. They may sing a different tune in 50 years when it's too late but that's how humans adapt. Humanity only does the bare minimum to get by. It takes 9/11 to make airplanes save. It takes a flooded city to make dams safe. It takes a collapsed bridge to realize bridges need to be safer. It'll take a global catastrophe before humanity realizes that it needs to take precautions. Humans are more concerned with their own little bubble worlds than the world at whole. When that time comes we won't have the luxury of choosing whether we want to drive an SUV or eco-friendly car. At that point in time the SUV may be illegal. As big as the environment has become in the news recently it still won't make a difference unless the government forces the people, en masse, to change.

Politics will want to try and find a middle ground between what the science tells us and what the corporations want; however, you can't negotiate with nature. Nature will set it's limits and if you cross them it will destroy you.

You can't reason with the hurricanes, the floods, the droughts, or the monsoons.

Construction companies don't want to build with eco-materials? Well tough shit. You're going to have to. You don't want to drive a zero impact car and you want to keep driving your CO2 emitting beast? Well tough shit. You don't have a choice. SUV's are now illegal. "Not using coal will hurt my bottom line," says Mr. Coal. Well tough shit. Your coal is killing us all. You better transition to renewable and zero emissions power sources or you won't be in the business of power making anymore. Coal is now illegal. This is what will happen after nature takes back what humanity has stolen.

Of course I still feel we should do what we can to lessen the blow but it's time to think about adapting to the inevitable. Humanity has already picked out its burial plot and stands now to dig its own grave. As it stands now we're on the fast track to digging that grave already.

We won't learn until the hard lesson has already been had. Though that lesson won't affect a few thousand people in a building or a city but will affect the entire world and for hundreds, even thousands of years. But in a way I suppose we got what we deserved.
On IPCC chief challenges Obama to further cut U.S. emission targets posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

What next?

I'll happily contribute but I want to know what he plans to do with 22k acres of land once everyone else has bought it for him.On Tim DeChristopher and Utah stand up to Big Oil posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

differences

I may be an atheist and I don't agree with everything religion does but sometimes you have to put aside your differences for the greater good. On The book of green posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

I disagree

As a member and assistant organizer to a local grassroots movement in Jacksonville FL I've come to realize that funding those grassroots movements is not the answer. Community origination is a good way to get 5 min on a discovery episode or a short article printed in the local media. And when a local news station interviews a family who made their house eco friendly that's only 1 house in the tens of thousands of houses being built unsustainably. These community and grassroots movements are, at best, only good for getting the word out.

Though as much as I think getting the word out is important getting people to act is different. The average Joe won't act unless it affects his wallet. We won't have sustainable building, cars, or energy unless the government gets involved and creates some mandates.

Without new CAFE standards the Big 3 won't make better cars. Without government mandates and laws then new building will be unsustainable. Without regulating carbon or instilling a moratorium, then coal will still be king. Grassroot movements are only a small thorn in the side of the whole problem.

Until it's illegal or mandated we won't see significant changes because the average consumer doesn't care about "made in America" if they can save a few bucks by getting "made in china".
On Why the No New Coal Plants movement should be awarded the Virgin Earth Challenge prize posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 5 Responses

Evil!

Polystyrene is evil and should be avoided at all cost! I can't Google the details at the moment (Im at work) but using anything that is disposable and won't biodegrade for centuries is just evil. Also, I've read info that it can cause very bad things if ingested. There are many cities around the world that have already banned or working on banning polystyrene much to the chagrin of restaurant owners.

Remember the 3 R's: Reduce, Reuse, RecycleOn Umbra on eco-friendly detergents posted 11 months ago 13 Responses

Stupid

Touch a hot stove once and you're ignorant. Touch it twice and you're stupid.

If they didn't learn the first time then I hope they get burned pretty bad the next time.

Idiots.On Bob Lutz: Fuel-efficient cars, like global warming, a crock of sh*t posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

Boot

And Obama needs to give Stephen Johnson a serious boot to the head.On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Celebrate the people, not the holiday...

I'm against most holiday celebrations because they've become a perversion of mass consumerism with no real personal meaning. They tell you Thanksgiving & Christmas is about being with family and therefore is special. But what makes it special to the individual? Cannot any other day of the year have just as much meaning? Why does our society see it fit to reserve just these handful of days as special and ignore the other days?

If I buy a gift for someone it's because that person is special to me and has nothing to do with the day I give the gift.

IMO, the celebration should be for the people and their personal meaning to us and not what day of the year it is. People shouldn't use holidays as excuses to give gifts or thanks while neglectig the other 360 something days you may or may not celebrate.On Umbra on holiday shopping posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

I agree with mwildfire

It would be great if Waxman won on his own but this issue is one that is too important and we need every chance we can get to have the better ones in office.On Tensions mounting among House Dems as Waxman lobbies to replace Dingell posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

Can't see the horizon

I agree that that 100% renewable electricity in 10 years is a pipe dream at this day and age. It would be great and those that can see past the horizon know it is what is needed.

The problem is that the general public and Washington can't see past their front lawns let alone "the horizon". They don't understand the crucial need to make a transition asap and therefore won't put out the money. Politics will muck everything up in the end. Yeah I'm a bit pessimistic. Since Obama was elected I've crossed my fingers and raised an eyebrow but I haven't completely bought that the American people can change enough to ensure a better tomorrow for future generations. But... we'll see how things turn out in the next 4 years.
On Alliance for Climate Protection ramps up calls for renewable-energy plan posted 1 year ago 17 Responses

The Times

All this talk about the "new American economy" and how clean technology will be the future should be a flare shot in the dark to all the "dirty" industries that times of change are approaching.

If gas companies wish to have a future they must diversify their portfolio to include cleaner fuel. The cement industry must find a "greener" alternative or a cleaner method to make their product. Coal power plan companies must invest on wind, solar, geothermal, etc if they want to provide power for the America of the future.

Protecting American jobs now is important but stalling technology or a transition to a cleaner and better future is futile. Should we stop making cars because it put carriage makers out of business? Should we stop using light bulbs because they hurt the candle makers?

Should we stop using [fill in the blank] because it put someone else out of business? The answer is no.

These companies must evolve or transition with the times or they'll become an old and extinct technology that has been replaced by something newer and better.
On The Senate and the union hall: Where American climate policy will succeed or fail posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

Pink Bunnies

Almost everyone that reads sites like these can agree on what we should do with our money. However, history tells another story. As it stands right now our money isn't going to go towards a sustainable infrastructure. Corporate lobbying will buy off our politicians to provide NOT what is best for the economy or the people. Instead they'll invest in what is best for corporate America and all the "Bigs" that make it up. A recent example is the news coming from Virginia about the arrest of the protesters to the coal plant. According to the article it seemed the police was working for the corporation instead of for the people.

Our next leader will have to have a spine to take on "the Bigs" and invest in what we need. I'm a realist and until I actually see the change I won't believe it.

We need important people in Washington to be thinking the same things that this site says as well as others.

Assuming we do start curbing emissions and stick to the plans set up by politicians, we are still forgetting that the politicians plans are the scientists plans.

If you need to get at least a 95% on your next test to pass your class but you're only willing to shoot for 85% well that means you fail.

Thats what I think of these politicians. However, this isnt school and we cant just "make it up" or redo our Earth if we fail the first time. What the politicians want to do isnt going to be enough, even if they do achieve their goals. I hope the scientists are overstating, but I doubt it.

Its just not enough.
On Voices in favor of green stimulus spending posted 1 year, 1 month ago 6 Responses

Should be

I still think electric cars SHOULD be the car of the future. Who wouldn't want a car they can "fuel up" at home? With solar panels it's free fuel.

But the reason Bush is pushing hydrogen and fuel cells are getting all the attention is because you can sell it at the pump. It's difficult to sell electricity at the pump when you can get it at home. Big Oil will eventually have to shift to Big [fill-in-the-blank]. So the'yre probably betting on hydrogen.On Tesla ousts second CEO in two years and plans to cut staff posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Pointless

Watching the debate will be pointless. If you've watched the first debate or read the candidates sites we already know their talking points.

I can guarentee they won't stray from those talking points and I can guarentee they will bring up the same exact things. McCain will once again say Obama will raise taxes and Obama will once again stress hes cutting taxes for 95%.

Just wait for the report afterwards or watch it on youtube.On Presidential candidates meet for their final showdown tonight posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Perfect

This is a perfect example of when "more is less." The problem that we all know about is the consumerism mindset this country has been built on. By telling everyone to "go shopping" the president of the US could be interpreted as wanting the public to be poor or by supporting the bad credit and debt problems this country already faces. Of course we already know he supports the credit industry as opposed to the good of the public.On Budget-saving tips awfully similar to planet-preserving prescriptions posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

The Paycheck

The reason most consumers see "green" as more expensive is that on a day-to-day basis the products they buy and use every day ARE more expensive.

I buy as much natural and organic as I can afford. My budget is restricted and I like my fruit but I can't afford 5.99 per lb for grapes when regular grapes are 1.49 per lb. This is the "expensive" that I have to deal with on a daily basis.

It's the up-front costs that people really notice and care about even if savings can be occurred over long periods of time.

So this credit crisis that is occurring is taking priority since it is hurting families now as opposed to something that will hurt families (and millions of other people) in the future ei climate change.

The problem is that climate change is the more serious of the two issues (something we all know here). But the government doesn't seem to take action until it's too late. Until there are Katrina-like catastrophes happening now and often then the environment (and ironically humanity as a whole) will take the back seat.
On Economic downturn and falling oil push green off the priority list, yet again posted 1 year, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Politics as usual

"He is dedicated to solving the problem. And there's nothing about Sarah Palin that changes that."

They avoid the implications by asserting that MCCAINS position is steady and unchanging and they completely negate the fact that MCCAIN is putting Palin in charge of energy. They're just dodging the questions by stating their usual BS lines over and over again. They don't have to back up their claims. McCain can call Palin an "energy expert" and since he isn't defining what an "energy expert" really entails then he can get away with lying.

This country needs some major reforms that prohibit this kind of BS and the political lies from even occurring or squashing them once they do. Some sort of national media program that actually reports only the facts and news as opposed to political commentary and right or left bias.

Oh that would be wonderful... nothing but facts being reported. sigh
On Obama and McCain advisers spar over whose candidate can best address climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

What if...

The government and corporations weren't controlled by money hungry and environmentally unconcerned individuals that actually gave a damn about the impact of their corruption on those poorer than they.

Everyone could be living on free energy or driving their air cars or EV cars now if it wasn't for the greed and corruption.

It's a nice dream but not one worth writing about. Everyone now knows if the government can caugh up 700b for corporate America they could cough up some billions for EVERYONE ELSE in America.

What if...On What would you do with $700 billion? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 12 Responses

@ saluki

It's not a matter of fascism or "live the way that you want them." Environmentalist, like me, understand the urgency and need for a planetary change. When discussing the future of the planet it motivates people in a way that religion makes zealots of its followers. We see it as a moral obligation to lessen our own impact on the planet or risk dire consequences. I can't speak for everyone but I feel the persons not taking the situation seriously are, in a way, threatening my existence as well as the existence of everyone else. This is why I get worked up because I know there are a lot of people that won't do anything due to laziness or ignorance. I would have to concur that if people don't make changes of their own free will then the government will have to force them to for the sake of everyone.
On Toyota may develop "Prius on steroids" posted 1 year, 1 month ago 22 Responses

In short...

"Will customers care enough about climate to change to bear being cold in the winter and hot in the summer? Will they tolerate rising electric costs without demanding more cheaper coal? Will the preponderance of our populace democratically choose to accept less energy, and its matching lower economic growth for the good of the world? And will China, India, and other nations do so?"

In short. No they won't. The majority of the populace doesn't care about anything outside the range of their daily commute. You can't tell them to eat less meat. You can't tell them to adjust your thermostat. You can't tell them to cope with slightly off lighting for the greater good.

For example: I do almost everything I can to urge my parents to actually give a damn including buying them the CFL's and 100% recycled paper towels. But my father always retorts by calling me a hypocrite for not living in a mud house that utilizes no electricity. It prob doesnt help much trying to convince him since hes a supervisor at Seminole Electric, a coal fired power plant.

My mother refuses to buy the paper towels made from recycled content because it's not as aesthetically pleasing as her Bounty.

To think they care more about the aesthetic appeal instead doing their part to make a difference... It sickens me.
On Without coal, the most catastrophic climate scenarios may not happen posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Crystall... more testing needed

Maybe it's just me and my pits but the crystal doesn't seem to neutralize the smell very well. I've noticed that I don't perspire as much or at all but the smell is still very noticeable. I know it doesn't neutralize smell because the crystal itself stinks =(On Making a stink about green(ish) deodorants posted 1 year, 2 months ago 36 Responses

We Eat GM Anyways

What most people don't understand is that we have been eating genetically modified plants and animals for centuries. Even before peas were being bread for green or yellow colors, we have been mating our animals and plants with those that have the most desirable traits whether that is flavor, texture, shape, color, or any other quality.

By interfering with the processes of natural selection humans are altering the gene pool of the food they eat to get the traits that we want in our food. The only difference in this method of GM and others is it isn't done in a science lab. I've always been a supporter of GM food but only if the traits it creates benefit human society. It's a complete disgrace to the human race when corporations like Monsanto create self destructive seeds so that growers have to continuously buy their seeds. That is just unacceptable.

In regards to cloning... this is just another new technology that people will throw their arms up about without even knowing the facts. One can make the claim that we "don't know if it's safe" but that only show the ignorance of the subject in question. I would challenge the deniers to find evidence to support claims that cloned food is not safe before trying to incite "fear of the new."On Consumers demand market rejection of food from cloned animals posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Import

Anyone have knowledge of importing euro cars?On Ford won't sell 65-mpg diesel car in U.S. posted 1 year, 2 months ago 8 Responses

Why H20 Will Beat EV

The reason Hydrogen will beat the EV car in this race has nothing to do with ease or use or better technology. Its about the all mighty dollar. Think about the millions of gas stations we currently have that would go unused if every car was an EV. Big Oil won't let that happen.

However, It's not difficult to see how a gas station could be retro-fitted to dispense hydrogen instead of gas. Therefore Big Oil will push for a fuel that they can sell and would be difficult or impossible for the average American to utilize.

I'm sure we could all make hydrogen to fill our own tanks but the amount we would need to fill the take would be too energy intensive.

This is why the government and auto manufacturers are going to invest more heavily into Hydrogen instead of a car I can just plug in at home.
On To solve global warming, we need to support every alternative transportation pathway posted 1 year, 2 months ago 22 Responses

Great but...

Unless the event is dedicated to being green continuously then I think it's a wasted effort just like the Academy Awards going carbon neutral and using hybrids for the year An Inconvenient Truth won. IMO, it feels like a media stunt. Are the Oscars still carbon neutral each year? Do they still use hybrids? I have no respect when events promote themselves as being green but it only happens that one time. It completely sends the wrong message that we need sustainability and environmental responsibility CONTINUOUSLY!On The 2008 U.S. Open goes green posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses

cost

The high cost is most likely due to the small scale production. The Tango cost 180k, last I heard, and it used lead acid batteries.

If the company doesn't have the million dollar backing of rich sponsors then cost will soar in order to make enough profit to continue production.On Showcase offers electric vehicle test-drives at DNC; review of an eBox posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Twheel

I'm still in disbelief regarding the development of the twheel. I had read that R&D won't be completed until 2016.

Seriously. How much freakin R&D is needed for a better tire that takes 10 years?! Ridiculous.
On Our right to know about fuel-efficient tires posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

Unfortunate...

It's an unfortunate truth in this country that getting people to change their habits, without the govnt making making it law, will be extremely slow, tedious, or ineffective.

How many people would pick up thier dogs poop if it wasn't illegal? But, of course, I see them not picking it up anyways.

Unless big brother is watching what people put in their trash bags most Americans won't change their habits.

Our company has a green recycling bin for plastic next to the trash bins and I watch with a sad and furious disdain as they put their plastics in the trash. I want to say something but I've already been reprimanded for "being too confrontational" with my greenness.On We waste a lot of food and a lot of water, says report posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Agreed

His motives may not be for the best reasons but that doesn't negate any legitimate arguments he presents. It just means we should be more critical of his arguments. If they have to build more bike lanes, which require asphalt, that additional road construction will create a significant amount of carbon. They'll need to estimate the amount of vehicles expected to be removed from the streets, calculate that carbon cost reduction, then calculate the carbon cost of building more concrete and laying more asphalt as well as any traffic related problems due to construction and any other factors that can't come to mind right now. We all know that asphalt is nasty and dirty so maybe they'll use a "greener" alternative. Although I seriously doubt they will for cost reasons. Being green still ain't cheap unfortunately.On Anti-bike crusader halts San Francisco's cycle-friendly plans posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Patriotism is a Dirty Cookie

A person could appease the patriotic and still be intellectually superior. Even if that person understand that "patriotism" is irrelevant. It may be necessary for a leader to manipulate the people in order to gain power and election and then put his power to use for the greater good. All this while appeasing the ignorant masses and, unknowingly to them, save them from themselves. And loving anything unconditionally isn't something any intelligent person should do. Love and respect are earned. But then again, you may love America, but hate the corporations and corrupt government that controls it. Patriotism is a personal notion and therefore is susceptible to personal interpretation.

One could argue that most republicans or deniers aren't patriotic but that really isn't the point. Whether they are patriotic or not has no legitimate bearing on reality except to invoke unjustifiable emotion. In truth, the repubs and deniers are hurting all of humanity, not just America, by putting profit before people.

I think the accusation of crimes against humanity is a fairer one since their efforts to obstruct and destroy are enabling the possibility of mass death and displacement by Climate Change. But our corrupt government wouldn't be capable of making that claim while the corrupt corporations still keep them fat and happy. What needs to happen is the retraction that corporations can be considered a legal "person."

It's unfortunate, but unless the American people can rally together, in mass, to initiate a full out revolution, I feel our corrupt government will always have one hand in the corporate cookie jar and the other in their own dirty pockets.
On Should we question the patriotism of deniers? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 17 Responses

Reality Check

The reason the presidents don't say such things now is because the majority of Americans are idiots and only want to hear about "Save Me Money" BS. That is why both candidates support "clean coal" and only pander to the interested parties in each state they visit.

The candidates would probably have a better chance of getting elected if they promised everyone a new Blu-Ray player thats votes for him.

Telling the American people the hard truth would be political suicide. They want to keep the pacifiers in the our mouths as long as they can.

It's our job, as informed citizens, to make sure to spit that dirty pacifier back in their faces.
On What the next president should say posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Don't Argue...

I've found in my years it is usually best not to argue with ignorance. Since they don't use real world logic it turns out to be a fruitless battle not worth the effort. Until, of course, the ignorant become powerful aka GWB.On Republican Congressional candidate says main priority is energy reform posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses

Imagine

A world without humans trying figure out what is best for the world voicing opinions full of ulterior motives and self interest. What we need is a supercomputer that has the all the complete life-cycle costs for materials and processes that way humans can stop bickering about which is better. Just ask the all knowing Super-Magi and you have your true CO2 and monetary cost and its implications on the economy and the environmental consequences for action or inaction.

But humans are arrogant and stupid as a species. We only learn from our mistakes after we make them. Will we have the luxury of debating whether to LEED or not to lead? What's left of our species in the future will look back on the past and say "our greed brought about this new holocaust" and the guy next to him will so, "no it wasn't me, it was you." I look to the future and wonder if we'll learn anything. I read about new bills going to senate for vote and I realize that half of our government wants to save us and the other half wants to save their wallets at the expense of everyone else. If how we dealt with out past mistakes is any indication for how we'll handle our future mistakes, then maybe the human race has gotten what it deserves. The next 10 years will determine our whether our species can redeem itself.
On Select Committee examines the benefits of smarter urban planning posted 1 year, 5 months ago 3 Responses