Comments on: Get Your Conservative On

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:06:24 +0000

Actually, ultimately that’s your problem. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a republican, and those guys are all idiots to a person, therefore wrong about everything.

You can be wrong, people disagreeing with you may not be republicans, and not every republican is an idiot, though anyone still voting republican these days probably is an idiot.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:27:06 +0000

Yeah I am a big scary republican spending all my time fighting for light rail

By: Dan Staley

Dan Staley — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:55:59 +0000

test

By: Dan Staley

Dan Staley — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:49:10 +0000

Andrew, some of your phrases in earlier comments in this thread seemingly were cut-pasted from Republican phrasebooks; the most recent two are much better argued and understandable. I see your point now and thank you.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:32:43 +0000

When I say poorer, I don’t mean less money, I mean a lower quality of life, money is a means to an end. For example, if you don’t have a car, you can save money. If you have no transit options, no walkability and no car, you have a lower quality of life than you would if you have a car and live in a drivable area, or you have no car and live in a walkable area or have transit options.

Some of the solutions to CO2 emissions are as simple as providing alternatives not to oil but to suburban sprawl and driving. Light Rail, density, etc.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:28:19 +0000

Sadly, some choose to mischaracterize small behavior changes as [making] the choice to be much poorer to save the environment. It is binary argumentation such as this that prevents us from moving forward.

You’ve mischaracterized my argument as I have articulated it. I am saying that oil doesn’t matter, fossil fuels do. Unless we can create alternatives to burning fossil fuels through a combination energy efficiency and emissions-free energy sources, we’ll continue to burn fossil fuel.

Whether that fuels is oil or gas or coal is essentially irrelevant.

By: Dan Staley

Dan Staley — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:28:55 +0000

The key issue with respect to sustainability is expressed in the terms I = PxAxT, where Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology.

All three factors on the right side contribute to impact, and depending upon where the population resides defines the impact; that is: more affluent nations have a larger impact. That is not to say – as some anti-environment people assert – that we should reduce population [rather, the rate of growth should be reduced] or we should live in Medieval times. Technology can ameliorate impacts by allowing us to increase efficiencies, reduce waste, close industrial loops, etc.

There are an increasing number of studies out that detail how a small percentage of GDP (that is, choosing to grow less quickly now) can be expended to implement efficiency gains and change inputs and waste loops.

Sadly, some choose to mischaracterize small behavior changes as [making] the choice to be much poorer to save the environment. It is binary argumentation such as this that prevents us from moving forward.

By: dan cortland

dan cortland — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:16:26 +0000

Thanks for adopting, then.

By: joshuadf

joshuadf — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:18:54 +0000

Maybe it’s just because I have kids myself, but to me “child-free” doesn’t seem to belong in that list. I respect those who choose not to have children (my brother is another example), but no one is having children to get rich or poor. Children are a rough and challenging way to invest in the future of our world, not CO2-emitting chattel.

By: Dan Staley

Dan Staley — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:12:08 +0000

No one yet, including you, has made the choice to be much poorer to save the environment. I don’t see anyone making that decision soon.

Myth and/or strawman.

The environment isn’t going anywhere – it doesn’t need ’saving’. It’s ability to absorb our wastes is becoming more impaired, and if you don’t want to stop fouling your nest, there isn’t much to say to that is there?

Nonetheless, I have made many choices to reduce my environmental footprint, none of them has sent me into poverty. In fact, being child-free ensures I have less chance of being in poverty, biking ~1500-2000 mi/yr ensures better overall health, reducing waste to the landfill means my garden soil is more productive, living close to work ensures the atmosphere has less pollutants, living in an efficient house ensures…everyone else gets the idea.

And I’d like to address your last paragraph but cannot, as it is not understandable.