Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by otter, Jun 25, 2006.
My kindergartener came home with a funny one recently. I was helping him brush his teeth when he suddenly reached out and shut the water off. "I'm saving the planet" he said. I just laughed and said, "well, that won't save the planet, but it will save me a few bucks on the water bill!" :rofl:
"Out of the mouths of babes and children." Your kid just might be smarter than the both of us. A few bucks on the water bill X six billion = what? Probably a shitload less water use..................
And what does using less water from Spada or one of the other reservoirs have to do with saving the planet? Snow pack was pretty good this year.
They admitted after the last 'near drought' and water shortage warnings that we were really never close to running out.
Reminds me of the guy in my vanpool who I told that story too. He said, "well, if you really want to save the planet, stop using so much plastic!" Again I just chuckled and said "well, actually it won't save the planet, it just means less plastic in land fills."
big picture chad...
so, nuclear is bad, solar is good.
i wonder if you understand the production of photovoltic cells and the extreme toxicity of the chemicals that are used.
as they say, there is no free lunch, so you had best pick your poison.
The attitude of wasting less could be valuable in the future. If your son and others like him get in the habit of using what they need rather than as much as they feel like, it might prevent or delay the need to dam and flood another river valley for drinking water someday. That's good for everyone. Besides saving money at the individual water meter, it saves the tax dollars that would be used to build a new reservoir, and preserves fish habitat. What's not to like about wasting less water?
Plastic is interesting stuff and a pretty amazing group of materials. Our lives revolve around it, yet it's also one of the most commonly thrown away materials out there. Around 4% of worldwide oil production is used as the base material and in manufacturing of plastics. With oil prices increasing, plastic is getting more expensive too. It will be interesting to see what happens when it becomes too valuable to be simply dumped in landfills like we do now. I wonder if something else will take its place or if plastic recycling will finally become economically viable. Maybe consumer habits will change to buying products built to last instead of built to throw away and replace. Time will tell, I guess.
Interesting thought. In my very unscientific opinion, it seems to me that the bulk of the plastic products I regularly come into contact with are beverage bottles and poly bags from grocery or other stores.
It wasn't all that long ago that almost all beverages came in glass bottles. In Oregon, glass beer bottles have (or 'had' when I lived there) a several-cent deposit fee built into the original purchase price. That deposit fee could then be recovered when the containers are redeemed at a participating location. The bottles weren't crushed and re-melted into new glass, but cleaned and sterilized for reuse in their current form instead. Sure, there would be some infrastructure issues that need to be established if we were to do so in Washington, but the model for substituting glass for plastic bottles is alive and well in other states who have made a committment to reducing the number of plastic bottles.
In Europe, shoppers have brought along their own mesh bags for years, thus reducing the need for grocers and other retailers to provide the ubiquitous 'paper or plastic'.
While the decision to return to glass or metal beverage containers is one that must be legislated (and probably will be fought tooth and nail by vested interests), any of us can buy a string bag or three for grocery shopping and reduce our personal consumption of plastic bags.
In Mexico I wasn't allowed to leave the store with my glass soda bottle.
Let's just get one thing straight:
No politician does any public act without the wish for self-promotion. It's in their nature. They can't turn that instinct off. That's what made them politicians in the first place.
I am not alone in this deep suspicion of all things public by any politician. Anyone who takes anything politicians do at face value has been drinking the partisan Kool-Aid.
Al Gore must have known that by putting his own face forward as the presenter in this movie, he will automatically turn off at least @40% of the American public who are not Democrats. Not to mention another 10% or so who will not go see any movie just because it's by a politician. (Myself included.)
So if Al Gore really cared ONLY about the global warming issue and wanted ONLY the message to get across, not his own image at all, as he has repeated claimed in the media since this glorified PowerPoint started showing....
....why didn't he find a narrator who's neutral, non-political, and respected by all? How about Walter Cronkite? Morgan Freeman? Geez, Ed Begley, Jr. has more neutral cred as an environmentalist than Gore.
By his selfish insistence on being the center of attention, Gore guaranteed that 50% of America will not trust this movie's message. Score one for the environment, when it should have been two points. But he got what he truly wanted: his 15 minutes again, with all those "I never say never [run for president]...." quotes on CNN and Time that have nothing to do with the environment.
Why not just go see the movie to find out if you hate the guy as much as you have convinced yourself you do? It's only $9 and covers an important issue that everyone ought to get a little more info on, no matter how skeptical they are. As I understand it, Gore is running around giving this presentation literally hundreds of times a year. I'm not sure there is anyone outside the scientific community who is devoting that much of his/her life to this issue, so it doesn't seem all that bad a choice to make a movie with Al Gore as the protagonist. In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of Gore-haters who are going to this movie just to reinforce how much they hate the guy, so from that standpoint it was not a bad business decision. You gotta be kidding me that Ed Begley would be a bigger draw at the box office? We're talking about movie theaters, not PBS.
By the way, no politician of any stripe in his or her right mind would make human-induced climate change the number one issue on his or her agenda. Talk about a vote-killer! Might get you elected to the Seattle City Council, but I'm not sure it would anywhere else. This is why I'm kind of amazed that John McCain has focused as much attention on it as he has. Not likely to be winning too many kudos from the Republican power structure and its base support.
Thanks Gearhead!!! Hats off to you!:beer2: It's time the hippie, pot-smoking, tree huggers find a new place to live. Nuclear power is very remarkable, effecient, and safe. It's unfortunate the the word "nuclear" is portrayed as a horrible thing, because in the case of energy it is quite productive.
The thing people fail to understand is that people are more important than plants and animals. We as a people should strive to manage and care for the the world we live in, however, we should never put trees/fish above human life. The extreme environmentalist movement which inhabits much of the northwest is not built on rational/logical/coherent scientific fact. It is based on the wants and desires of irrational people to fulfill their own agendas, which really fail to show any care for the environment. It's just too bad that politics get involved and allow these mindless environmentalists to make such drastic changes. I am in no way supportive of building more dams and clear cutting large areas of forest, however, I am supportive of finding a balance...and that is what many people on both sides of the fence fail to strive for. Talk to a farmer...one who has been tending the land, caring for the environment, providing food for the country, and passing on good values through the generations. Their lively hood depends on caring for the land and managing resources. I know, I just used a bad word, "farmer", one who many people believe to only steal precious water from streams...etc...Do you know how long farmers have been "stealing" water from your precious streams? Decades upon decades...during major drought years, and high runoff years...they have been doing the same thing. It's funny how up until recently, everything seemed to be working out quite well. It wasn't until the environmentalists decided that farmers were bad that this became an issue. Funny how things work eh?
Waste free eh? And just what is required to store the solar power....? Oh yes, batteries...very large batteries. And what happens to batteries when they are no longer good? Hmm....we dispose of them. Are batteries good for the planet? NO!!!!
My grandfather had partial solar power on his home in SE Oregon...300+ days of sun per year...! He had to replace his batteries every 6 years....yes, 12 batteries about 5 times the size of your car battery. Just imagine if everyone was doing this. Let's think NUCLEAR....
Geez, talk about shooting the messenger . . .
If Al Gore rang your doorbell and told you your house was on fire, would you ignore him because you hate him so much?
I can't understand how a person who does what you do, and gets to see what you see, could have such viewpoints.
"It's time the hippie, pot-smoking, tree huggers find a new place to live..." You claim to seek balance? Yeah right!
I'm so frustrated with this thread. If such blaitant ignorance exists within a FLYFISHING forum, the overall outlook among the general public taking action in their everyday life seems bleek at best.
I don't think adults are going to change regardless of how much evidence is put before them. Focus should be concentrated on the younger generations. Youth model behavior they eventually learn by observing others, especially adults. Model positive, earth friendly behavior and the next generation might still be able to catch a fish with their grandkids...
Is that really the best you can do? What is this, the friggin' sixties? "America - love it or leave it, asshole." I think it is hilarious that folks like you and gearhead keep deluding yourselves that pro-environment people are a bunch of hippies, pot-smokers and tree huggers that have no grasp on reality. Are you really that out of touch? Kind of reminds me of George Wallace making a last stand for apartheid in America, but whatever, if you want to defend the status quo have at it.
While I'm at it, let me respond to your tangent by saying that farmers aren't bad. Farming policy in this country generally is. The whole history of dam building by the Bureau of Reclamation to support farming in the arid west is not - in the sense of striving for "balance" - the smartest thing we've ever done. Gazillions of acres of fertile land east of the Mississippi lay fallow (and often subsidized by tax payer money) in part so that people can farm in areas in the West that once were basically deserts; meanwhile, we've come close to destroying what made rivers in the West special. Building dams and wiping out riverine ecosystems to allow people to grow alfalfa at high elevations (since nothing else can be grown at those elevations) was an asinine idea that hasn't improved with time, and had nothing to do with "balance". Tell me where the "balance" is in California's Central Valley. At one time, this was one of the most stunning ecosystems in North America. There is nothing, zero, zip, nada left of it's natural state anymore. Farming policy in this country too often has nothing to do with trying to achieve balance between the needs of humans and the environment. There's no need to attack farmers personally, but there often is a need to question the farm policies of this country. The good news is that there is a golden opportunity for farmers to become part of the solution to human induced climate change and help us reduce our reliance on oil from countries that would just as soon see us all dead (oilseed for biodiesel, corn for ethanol).
All of that works into the concept of balance. As long as there are people in the world that insist upon having 4-12+ kids per family (choosing human life over everything else, including quality of human life) there needs to be people that value plants and animals to counteract the imbalance.
If we were seriously putting human life above all else, wouldn't we be killing everything edible we could in this country to feed to those who are starving elsewhere? After all, there's a lot of human life out there that's under serious threat that we could help in the short term. Or are those people not really human? Or do we really value nature more than we like to admit?
Wildatheartphoto, I can't get over how many generalities you employ in your arguments ("Hippie, pot-smoking, tree-huggers" is a prime example). This in itself shows very shallow thinking on your part. don't forget that these are media-spawned terms manipulatively used so that shallow thinkers can continue with their shallow thinking and delude themselves into believing that they actually understand an issue.
Also, last I heard, batteries are now being recycled, not put in landfills.
In todays Times....London that is. Wow, the Europeans are serious about this global warming stuff. Wonder if we could get Senator Cantwell and Murray to introduce a bill in the Senate. /B]
AIR passengers will be charged up to £40 extra for a return ticket within Europe to pay for the environmental impact of their journeys, under plans approved by the European Parliament yesterday.
MEPs voted in favour of the “immediate introduction” of a tax on jet fuel for flights within the 25 member states of the EU. The charge would double the cost of millions of budget airline flights.
They also accepted a recommendation for a special emissions trading scheme for the aviation industry, which would see airlines buying permits to cover their output of carbon dioxide.
Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases, and flights within Europe are on course to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.
Well. A pretty good number of the issues concerning global climatic change - the good, bad & the ugly - are out on the table. The next question is, what are the top three issues you would pick as priorities to address first? And how would you address them?
Methheads on the Cedar?
Oil-based energy economy?
Solar/Tidal/Wind based energy economy?
Just plain using LESS?
World population growth?
Somebody else's problem?
And so forth...............
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!!!!!!