Actually found this on a google ad

[jscheetz]

Phil, I think it would be great to have a topic on that to get some more information out there.

GF, see, now I can more clearly see your trouble. "Willey creates pollution" ?? Being "green" isn't only about what kind of car you drive - or whether you recycle or drink organic coffee. These are all things that make an impact and we should all be mindful of them and do as much as we can because they will add up to the whole. It is awesome that you have put some thought into the things you do! Most people don't. (You drive a much greener car than I do!!!) - but I belive being "green" has to also include our actions towards the big picture of the world. It is being able to see the consequences of our actions as a whole (meaning as a society/country/species)as they effect the rest of the world and trying to make large desicions based on that - it's not always possible. Unless you sit at home the rest of your life in the dark and cold - you will be doing some polluting. But once again I think there needs to be a willingness to sometimes sacrifice what we may want as individuals in order to make the whole better. Most people get all up in arms when you say "sacrifice" because then they launch into the "I'm not giving up my rights etc etc" - and while I would LOVE to see WAY less government involved in the lives of people and business - the reality is that if you leave everyone to themselves, the people that don't care and the businesses that only care about short term profits will ruin it for everyone. We don't live in Utopia - we live in a fallen world where we do the wrong thing time and again. So having some type of "larger view" mechanism to try to keep things in check is the best scenario. Having read many of your posts I know more about you than you think - and this overseeing "mechanism" seems to always get your dander up. But while you may nurture your land and you may take care of your trees, wildlife, etc - your neighbors may not. So without someone paying attention you may find yourself on a small island of paradise as the world crumbles around you - I am just saying that trying to save the whole as we each take care of individual parts makes the most "green" sense to me. And like everything else - there will always be a level of hypocricy and some people purporting to be "greener" than others - but we can't let that pull us off subject. Those people are not the problem - the problem is the problem! The hypocrits are just periphery.

You said you were going fishing - Did you catch any fish? As for my fishing - I have only been down to Taney once this summer, planning a trip or two this fall - too many gigs - but I was blessed enough to spend a week fishing in Canada and a week on the Flats in Key West and a week in Montana. So you shouldn't feel too sorry for me. I know, I know - flying around polluting. But hey!! It's for a good cause right?

Love ya -

JS

[Wayne SW/MO]

The biggest problem I've had with the "Greeners" is that as a rule they are either well off or have little ambition except to hide behind a cause. The vast majority of the cures hit the economy and the middle and lower classes head on and would plunge this country into economic chaos. The cure has to be palatable

Its popular to bring up Kyoto, but in fact it was a suicide pact for the American economy, which is probably why only one prominent politician supported it. When the world decides to do something, then, and only then can the US move faster and harder to wards balancing our own emission problems.

[gonefishin]

'cheetz:

Ahhhh, I got it now! A person doesn't actually have to practice being green they just have to talk a good game.

I have to give you one thing. You are right when you say I don't like people looking over my shoulder. It is especially annoying when they have no reason to do so.

Yep, I went fishing. ) Caught a small Trout and 3 Suckers at Lillys. The catching wasn't all that good but the fishing was fantastic and Phils staff have got to be some of the nicest people I have ever met.

[Al Agnew]

The biggest problem I've had with the "Greeners" is that as a rule they are either well off or have little ambition except to hide behind a cause. The vast majority of the cures hit the economy and the middle and lower classes head on and would plunge this country into economic chaos. The cure has to be palatable

Its popular to bring up Kyoto, but in fact it was a suicide pact for the American economy, which is probably why only one prominent politician supported it. When the world decides to do something, then, and only then can the US move faster and harder to wards balancing our own emission problems.

Wayne, I think you're not quite right about greens being "well-off". Having been rather active in several green groups at different times, I can tell you that the overall economic status of members is probably about even with the average economic status of the country as a whole. There aren't many rich people in them, and not many really poor people, but lots of people in between.

The thing that maybe sets green individuals apart from everybody else is more in their priorities. For many of them, protecting the environment comes before protecting the economy. Because of that priority, they do sometimes have half-baked beliefs and advocate unrealistic actions. However, at least some of the things advocated by green groups are portrayed as horrendous for the country's economy when, in reality, there would be winners and losers but the economy overall wouldn't suffer.

I'm realistic enough to know that this country will not sacrifice its economy for action doing something really serious about global warming...at least until the reality is staring us in the face and is irrefutable. And although we're still the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, there are enough other developing countries coming along that even if we did, it might not stave off the worst of what may be coming. What continues to tick me off about the whole situation, though, is that we KNOW that our dependence upon fossil fuels is MAYBE seriously contributing to global warming, but is for SURE bad for us in other ways, not the least of which is that it makes our whole economy extremely vulnerable to crackpots and medieval religious idiots that happen to control countries sitting atop a lot of oil. If there should be one priority in this country overriding everything else, it should be a crash program to develop alternative sources of energy, with all the resources of this country mobilized to do so. But too many powerful corporations would be losers if that happened, and too many politicians are in their pockets.

[Phil Lilley]

You nailed it, Al.

[Kicknbass]

But too many powerful corporations would be losers if that happened, and too many politicians are in their pockets.

I don't get this agrument. If a corporation could develop technology that would allow vehicles to operate on minimal fuel and the vehicle could develop sufficient power and range and the vehicle could be produced at a cost that is reasonable to allow the vast majority to afford the product. The corporate world would jump all over producing and selling the product to reap the profits.

Let's face it, the technology is not available yet. I think the government should partner w/ the corporate world to develop the technology to move our economy away from our addiction to Oil. When the technology is developed, and the product can be produced and sold at a profit, the change will happen.

[gonefishin]

I agree with you 100% Al. We, the US, need to develop alternative energy sources and especially these new energy sources should be clean. And you are exactly right too many big businesses would lose out by doing so and unfortunatly our government is like the businesses. They arent willing to give up all the tax revenues generated from fossil fuel sales.

[jscheetz]

Hey Wayne,

I kind of agree with Al on this. I have been involved with many environmental organizations and causes and I have found that most of the people involved are just regular people. I think what you are talking about is the celebrities that make a big deal out of some cause and get a lot of press for it. Unfortunately lots of these people don't always reflect the nature of the movement they purport to be speaking for.

Seems that if you say you are an "environmentalist" you tend to elicit reactions from people who have lumped everyone who is trying to preserve and conserve the world into one "wacko extremist" cult of somekind.

But I have friends who go and protest at abortion clinics. Just regular good people who see something that they feel is wrong in the world and are doing what they can to make it right. I wouldn't want to lump them in the same group as that goofball knucklehead Fred Phelps. But some people do. So it's important to look at the "grassroots" people involved in these things instead of just the most visible person that seems to be talking the loudest - they don't always speak for the masses. That's just what I have seen anyway.

JS

[Wayne SW/MO]

Its true Al that that statement might be a little narrow, but I don't think its wrong that if a cure requires sacrifice, those exempt from the sacrifice, but not the gain, are most vocal.

js, I think your abortion example is a good example of the process. There is no forced abortion, the choices are whether you have the right. Those who oppose abortion are exempt.

The present debate over gasoline formulas is a good example. The cost is outweighing the benefits, at least to the average consumer.

The search for alternative fuels is picking up speed and the cost of oil, not just in dollars but in many ways, is becoming too expensive and insecure. The wheels have been set in motion, and even the leaders in Iran and Venezuela can see the handwriting on the wall, hence their bid for more power before they lose the only chips they have.

[Al Agnew]

I don't get this agrument. If a corporation could develop technology that would allow vehicles to operate on minimal fuel and the vehicle could develop sufficient power and range and the vehicle could be produced at a cost that is reasonable to allow the vast majority to afford the product. The corporate world would jump all over producing and selling the product to reap the profits.

Let's face it, the technology is not available yet. I think the government should partner w/ the corporate world to develop the technology to move our economy away from our addiction to Oil. When the technology is developed, and the product can be produced and sold at a profit, the change will happen.

Think about this...the oil companies are obviously wedded to making money from oil. Anything that reduces the use of oil reduces their profit, period. And can you name ANY corporations that have more power and influence?

The coal companies are almost as powerful. Anything that replaces oil also has the probability of replacing coal.

Then think about all the ancillary companies that serve the fossil fuel industry, from Halliburton and other oil field development companies to the companies that make the machines that are used in mining coal.

Then go a little farther. Ethanol from corn is a big thing now. Know how much influence the corn growers' lobby has? A LOT. Corn is not the most efficient fuel to produce ethanol, but it's what is being pushed. They know it won't replace oil as a vehicle fuel, but it sure brings in profits to corn growers and distillers, etc.

Now...let's consider the auto companies. It's more profitable in the short run to keep producing the autos they know how to make. Sure, they all have research and development divisions that may be working on alternative fuel vehicles and drastic ways to cut down on fuel use. But corporations are beholden to their stockholders first, and the stockholders expect favorable quarterly bottom lines over deficit spending on research and development.

Most of these industries get huge subsidies, tax breaks, and favorable treatment from the government. They are also among the largest donors to political campaigns. Meanwhile, the companies who are trying to come up with other alternatives get practically nothing, maybe because they aren't big enough or successful enough yet to have the surplus cash to donate to politicians? A truly cheap, efficient source of energy in itself has little potential for profit...the profit will come from the companies who develop the machines and power plants and vehicles that use it, and maybe the outlets that distribute it. But the start-up costs of such ventures will be huge.

We've got this monster of a fossil fuel based economy just humming along, running itself (with help from the government). Changing will be expensive. Eventually it will become very profitable, but it'll take a lot to get it going, make it profitable, and meanwhile the industries with the power now will be kicking and screaming all the way.