curmudgeon's tags:
Who's reading curmudgeon (60):

In the current climate talks held in Bali, Al Gore has reportedly singled out the United States as “obstructing” progress on some global response to what he characterizes as human-induced climate change.

But is America really to blame, all by itself?

Apparently not!

This article highlights concerns that developing countries also have about curbing emissions. The G77, a block of developing countries that includes India and China,

“…said they were not ready to make new efforts to fight climate change by cutting emissions from fossil fuels. They fear curbs would cramp economic growth aimed at lifting millions out of poverty.”

Interesting that these developing countries object to emissions cuts of the same concerns President Bush and other leading conservatives have articulated – across the board emissions cuts could hamper economic development. That would in turn increase poverty and provide even stronger impetus to disregard environmental concerns.

But the Al Gores of this world are rich enough not to give a crap about poor farmers and factory workers in the third world. They can jet around the world promoting fatuous non-solutions like purchasing carbon offsets from themselves while others must sacrifice their livelihoods and decrease their standard of living. Al Gore uses up vastly greater amounts of energy living his life and still smugly sermonizes us on protecting the environment. Just how did he get to Bali, anyway? On a sailboat, or on an ozone-depleting, carbon emitting jet? How much of the planet's global resources were used up in producing this conference? And why, as former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton pointed out this morning, didn't the UN hold this conference in New York, where there is plenty of public transportation and where they already have a huge general assembly hall? Why make all these people fly to Bali of all places?

The world might hand people like Gore trophies and applaud his self-hating, liberal mea-culpas, but they won’t lift a finger about climate change until hypocrites like him and the pompous pseudo-intellectual fatheads at the UN shut up and put up. Until fabulously wealthy people like Gore and all the Democratic candidates set an example, “go green” and take trains, live in smaller houses, etc, all their blather amounts to nothing more than more climate-warming hot air.



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • Ormocanon said on Dec 14, 2007....
    "Just how did he get to Bali, anyway? On a sailboat, or on an ozone-depleting, carbon emitting jet? How much of the planet's global resources were used up in producing this conference?" - curmudgeon

    Interesting point, curmudgeon.
  • bloc said on Dec 14, 2007....
    I'm unsure of your position curm. You seem to be implying that we shouldn't protect the environment if it may have a negative impact on the economy. Is this your position?
  • curmudgeon said on Dec 16, 2007....
    Bloc - my position is that people who hurl epithets about others on the issue of protecting the environment ought to first show us how it's done.
     
    That is - Mr. Gore could very well have addressed this conference via satellite link so as to minimize his own carbon footprint. Or he could have sailed to Bali. Or the UN could have estimated where the conference would have had the least "negative" impact on the environment and held it there, or held it via global teleconferencing.
     
    Instead these "leaders" on combating climate change conducted business as usual. If the eco-prophets themselves won't live up to the ideals they espouse, why should anyone else?
     
    The leaders of developing countries have the same exact economic concerns as leaders of developed countries. Hampering economic development will hurt the environment in the long run. Rather than focusing on global treaty negotiations, opinion leaders and innovators need to show the rest of us how to lead greener lives on a day to day basis. The more people buy into it, the sooner progress can be made in cleaning up the environment. This way, the economy is affected by our own purchasing decisions, NOT by punitive government policy.
     
    Whether or not that actually curtails or softens the effects of climate change is still a question for me, but at the very least our air, water, soil and plant life will benefit in the process.
  • bloc said on Dec 17, 2007....
    "If the eco-prophets themselves won't live up to the ideals they espouse, why should anyone else?"

    There are many that do, but they aren't in the news. However, the idea that a group of peoples personal failings should lead others to ignore an issue that is ultimately separate from those with failings sounds like a bad philosophy to me.

    "This way, the economy is affected by our own purchasing decisions, NOT by punitive government policy."

    Purchasing decisions are simply ineffective on many things, the environment being one of them. It's impossible for consumers to research the way all of their products were produced. Can you tell me how your pens were produced, or your keyboard, chair, furniture, trash cans, cd's, eye glassess, etc, etc, etc.

    The truth is that some problems require government regulation. 
  • kelly said on Dec 20, 2007....
    "The world might hand people like Gore trophies and applaud his self-hating, liberal mea-culpas..."

    Your caricature of liberals makes me realize what your post is all about.  It's not really about Gore but simply another chance to make idiotic statements about liberals.  What's your problem?  Bush got his presidency.  Both Bush and Gore got a chance to change the world, the main difference being that Gore is trying to change it for the better.
  • anonymous said on Apr 27, 2008....
    "Both Bush and Gore got a chance to change the world, the main difference being that Gore is trying to change it for the better."

    Gore needs to actually step back and take a lesson from Bush who lives in a house that is 10 times eco-friendlier than Gore's energy draining mansion.

    Don't believe me go to the address below:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

    If you don't believe snopes.com, go to the well cited sources at the end of their article...the point is, Gore is a hypocrite!  I agree with bloc, in that we shouldn't use bad behavior to excuse us from any responsibilities.  I agree with curmey, as well, in that we shouldn't have to take orders from an elitist snob who seeks to add more change into his pocket than he intends to add toward the Global Warming cause.

    So, I have an awesome idea, Kelly. Since you are an environmentally concerned person...how about we look to the leader who is living out eco-friendliness instead of the one who is merely bloviating ad nauseum about it.  Therefore, Kelly, I think we all should stand up and support George W. Bush as our leader in living eco-friendly lives.  Perhaps, 'W.' should have one the Nobel Peace Prize for building his house!

    Curmey, you are a Nestorian!
  • kelly said on Apr 27, 2008....
    Yes, it does look like Al needs to do a little more practicing what he preaches.  As to Gore being an elitist snob I don't know where you get that.  Is that what you think of anyone who is educated and knows how to speak?  Is George Bush not an elitist snob just because he can't speak well?  And let's not forget my favorite George Bush quote, "Some call you the elite.  I call you my base."
  • anonymous said on Apr 28, 2008....
    Hey Kelly, keep building up the straw man.  I didn't say that I thought Gore was an elitist snob because I think that anyone who is educated is an elitist snob.  If that were the case I would think of myself as an elitist snob, but I am a few lattes short of that title.  Any person that lives in a 20 room mansion that drains enough energy to power a third world country and flies private jets around everywhere in order to tell poorer people (who are the majority of his audience) to cut back on their carbon footprint is an elitist, hypocritical snob.  Here are the facts, you can do with them what you will:  Bush is conserving energy and the environment in his day to day living, Gore is talking about it while splurging every resource he can get his hands on.  I wonder if his lattes are made from fairtrade coffee.
  • curmudgeon said on Apr 28, 2008....
    bloc - it's not impossible for counsmers to research their purchases. The information for consumers is out there. As we well know, the government will allow companies to sell all kinds of harmful products - and not let us know about it until a number of us have died.
     
    If people really care that much about the environment, they will research their purchases, they will find out how to use less energy and reduce their carbon footprint, theor water usage, the amounts they toss into landfill and so on.
     
    Greenhouse gas emissions and all the rest will only come about when billions of people change the way they live. You may think it's justifiable for government to force this, but quite frankly it's unrealistic. If it's not important enough for people to really make committed lifestyle changes, neither government nor private industry are going to ask them to change.
     
    Kelly - you can shill for Gore wanting to make the world better all you want. We see by the lifestyle he leads that he does not practice what he preaches. The fact that so many liberals became Gore rah-rahs is a testimony to the emptiness of their agenda.
  • bloc said on Apr 28, 2008....
    "If people really care that much about the environment, they will research their purchases"

    I don't think this is possible nor practical. Think about all the things you buy. Look around whatever room you are in now. Can any person with a job and children take the time to research all of those products, the packaging they come in, the way they are shipped, the practices of the stores that sell them, etc, etc, etc.

    More importantly, I don't think research would do much good. It's too easy for those doing wrong to pay for PR firms to say all kinds of things, to slander anyone putting out information about them, and to accuse their competitors of anything they are accused of. It's far to easy to spread false information that a normal person could never have enough time to figure out the truth for even a fraction of the goods they buy. 

    "Greenhouse gas emissions and all the rest will only come about when billions of people change the way they live. You may think it's justifiable for government to force this, but quite frankly it's unrealistic. "

    This raises interesting philosophical questions. Why force soldiers to go to war if they don't want to? I mean, "if it's not important enough for people to really make committed lifestyle changes [going to war]", then the government shouldn't force it. Right?

    Sometimes the government does need to force things. Preventing companies from dumping toxic chemicals in rivers is one example as well as requiring those that join the military to be deployed if the orders come down.
  • curmudgeon said on Apr 29, 2008....
    bloc - I see your point about government's role in preventing large-scale industrial pollution, but that's really only a part of the environmental equation. And I also get your point that consumers can't research every single detail about every product they buy, but they don't have to get down into the granularity of their purchases to make an eco-friendly difference.
     
    If I want to buy a laptop computer, I understand that there's going to be pollution involved in its manufacture. But I can research the power requirements and consumption, whether or not the company has a disposal policy and so on. If I want to save on packing and shipping materials, maybe I can buy a used laptop. I can even go as far as researching and purchasing a solar charger.
     
    But back to the main point: if certain folks like Al Gore would have us - through our free will or government intervention - tailor our lives to some Earth-friendlier standard, the least they can do is set a personal example.
     
    Anything less is a bunch of hot air.
  • bloc said on Apr 29, 2008....
    oh, I completely agree about Gore. He should have a lower carbon footprint than you or I, but he doesn't. I think we agree more than we disagree. I think individuals have the primary responsibility, but I think government has a significant responsibility as well. One example are cafe standards for vehicles. It should have been raised long ago. 

    A better example is meat. Eating meat is the single most environmentally unfriendly act we do. The cost doesn't reflect this because of the way government regulates corn and subsidizes other things like water. Before we say, "see government messes it up", the government regulation pre nixon worked great. It was changed during Nixon to benefit the corporations that buy corn, not the farmers that grow it. Food is a good example of a place where markets don't work as they usually do. 


Comment on "Is the U.S. Only to Blame on Climate Change?"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Science and propaganda merge in global warming "debate."...

And no one even seems to care.

...

Even Chris Mathews at MSNBC is starting to question Obama.

...
Oooh, Sunday was a red letter day!...