I live in a direct gain passive solar house.
Who produced the materials? A large corporation?
I augment the sunshine with about one cord firewood, that yes, I harvest from my lot.
Sustainably, I presume? :thumbsup:
We have 40 mpg Honda Civic and a 20 mpg Ford Sport Trac.
A Japanese car and an SUV? And, you call yourself a liberal?
We drive the Honda when the weather allows.
So, you're all for the environment, until it bites back, eh? :thumbsup:
Our electric usage averages about 315 KWH per month.
I don't know if that's good, or bad. I have three refrigerators, and four freezers.
I would never use pesticides or herbicides on my lot. I use natural composts and fertilizers.
I've read about that. Something to do with ConAgra and feeding the world, I think.
I don't buy water in plastic bottles.
I do. Five gallon plastic bottles.
I take my own reusable bags to the store.
Me, too. I reuse the plastic bags they give you, too. :thumbsup:
So, I don't feel like I am a supporter of the environment in name only.
Well, that's what it's all about: how you
feel!
In a previous post you listed many successful advances in environmental issues. The vast majority of those improvements are the result of 'liberal' environmentalist efforts. I would say the liberals are achieving their goals many times and you are very wrong about saying they never have. For the clean air and water we do have, you can thank a liberal.
Actually, you could more rightly thank a large corporation and its employees. They're the ones who actually did the work. :thumbsup:
Food plots are an environmental joke. They primarily exist to favor hunted game over any others.
So? You hate game animals? :confused2:
I have nothing against hunting.
I don't believe that, for a second!
If you want to do nature a favor, help it foster native plants.
If wild animals were interested in native plants, we wouldn't need food plots to attract them, would we? "Native" doesn't equal "ideal".
I can't believe you mention food plots, most begin with a good dose of Roundup.
That seems like a generalization, and not an accurate one. Most food plots begin with a plow, or a tiller, in my experience. Why would I want to create a fire hazard? :confused2:
You wouldn't have to worry about flyway stopping areas if they weren't drained and built upon.
But, we do. It's mostly because liberals refuse to demonstrate the courage of their convictions, and they keep reproducing, to the detriment of all involved.
There is a huge difference between your concept of environmentalism and mine.
You're right. Mine continues to advance the cause of mankind. Yours would prefer to eradicate what you percieve to be the blight that is mankind.
I am not trying to pigeonhole folks on a liberal/conservative basis. There are a number of posters who take regular shots at liberals, as Chuck52 mentioned, this site is rich in conservatives. It's only fair to question conservative motives if liberals are to be singled out for all the world's ills. No one has offered up any examples of early, strong and lasting conservative support for environmental issues. You just keep bashing liberals while pushing the 'cheap energy at any price' agenda.
You're the only one that's even mentioned "cheap energy at any price". I've always, and only, advanced the position that global warming is a lie, and we have the e-mails to prove it.
The issue of AGW is tightly coupled to environment, energy and global population.
And, revenue. You seem to always leave out the money.
The viewpoints and support by various political groups has a lot to do with how effectively energy and environmental issues will be addressed. They cannot be dodged forever and they can't be solved by bashing.
Yet, bashing conservative positions, particularly G.W. Bush, is the main thrust of any discussion regarding global warming, and denying the fact that the Earth has actually cooled, that pollution has been reduced (apparently to no avail), that the only people pushing the global warming stance are those who stand to profit from grinding the US into a third world economy, and ignoring that the global warming "scientists" have to resort to outright lying to sustain their position is all that seems to come from the liberal leftists on the subject. It would seem "bashing" is all you have.
All I am pointing out, is conservative politicians, as a rule, do not support, and usually work against, measures that would improve energy efficiency and protect the environment. It's always 'we cannot afford it, 'it's a job killer' (my personal favorite), or 'it's too soon'. How many Deep Horizon's can we afford? So what motives would you ascribe to folks who fight against environmental issues?
And, all I'm pointing out is that destroying the energy industry, and the global economy, along with it, is not the answer, particularly when the entire platform is constructed on fallacies and outright lies. If global warming were true, then I'd be on board in an instant. It's not, and we have the e-mails to prove that it's not.
In AGW terms, many believe whatever humans are doing, it can't make any difference, or they resort to mysticism. So, how much human input would make a difference? Who has that answer? How will we know when too much is too much?
Dave.
When we don't have to make up lies to produce the requisite numbers. :thumbsup:
