Maybe this can solve the energy problem...

[CYdTracked]

As for the PETA stuff. I have no problem with agriculture. I'm sure that your family is one of the good ones with regard to normal treatment of animals. I'm also sure that the Ag dept at ISU teaches responsible agriculture (I was a bio major, so I'm not sure what they teach). Here's a question though.....has your family or anyone you know been affected by large-scale hog or cattle "factories"? These are the places where the animals may get mis-treated. That's not even my point though. What is wrong with people having a free-range farm? This keeps small farmers in business. They can compete with the big factories because they occupy a niche market. They can raise their animals according to "free-range" standards and sell them for a premium. I say the more small, family farms we have the better, when compared to the giant factories......for a number of reasons.

Well my family doesn't rely on our cattle herd for the main source of income. If we did we wouldn't survive with just 25 head of cattle. My dad used to work for the National Pork Board which dealt a lot with the small farm/big operations issues and also education of the various practices for both kinds of farms. They have a lot of different programs and such and he probably got to deal with the PETA stuff more often in that role because they'd always try to have demonstrations at the World Pork Expo and other things they sponsored where there was a larger audience for them to protest at. He's self-employed now but also working with this group called PAACO which stands for Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization.

Their mission statement is "The purpose of this organization is to promote the humane treatment of animals through education and certification of animal auditors and to promote the profession of animal auditors." From what has been explained to me is its an organization of vets, researchers, professors, and various other people that aide in helping people become certified so for instance a company looking at doing business with a packing plant or a feedlot might hire an auditor to go in and audit the packing plant's processes, visit their feed lots, etc. and determine if their practices are in order. I'm not sure exactly what else they do but the people in the organization are located all over the country and do various things so it's basically a colaboration of different skills and knowledge working towards a common goal.

[herbiedoobie]

Oh come on! It's a standard viewpoint of those opposed to any environmental concerns.

If you can't fix everything at once, why do anything at all?

It's a viewpoint best exemplified by the brain-dead dolts who, when speaking about global warming and such greenhouse gases (and other posts contained in this thread), trot out "what are you going to do about the volcanoes" or some other trite response. I actually heard a US Congressman ask that not too long ago.

WHAT??? Who the freak cares? But since we can't stop volcanoes we should just say "Oh hell, let just give up"?

Literally mind numbing.

If the environmentalists were really interested in the environment, that would be a good argument. Unfortunately, the environmental movement is mainly about grabbing political power and being in control of others' lives. Evidence the sickening trend of rich people who fly in their private jets all over the world, trying to tell us how we should live our own lives, all the while consuming more energy and producing more environmental pollution than 1000 "normal" human beings. (Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, etc..)

The "Revenge Effect" nullifies most of what environmentalists want to forcibly cram down our throats.

A good example is the movement to smaller, more efficient automobiles. Smaller automobiles tend to not last as long as larger automobiles, which results in a net increase of their "carbon footprint" compared to keeping larger, less fuel-efficient automobiles running longer. In addition, people have to work longer hours and consume more goods in order to make the additional money to afford the newer, smaller car.

And as far as Hybrids are concerned, where do you dispose the incredibly poisonous batteries when they no longer accept a charge? And the cost of pulling the old batteries and installing new ones are almost guaranteed to not be cost effective, so people will be incentivized to go out and buy a new one, and the ecological footprint of new car production is phenomenally large.

But I am an odd kind of cat. I am a "greenie" conservative. The best thing most human beings can do if they are concerned about the environment is to live simply, learn how to do basic maintenance, and keep stuff running/functional until it can no longer be repaired.

[bandit]

Still the best clip of the administration's energy policy : Will Ferrell - Bush on Global Warming @ Transbuddha

[DaddyMac]

I don't really disagree with what you're saying in regards to elite environmentalists. But that wasn't my point - both sides obviously have their fringe whack jobs.

But I'm a little baffled by your next point.

A good example is the movement to smaller, more efficient automobiles. Smaller automobiles tend to not last as long as larger automobiles, which results in a net increase of their "carbon footprint" compared to keeping larger, less fuel-efficient automobiles running longer. In addition, people have to work longer hours and consume more goods in order to make the additional money to afford the newer, smaller car.

This is based of what? Escalades, Hummers and such - cost x2 what most more fuel efficient (3 or even 4 times the mileage) cost. I'd be interested in knowing what supports "larger cars last longer" theory.

FWIW, I think the whole hybrid push is a joke. Forbes released their ratings of fuel efficient and gas guzzlers. Most of the usual suspects showed up on the guzzler list. But only 3 hybrids appeared in the top 12 of the most efficient ratings. And your points about the associated costs and complications of such vehicles are absolutely valid.

[Cyclone62]

"what are you going to do about the volcanoes" or some other trite response.

Find a giant butt-plug to stop them. When it explodes Mt. St. Helens style, we'll just blame the Mexicans.

[DaddyMac]

... we'll just blame the Mexicans.

French.... we always blame the French

[Cyclone62]

but the French aren't ruining our economy and job market, just our freedom fries.

[Cyclonepride]

You don't have to make such drastic changes in your life to help the environment. A friend of mine organized his block so that only one garbage carrier served the whole block, which saved gas, pollution, money, and noise pollution. It will not in itself stop global warming or solve the energy problem, but if everyone made incremental changes, that most certainly would help the world's problems. For the record, I am not a "tree-hugger" but do care about the environment.

?????????Attachment 383

[chadm]

French.... we always blame the French

A little something for you to try.
Go to google.
Type in (french military victories)
Hit (I'm feeling lucky.)

The answer floored me.

[jdoggivjc]

?????????Attachment 383

I so wish I could give you positive rep for that but apparently I've gotta spread it around some first...

[Cyclone62]

"did you mean: French Military Defeats?"

[herbiedoobie]

I don't really disagree with what you're saying in regards to elite environmentalists. But that wasn't my point - both sides obviously have their fringe whack jobs.

But I'm a little baffled by your next point.

This is based of what? Escalades, Hummers and such - cost x2 what most more fuel efficient (3 or even 4 times the mileage) cost. I'd be interested in knowing what supports "larger cars last longer" theory.

I'm not talking about "elite" environmentalists. I'm talking about the "true believers" who tend to occupy special interest group full-time staff, or .edu type jobs. They really, really just want to control our lives. It's kind of a "passive-aggressive" thing for them.

On the subject of smaller cars; You can only make a car so small before it's interior, working parts become non-repairable. Your typical mid-sized sedan of current vintage appears to be the limit with our current technology. And they get around 30 mpg. To get any better mpg than that, you need to get to a small scale car that is basically a "disposable car". (I love little cars; I think they are a hoot to drive. It's just too bad that repairing them is a b*tch.)

So, it makes much better sense (ecologically AND economically) to buy and own a 30 mpg mid-size than a 45-50 mpg sub-compact. The mid-size should last about 300,000 miles, with competent maintenance, while you'll be lucky to get much over 150,000 with your sub-compact. And no way does that extra mpg pay for, ecologically or economically, a 2 for 1 car swap.

I have a buddy who owns a 1980 or so Ford pickup with the 300 straight six. It gets 20-25 mpg, but he has put over 700,000 miles on the vehicle. My dad has a Buick 3.8L with 350,000+ miles. The extra size does make a difference in your ability to maintain these vehicles.

I have no time for Hummers, SUVs and recreational trucks. I have owned a jeep before, but I lived off road and really, really needed it. Sold it as soon as we moved back to town, as there was no purpose to it.