Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline!

[Williamsmith]

Isn't that like standing on a limb that is ready to break and you say "I'll get off the limb when the guy next to me does." Doesn't your getting of the limb save you and maybe the other clueless people still on the limb, too? I don't get the logic. My DH has similar logic. If everyone is looting, does that make it OK for you to loot?

Someone has to be the one to lead people into the future by their example.

The point is not leadership. It fairness.

[catherine]

The point is not leadership. It fairness.

Well, to me refusal to move forward and support new technologies that will ultimately help to remediate a sick planet simply because others aren't on board is cutting off your nose to spite your face. And it smacks of "Jimmy gets to stay up late and eat candy for dinner. Why can't I?"

So I will respectfully disagree.

[Suzanne]

In my example, 4 of the 5 SUVs are being used daily.

A lot of twitching nerves out there!

[Williamsmith]

Well, to me refusal to move forward and support new technologies that will ultimately help to remediate a sick planet simply because others aren't on board is cutting off your nose to spite your face. And it smacks of "Jimmy gets to stay up late and eat candy for dinner. Why can't I?"

So I will respectfully disagree.

Technology ....that deserves a separate thread. We can’t agree on basic tenants. Is the planet sick? What does sick mean? Ultimately, your world view requires applying force to an unwilling population. My world view respects freedom and independence. You can wrap your ideas up in feel good words like “encourage”, “move forward”, “lead by example” but the end game is use of force by one ideologist against a non compliant populace. I reject that on its basic immoral premise.

[catherine]

Technology ....that deserves a separate thread. We can’t agree on basic tenants. Is the planet sick? What does sick mean? Ultimately, your world view requires applying force to an unwilling population. My world view respects freedom and independence. You can wrap your ideas up in feel good words like “encourage”, “move forward”, “lead by example” but the end game is use of force by one ideologist against a non compliant populace. I reject that on its basic immoral premise.

I knew we'd disagree on this. I don't think climate change is an ideology. I think it's a reality. Is a hurricane an ideology? A famine?

I realize that I come off sounding like every other Northeastern liberal, and I apologize for that. Especially when I suspect that we both agree with the basic idea the nature is wondrous. To your point, you think that left to our devices, nature will be just fine. I'm not as optimistic. Do I have a right to tell people they can't destroy elephants for their tusks, or sharks for their fins? Do I have the right to tell SUV owners that they shouldn't buy gas guzzlers? No.

But do I feel that we are making a big mistake overtaxing our resources, polluting water and air, shrinking the diversity of the species? Yes, and I think someday we, or our children, will be sorry. Nature will prevail, but our descendants will be robbed of so much. Forced to eat test tube food because the fertile land now looks like the Arabian desert. Deprived of salmon and cod. Deprived of natural spring water.

We always apply force to an unwilling population when it's appropriate, and you know that, as a law enforcer. And I'm not suggesting force. I'm suggesting we collectively use our miraculous imaginations to think of better ways. That's what we've always done.

[catherine]

I've talked to some who feel the whole problem is so large and systemic that no amount of personal hairshirt-wearing will veer us from what they see as the current course. And so their efforts are best spent lobbying/working at a higher level of engagement, instead of hand-sorting their recycleables.

Yeah, makes me think of this article by Jensen: "Forget Shorter Showers"

[catherine]

In my internet-browsing today, I came across a really interesting TED talk by Stewart Brand, creator/editor of Whole Earth Catalog. No one can dispute that he is an iconoclast in fighting for the environment. He's written a book called Whole Earth Discipline, which I hadn't heard of before, but its somewhat unexpected (at least to me) subtitle is "Why Dense Cities, Nuclear Power, Transgenic Crops, RestoredWildlands, and Geoengineering Are Necessary"

Because I'm trying to save my pennies to put toward my very un-dense prospective rural home, I didn't want deploy my trigger finger on the Kindle One-Click. Instead I was able to find this 17 minutes YouTube summary explaining why an environmentalist is exhorting people to support nuclear power and GMOs. Very thought-provoking. This guy is really inspirational.

https://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_br...ental_heresies

[Williamsmith]

I like that Stewart Brand is pushing other environmentalists into defending their war against nuclear energy. Nuclear can be a large part of our energy independence. We don’t have to build large facilities. As he pointed out, smaller more diverse local facilities are more effective and less worrisome. Spent nuclear fuel is transported safely in this country daily. Technology.....the good kind...could turn us in the direction we need to go. More polar bear cubs......that would be nice right?

[Rogar]

I've talked to some who feel the whole problem is so large and systemic that no amount of personal hairshirt-wearing will veer us from what they see as the current course. And so their efforts are best spent lobbying/working at a higher level of engagement, instead of hand-sorting their recycleables.

I have had similar thoughts about voting and any political interests or energies beyond local.

[jp1]

Technology ....that deserves a separate thread. We can’t agree on basic tenants. Is the planet sick? What does sick mean? Ultimately, your world view requires applying force to an unwilling population. My world view respects freedom and independence. You can wrap your ideas up in feel good words like “encourage”, “move forward”, “lead by example” but the end game is use of force by one ideologist against a non compliant populace. I reject that on its basic immoral premise.

Does your freedom and independence force me to accept all the externalities caused your casual emission of large amounts of greenhouse gases?