- I've Gone-a-Viking; find out where!
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
They're After Our TV's!
Environmentalism impacts our lives in many ways - sometimes unexpected. We many of us recycle - some more than others, with it being understood that different communities can hinder or advance efforts at recycling. It can be particularly difficult in apartment buildings, as I've discovered. Where I am now, recycling reduces my garbage output by a good 33%. It makes a noticeable dent in what I throw out, even being limited to type 1 and 2 plastics.
We're also all familiar with the need to not leave all our lights on, and vampire-energy and so forth, and the evils of big SUV's and other gas-guzzlers.
But now they're after our TVs. I just read on Saturday that "California assails TV power usage" and that a "one-third cut" has been mandated by 2011.
The problem is that the big new flat-panel TVs, though lighter and easier on my back, suck up more power than the old fashioned cathode-ray tubes of yesteryear. TV's account, they say, for 10% of household electrical use if you include "related devices" like digital recorders and game consoles.
Egads, they'll be after our games next, and my gods' given right to record programming for later viewing. The Consumer Electronics Association, as might be expected as an outfit representing manufacturers, disagrees with the 10% figure and says 3% is more reasonable.
Personally, I'm more worried about my back than the power.
Even so, I wasn't consulted and California has decided that there be limits on TVs over 58 inches wide.
So they're shooting for a one-third reduction by 2011 and a one-half reduction by 2013. Those that can't meet the standards won't be allowed in CA. I wonder if they'll stop you at the border when you're moving into the state and make you throw your TV into the desert if it's too big.
And that's not all. Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts, along with Canada and Australia, are considering similar measures.
My biggest TV is 42 inches. Just upgraded from 27. So I'm set even in California, but it's not about me.
Well, okay, it's about me, but it's about a lot of other things as well - where do we draw the line, for instance, between consumer rights and the needs of the environment? What becomes necessary? And how much can we justify in the way of government interference?
The environment is a precious thing. We only have one. I'm a Heathen - a Pagan if you will - and Pagan religions are nature religions, as all original religions were. We have a good healthy respect for the environment. That's perhaps natural when you understand that we live in a world filled with the divine.
As such, I try to be careful. I try not to drive when I don't have to. I don't leave unnecessary lights on. In short, I follow Solon's advice: Nothing in excess. Or, as it is put in the Icelandic Sagas, "A wise man does all things in moderation" (Thorkel in Gisli Sursson's Saga).
If everybody lived according to these rules, we could go a long way towards voluntarily resolving some of the problems we are now seeing legislated against. As we go on, we may see more extreme measures taken to protect the environment.
And they will likely be necessary. The problem is, most of the burden falls on the individual in this country. Very little in the way of regulations control what industry does to our environment. They have power lobbyists in Washington. They practically own members of Congress.
So industry pollutes and we lose our big TVs.
Now being a moderate guy, I can probably live without a TV bigger than 58 inches. Honestly, I don't have the wall space for more than that unless I finish my basement.
Will that be next? You can't finish basements because the construction process pollutes? Or will it harm some heretofore unknown microbe that dwells in the cracks of the concrete.
Excess, you see, can go many ways, not only in individuals who might be careless environmentally, or in businesses which remain unregulated, but in governments - even environmentalists, who resort to extreme solutions where moderation might suffice.
I'm not trying to discourage California. After all, they've always been at the forefront of environmentalism. Environmental Heatlh Perspectives (EHP) tells us that
That certainly seems above the curve, and I applaud them for that.
I'm just saying I've seen some crazy things over recent years. Crazier even than wanting to take away our TVs (and you don't see an NRA-like group protecting our TVs do you? If they come to take them, are we just going to throw them at them, and wouldn't that be counter-productive?).
I would just like to see common-sense, moderation prevail.
I don't think that's too much to ask, or to expect - from all sides.
We're also all familiar with the need to not leave all our lights on, and vampire-energy and so forth, and the evils of big SUV's and other gas-guzzlers.
But now they're after our TVs. I just read on Saturday that "California assails TV power usage" and that a "one-third cut" has been mandated by 2011.
The problem is that the big new flat-panel TVs, though lighter and easier on my back, suck up more power than the old fashioned cathode-ray tubes of yesteryear. TV's account, they say, for 10% of household electrical use if you include "related devices" like digital recorders and game consoles.
Egads, they'll be after our games next, and my gods' given right to record programming for later viewing. The Consumer Electronics Association, as might be expected as an outfit representing manufacturers, disagrees with the 10% figure and says 3% is more reasonable.
Personally, I'm more worried about my back than the power.
Even so, I wasn't consulted and California has decided that there be limits on TVs over 58 inches wide.
So they're shooting for a one-third reduction by 2011 and a one-half reduction by 2013. Those that can't meet the standards won't be allowed in CA. I wonder if they'll stop you at the border when you're moving into the state and make you throw your TV into the desert if it's too big.
And that's not all. Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts, along with Canada and Australia, are considering similar measures.
My biggest TV is 42 inches. Just upgraded from 27. So I'm set even in California, but it's not about me.
Well, okay, it's about me, but it's about a lot of other things as well - where do we draw the line, for instance, between consumer rights and the needs of the environment? What becomes necessary? And how much can we justify in the way of government interference?
The environment is a precious thing. We only have one. I'm a Heathen - a Pagan if you will - and Pagan religions are nature religions, as all original religions were. We have a good healthy respect for the environment. That's perhaps natural when you understand that we live in a world filled with the divine.
As such, I try to be careful. I try not to drive when I don't have to. I don't leave unnecessary lights on. In short, I follow Solon's advice: Nothing in excess. Or, as it is put in the Icelandic Sagas, "A wise man does all things in moderation" (Thorkel in Gisli Sursson's Saga).
If everybody lived according to these rules, we could go a long way towards voluntarily resolving some of the problems we are now seeing legislated against. As we go on, we may see more extreme measures taken to protect the environment.
And they will likely be necessary. The problem is, most of the burden falls on the individual in this country. Very little in the way of regulations control what industry does to our environment. They have power lobbyists in Washington. They practically own members of Congress.
So industry pollutes and we lose our big TVs.
Now being a moderate guy, I can probably live without a TV bigger than 58 inches. Honestly, I don't have the wall space for more than that unless I finish my basement.
Will that be next? You can't finish basements because the construction process pollutes? Or will it harm some heretofore unknown microbe that dwells in the cracks of the concrete.
Excess, you see, can go many ways, not only in individuals who might be careless environmentally, or in businesses which remain unregulated, but in governments - even environmentalists, who resort to extreme solutions where moderation might suffice.
I'm not trying to discourage California. After all, they've always been at the forefront of environmentalism. Environmental Heatlh Perspectives (EHP) tells us that
According to a 2006 survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a San Francisco–based research organization, 65% of Californians don't think the federal government is doing enough to combat global warming.
That certainly seems above the curve, and I applaud them for that.
I'm just saying I've seen some crazy things over recent years. Crazier even than wanting to take away our TVs (and you don't see an NRA-like group protecting our TVs do you? If they come to take them, are we just going to throw them at them, and wouldn't that be counter-productive?).
I would just like to see common-sense, moderation prevail.
I don't think that's too much to ask, or to expect - from all sides.
A View From the Idiot
And as long as we're on the topic of Global Warming, I thought we'd look at a little issue of brain cooling: Rush Limbaugh. There is definitely no warming taking place in this joker's head. Honestly, I can't think of a word to describe him, but then he speaks pretty much for himself, doesn't he? So without further ado, this just in from the MediaMatters Limbaugh Wire: Limbaugh: Climate Scientists Are "Whoring Themselves Out For Money, Abandoning Science"
Published Mon, Nov 23, 2009 4:35pm ET
Rush: Emails stolen by hacking were "leaked" from a "whistleblower"
By Zachary Pleat
Wasting no time as usual, Rush joined Glenn Beck in calling Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitution." Rush then claimed that the hacked emails that were reportedly stolen from the University of East Anglia "are the real deal" and baselessly claimed that they were "leaked" by a "whistleblower." As classy as ever, Rush used these possibly illegally obtained emails to continue his long-running claim that global warming is a hoax:LIMBAUGH: These emails that we told you about last week from that group in Great Britain that formed the basis for the UN's climate change panel and their recommendations, those emails apparently now are the real deal and they may not have been leaked -- well, leaked -- they may be from a whistleblower inside the organization who is just unhappy with what's going on. Now, the bottom line is, the whole global warming -- manmade global warming movement is a fraud. It is a hoax. It's made-up lies.
Next, Rush explained how "[l]iberalism is a lie from top to bottom," then took the opportunity to bash President Obama for having run a campaign on, as he put it, nothing but hope, change, and empty platitudes. During this typically deranged rant, Rush channeled Alex Jones yet again, saying that Democrats "believe in a one-world government." Rush's theme of liberalism being a lie continued throughout the rest of the show.
Our kindly radio host then explained that the congressional members, scientists, and others who are working to combat climate change are "whoring themselves out for money." Still never mentioning that these emails were hacked into and possibly stolen, Rush then compared them to the Pentagon Papers.
A Big Day for Deniers? Not so much...
The climate denier community thought they scored big today with a hack-job of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the conservative spin machine (see Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? for some typical hysteria) the great global warming hoax has been exposed. Has it? No.
A few cherry-picked, out of context emails make up the denier argument. These supposedly betray a super-evil conspiracy that is somehow meant to financially benefit Al Gore and scientists while completely exonerating the denialist community - and by extension, the real conspirators: big oil and coal.
For a good, unbiased report of the incident see the BBC piece, Hackers target leading climate research unit
But as usual, the spin bears little resemblance to the facts. The fix is in, ladies and gentlemen, but the fix comes from the deniers, not from the world of science. For the best examination of the CRU "scandal" please visit Kevin Grandi's blog at DeSmogBlog.com, here.
If you want to know more about the denialists own methods of propaganda, distortion, and outright dishonesty, please read James Hoggan's Climate Cover-Up (2005). I've read it. You won't be disappointed; you will, however, be disgusted.
A few cherry-picked, out of context emails make up the denier argument. These supposedly betray a super-evil conspiracy that is somehow meant to financially benefit Al Gore and scientists while completely exonerating the denialist community - and by extension, the real conspirators: big oil and coal.
For a good, unbiased report of the incident see the BBC piece, Hackers target leading climate research unit
But as usual, the spin bears little resemblance to the facts. The fix is in, ladies and gentlemen, but the fix comes from the deniers, not from the world of science. For the best examination of the CRU "scandal" please visit Kevin Grandi's blog at DeSmogBlog.com, here.
If you want to know more about the denialists own methods of propaganda, distortion, and outright dishonesty, please read James Hoggan's Climate Cover-Up (2005). I've read it. You won't be disappointed; you will, however, be disgusted.
World Climate
Progressive Bloggers
Fan Badges
Fuel My Blog
