9 Aug
I have a suggestion for global warming - what do you think?
Anyone with a home of over 10,000 square feet must modify the home to be powered solely on solar power or wind power.
After all, every little bit helps, and people who live in 10,000 plus square foot houses have huge carbon footprints due to their heating and power requirements. If every house over that size was powered by green energy, it would definitely reduce pollution, dependence on oil/coal, etc.
If you support efforts to reduce carbon emissions, do you also support this suggestion? If not, why not?
I’m not suggesting that we allow carbon offsets. I’m suggesting that if Global Warming is real, then Al Gore and Sheryl Crow and others who live in giant homes should have no issue with modifying them to be completely green. No credits available.
smcgilli….. you must have missed my point.
The people clamoring for us to use one sheet of toilet paper, and turn the heat down to 67 degrees, live in 10,000, 15,000 and 20,000 square foot mansions. My suggestion is, if they are right and global warming is going to kill the planet, then they should have no objection to turning their luxury homes completely green. Right? Wanna bet how fast they’d sidestep this….?
sarge — you missed the point too…. you’re talking about what’s "fair." What would be "fair" is if Sheryl Crow and Al Gore HAD THE SAME CARBON FOOTPRINT AS YOU AND ME. People in 10,000 square foot homes in Malibu, and private villas, and airports in their front yards, are telling you and me that WE have to spend money greening out homes, but they don’t green theirs. WE have to drive hybrid cars and bio-diesel, they say - but they fly in jets 100 times per year — WE have to use one square of toilet paper, and THEY make sure their entourages and themselves are bathed in luxuries while on "tour" and making movies (which are pure luxuries - and major pollution sources).
Posted by Art Newbie Bill on 09.08.09 at 5:16 pm
I considered that but came up with another idea. An energy credit card. Each US citizen would have a certain energy credit based on their location. The credit card would be attached to the persons property and they would pay for their household oil/gas and electric with the card and they would also pay for their gasoline and airline tickets with the card. Customers would have a baseline energy price but if they used more than their allotment then the price for energy would go up. This would encourage people to conserve but would allow them to choose how they conserved.
Posted by brandonjones@swbell.net on 09.08.09 at 5:16 pm
Global Warming doesn’t exist. It’s been proved that the earth goes through warming and cool cycles. Al Gore Wants you to believe in Global Warming because He has big money invested in his Carbon Offset company.
Posted by Frank K on 09.08.09 at 5:16 pm
Ok, but at the same time we need to solve the global dimming issue aswell
Posted by smcgilli on 09.08.09 at 5:16 pm
i hate the idea. it’s not my business how my neighbor chooses to live. I don’t care how they spend their money. I don’t care how much they spend on energy or anything else.
*************************************************************
no - I get your point - trying to back the chicken little crowd into a corner. I just don’t it’s all that clever.
Posted by edjumacation on 09.08.09 at 5:16 pm
I am still waiting to hear about the Global Cooling I was promised in the 80’s.
Global warming is a crock.
http://www.talkkc.net/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1173066648
Posted by sarge927 on 09.08.09 at 5:16 pm
How about requiring anyone with a home over 5,000 square feet to include solar and/or wind power but not rely on it totally? Let’s face it, if the wind dies down and the sun goes behind the clouds it’s going to make generating power next to impossible. Besides, is it fair to make some of the people rely completely on solar and wind when people in smaller homes can rely completely on conventional power sources? I’m all for incentives that will help the environment, but your plan seems to be directed at punishing the rich.