Al Gore: It's ok for China to pollute

[slamminshaun]

From the man nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize:

"Emerging economies such as China are justified in holding back on fighting greenhouse gas emissions until richer polluters like the United States do more to solve the problem", said Al Gore.

click here

I like Al Gore's thought process. In fact, I'm going to implement it. Until richer polluters like Al Gore give up their private jets, 3 houses, and stretch limos....why should I make any effort? What do you Al Gore worshipers think of your messiah's comments?

[pod]

Al Gore, the true definition of a limousine liberal.

You notice I'm on a rampage about them lately. It's easy to be a lib when you don't have to worry about stuff like money and bills.

I don't know what's worse, college liberals or limousine liberals.

[Mattivi]

although i think i get the gist of "limosine liberal" could you please extrapolate on it a bit. pretty funny moniker ;D

[swirlundergrounder]

Originally Posted by Slammin'

From the man nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize:

"Emerging economies such as China are justified in holding back on fighting greenhouse gas emissions until richer polluters like the United States do more to solve the problem", said Al Gore.

click here

I like Al Gore's thought process. In fact, I'm going to implement it. Until richer polluters like Al Gore give up their private jets, 3 houses, and stretch limos....why should I make any effort? What do you Al Gore worshipers think of your messiah's comments?

Dude here you go twisting words around again. His statement clearly implies that why should other nations take on such radical environmental changes if the United States (supposedely the most influential nation on Earth) doesn't embrace radical change?

BTW where have you seen Al Gore flying around in a private jet?

And Al Gore doesn't have 3 houses. He has a house in Tennesse and in Virginia.

[pod]

He might not have a private jet, but he does exemplify the limousine liberal. He's got the money to be "radical", essentially.

Again, it's easy to bitch about the environment and such when you've got the luxury to do so.

Here's the deal, environmentalism, PETA-esque causes, vegetarian/vegan lifestyles, and other whiny liberal causes, will not become mainstream until the extremists are flushed out. These may or may not be good things, but like any lifestyle change, it can't be bought about by coercion.

I've said it a million times in regards to stuff like clubland, but the first thing is, you can't make people feel bad or stupid about the way they do things now. As irrational as it sounds.

[swirlundergrounder]

Originally Posted by pod

I've said it a million times in regards to stuff like clubland, but the first thing is, you can't make people feel bad or stupid about the way they do things now. As irrational as it sounds.

Does not sound irrational at all. I'm a vegetarian but I donn't go around telling people who eat meat that they are evil and vial people.

I don't really talk about why I became a vegetarian to meat eating people unless they ask me about it. And even then I don't really preach about it. That is until someone (like this girl at my work did 2 days ago) trys to tell me that not eating red meat is very unhealthy.

Ultimetly we all exchange information and the best thing for everyone is to choose what they believe. That's their right weather or not they agree with you.

[pod]

I don't mind someone explaining to me why they think doing such and such an activity is good or bad, but being coerced is going too far.

There's extenuating circumstances obviously, but right now, the last thing the American people want is a bunch of rich people telling them to do this and do that.

As the saying goes, "Easy for you to say..."

In regards to the environment? No one's gonna ditch their current cars for hybrids or full electrics due to the cost factor. Both types of vehicles on average, cost more than their gas-powered counterparts.

Oddly enough, I don't consider myself an environmentalist at all, but I just checked my "environmental footprint", and it's less than half the national average. I don't, nor have a real desire for a car, I walk a lot, and only fly a few times a year. My residence is no larger than absolutely necessary, and everything is either dark or on standby when I'm not home. My motives are financial though, not environmental.

[swirlundergrounder]

Originally Posted by pod

I don't, nor have a real desire for a car,

Who needs a car when they can hitch a ride on the Bang Bus?? :P

[slamminshaun]

Originally Posted by |-Erry

Dude here you go twisting words around again. His statement clearly implies that why should other nations take on such radical environmental changes if the United States (supposedely the most influential nation on Earth) doesn't embrace radical change?

BTW where have you seen Al Gore flying around in a private jet? And Al Gore doesn't have 3 houses. He has a house in Tennesse and in Virginia.

And I ask you Terry....

Just like Al Gore says China shouldn't have to do anything unless the U.S. does, why should I make changes in my life if Al Gore has 3 houses, criss-crosses the country in a private yet, and has an entourage of SUV's accompany him everywhere he goes? Answer that one, and then I'll answer the rest.

[coach]

Originally Posted by pod

He might not have a private jet, but he does exemplify the limousine liberal. He's got the money to be "radical", essentially.

Again, it's easy to bitch about the environment and such when you've got the luxury to do so.

That's funny, that is pretty much his point. America has the money to be "radical" in its environmentalism. Whereas China does not. Now whether or not one agrees that China is an "emerging" economy or counts as a poor nation is debatable. But it is clear that America is much richer and further along both economically and technologically than China.