Wow, you mean going green can actually save me money?!? While up until now solar panels and making your home more energy efficient was something that only the rich and famous could think about or afford, suddenly more middle class home owners are seeing the benefit. Bottom line - invest a little green now and save A LOT of "$$green$$" on energy costs down the road. My host family in Germany converted 2 years ago to solar to help with their heating costs. The house the family lives in is over 450 years old, has been in the family for many generations and is a case in point that the age of a house doesn't matter. As you can see by the picture, the historic beauty of this house is preserved and you can't even see the solar panels from the street...because they are on the backside of the house. All houses can be retrofitted and benefit from the new technologies. Not to mention, this activity will give jobs to people in the U.S. and bring us closer to energy independence. More details on the trend can be found in this A.P. article.
KEEP THINKING, ACTING AND GOING GREEN!!!
Posts
Glen,
ReplyDeleteYou are putting out some very good information. First, that is a great spot on the 450 year old house. I'd be interested in the actual cost savings and what green features were added to the house for energy efficiency. The attached article from Reuters did not delve into that particular house.
Secondly I find Gary's last post somewhat contradicting. However he was right on the money when he said Russell's Paradox would give me a headache. I'm not sure where the meat of the political diatribe came from but he speaks of the freedoms and rights that are inane to people and not given to them as "permission slips". The founding father faced a much different set of issues than we do today. This is not to say that our rights are invalid or should be stripped but merely to say that the people of today face much different challenges. I believe our society is in a state of moral decay. People are out to see what will shock people more and that's what sells. While Gary professes that the government is not responsible to ensure you get to breathe clean air, I would say that they have a responsibility to protect me from your second hand smoke because your being inconsiderate of others. What does this mean? Again a small example of moral decay. Not to go deep into the smoking argument but people will sit next to you and puff smoke into your face because they believe it to be their right. Conversely the non-smokers will force them to go away because it is their right to not have to smell the smoke. But if just one of those parties bent and walked away during the "smoke break" then it wouldn't be an issue. But neither will bend, thus the government must legislate this right to smoke. This is just a small example of what I believe Gary's message is. The reality is that it's the moral turpitude that is bringing this country down. People believe the government is responsible for their well being but do not want to participate in the society for its betterment. A good portion believe they are owed something.
Your going green premise is a good one. I don't believe that the government is coercing people to go green in fact just the opposite. While the government puts out Green information they haven't made going green affordable to average citizen. If you call switching to the crazy looking light bulbs coercion then I think we are a long ways apart in our views.
In Gary's post he talks about how the environment and Mother Earth will take care of itself long after we are gone. If this is true then there really is no need to go green is there? We will just pay $15 a gallon for gas as it runs out and breathe through dust masks to filter the pollutants. We will adapt to the degrading climate as well. Is global warming happening? I believe it is. I believe it is a natural and cyclical event. I also believe that we (humans) have accelerated the process. Furthermore, by going green it may slow the warming back towards some more natural progression. Are we going to stop it? No. Will we have to deal with it in the future? Yes.
It comes down to the morality of the people living in this country. If the people want to be out for themselves and believe that they are "owed" something by this society then we have no chance of making progress for this Union. If people want to stand up, go green, conserve, recycle, be active in the society, and not try shock people with the next bizarre idea, then there is a chance we can preserve what we have for generations to come.
Keep the info coming, I look forward to your next post. Kevin
First, I sincerely hope that Rights are not "inane" to people.
ReplyDeleteSecond, regarding secondhand smoke, which I could write a book on, btw, the problems you point out are easily addressed through property rights. 75% of the population does not smoke and it is reasonable to assume that if smoking bans were repealed tomorrow, that a corresponding percentage of establishments would remain smokefree. Especially the chain establishments. We won't even get into this idea of secondhand smoke supposedly harming people, at least to a degree where government force is required to regulate such a thing.
Are we to believe that people are not participating in the betterment of society? People who work hard to make a living, raise their children to be law abiding citizens, contribute to the tax base, and provide for a robust economy through their labor are somehow not doing enough? I, for one, do not want government to provide for my well-being because it is incredibly bad at doing so.
What degrading environment? For over two decades, government recycling programs have been in place, and when we used to simply chuck our glass soda bottle or tin can in the trash, we now find a place to stash our plastic soda bottles and our aluminum cans in our homes so we can bring them in for a 5 cent recycling refund. The CFCs present in many spray-can products have been completely eliminated. The energy efficiency of automobiles has increased tremendously through the simple use of advanced and lighter materials being used to construct smaller automobiles. The fashionable family car of 1957 likely weighed more and was worse at gas consumption than many of today's SUV's. Leaded gasoline is a thing of the past.We have catalytic converters. Several, nationwide "Clean Air" legislative initiatives have been put into place as well as several state initiatives. Appliances are now labeled with energy efficiency ratings and energy efficiency entrepreneurs are now available to give us consultations and recommend products to make our homes more energy efficient. Your monthly electricity and gas bill is likely to come to you with leaflets that include energy efficiency tips. If we had a time machine, probably even the most radical environmentalist from 1970s would think that we lived in an environmental paradise. Am I the only one who remembers all the garbage that would sit on the roadside? The smog? It was much worse than it is today.
Environmentalist groups oppose drilling, oppose the use of nuclear power, oppose hydroelectric (save the fish), oppose windmills (RFK, Jr., save the birds). I know that this is not what Glen is advocating here, but the truth is that this whole "going green" memeplex is a by-product of the work of these extremist factions.
There is nothing wrong with being a human being; it's great. Humans aren't "Earth cancer" or "Earth carcinogens". Taking care of yourself and the people you care about is hard enough. Enjoy your life while you have it. Be smart. Don't throw crap on the ground, keep your fingers out of the electric sockets, be kind to dogs and children. Last, I have to Glen credit for one thing; he used to ride around with a banner in his car that said "kill your television" and I used to pick on him for it. Well, I never watch TV anymore. It's garbage. Don't watch it. Maybe "The History Channel", otherwise don't waste your time.
Now, that's a diatribe!