John Edwards - "Americans should 'sacrifice' SUVs for Env

[EvilMonkey]

If a politician where to ever enact legislation that helped the environment somehow (i.e., outlaw SUVs or something to that affect) then wouldn't that law apply to everyone, including all the politicians? I guess I'm struggling to see your point of view. Sure he will have a much larger carbon footprint than me, but so will most politicians regardless of party.

Kinda like social security applies to everyone, including politicians? Oh wait, that's right, they have a DIFFERENT program.

[mr_genius]

So apparently the next environmental bill that comes up for vote in the House or Senate should be first addressed like this:

 

"Unless you're only means of transportation is a solar powered go-cart you cannot vote on this bill."

 

I mean seriously, based on your logic no politician can ever vote for any environmental legislation or speak about the environment because they all drive cars and SUVs and have homes that use electricity.

 

 

Not at all. They can vote for enviromental legislation, and they should also stop polluting themselves. Just like Michael Vick can donate money to help dogs, but he should also stop abusing them.

 

Edwards is running for president... a position ,which to be successful at, requires strong leadership skills. He is showing none. Obviously he doesn't care about the enviroment, because if he did he would make major changes to stop his carbon emission levels. He is pandering for votes.

Edited August 29, 2007 by mr_genius

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Sounds kinda like the same logic Dems use in talking about the war. Oh, you didn't go to Vietnam? You can't have an opinion on the war then, you are a chickenhawk. If Edwards wants to be credible on the environment, stop using up more resources than the whole town combined. Fly commercial. Don't take a limo everywhere. Maybe a smaller house, or one more environmentally friendly?(NOT saying he should live in a shack, but his house is HUGE! Maybe he is compensating for something? Hmmm.) For gods sakes, how many rooms does he need? He can only store so much hair gel beore it starts to go bad. And you don't want to see bad hair gel.

Alpha,

 

There is a major difference between politicians and talking heads who simply didn't go (weren't drafted and did not volunteer) compared to those like the Cheneys and the Nugents who actively went out of their way to get deferments or in the Noog's case, cover himself in feces and urine while refusing to shower for the month before reporting to his draft board. It is those people who choose to act cavalier with the lives of others when they did not have the cajones to put their own on the line that are chickenhawks. The same can happen with the environs who want to cease global warming, but I don't think it is the case so much for Edwards.

 

And don't get me wrong. It is hilarious to hear Edwards talk about the "two Americas" and then go get a $400 haircut. That is like 3-4 trips to the co-op for me (Yes, I found a local area organic co-op with all local area foods so carbon usage to get items there is minimal. Viva Common Ground!) for groceries.

[southsider2k5]

Sounds kinda like the same logic Dems use in talking about the war. Oh, you didn't go to Vietnam? You can't have an opinion on the war then, you are a chickenhawk. If Edwards wants to be credible on the environment, stop using up more resources than the whole town combined. Fly commercial. Don't take a limo everywhere. Maybe a smaller house, or one more environmentally friendly?(NOT saying he should live in a shack, but his house is HUGE! Maybe he is compensating for something? Hmmm.) For gods sakes, how many rooms does he need? He can only store so much hair gel beore it starts to go bad. And you don't want to see bad hair gel.

 

To me this is a hypocracy on par with a Larry Craig who preaches one lifestyle and lives another. Why is Craig being tatooed in public, but Edwards is getting a free pass? Conceptually this is the exact samething.

[kapkomet]

® vs. (D). We already know that.

 

[vandy125]

Actually, I would say that I am a Republican, but even if Edwards doesn't have his crap in order, I would love to see SUVs off of the road for the most part (or at least a much more efficient version out there). If we actually do believe in global warming, saving the environment, and reducing our dependency on foreign energy, we need to take some steps to do this. If that involves taking over-sized, under-utilized, oil chugging vehicles off the road, I am all for it.

 

We already have regulations in place for how much crap your car can spew out. This would be the same sort of thing except that we are regulating how much it can take in, and it would be for similar reasons.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, I would say that I am a Republican, but even if Edwards doesn't have his crap in order, I would love to see SUVs off of the road for the most part (or at least a much more efficient version out there). If we actually do believe in global warming, saving the environment, and reducing our dependency on foreign energy, we need to take some steps to do this. If that involves taking over-sized, under-utilized, oil chugging vehicles off the road, I am all for it.

 

We already have regulations in place for how much crap your car can spew out. This would be the same sort of thing except that we are regulating how much it can take in, and it would be for similar reasons.

I don't think that the size of vehicles should be the focus of the larger thrust. We need moves forward in technology. We need more hybrid cars on the road, we need renewable fuel to be something other than corn (something more energy-efficient), and then we need to really push on electric cars. Then, while larger vehicles will still use more energy, the overall fleet of cars will use far less than currently.

 

Policy-wise, there are numerous ways to get there. Raised economy standards, research into alternative fuels, restructuring the current economic incentives given to energy companies, etc. But no matter the method, that is the way to go.

 

By the way vandy, I do agree with you about SUV's on a personal basis - it drives me nuts how many driver-only, 2 ton monster SUV's I see driving down the road. But I don't think you can legislate that out of people. Its selfishness - they don't care that their giant cars make other cars less safe, or that they are putting us at more jeopardy in the Middle East. Doesn't matter to them. Unfortunately, selfishness is more and more a hallmark of this country. Its kid of sad.

 

[BigSqwert]

® vs. (D). We already know that.

So please tell me who in politics has a right to speak out on the environment? Are you aware of any politicians that don't drive a car (besides Ralph Nader), use solar power exclusively, and recycles their own water?

 

I applaud the work that Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in California and yet his carbon footprint is probably 100 times greater than the average American.

[kapkomet]

So please tell me who in politics has a right to speak out on the environment? Are you aware of any politicians that don't drive a car (besides Ralph Nader), use solar power exclusively, and recycles their own water?

 

I applaud the work that Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in California and yet his carbon footprint is probably 100 times greater than the average American.

That wasn't my point. *breathes out, CARBON*.

[sox4lifeinPA]

So please tell me who in politics has a right to speak out on the environment? Are you aware of any politicians that don't drive a car (besides Ralph Nader), use solar power exclusively, and recycles their own water?

 

I applaud the work that Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in California and yet his carbon footprint is probably 100 times greater than the average American.

 

This thread blew up in a few hours. good job. I was surprised by the responses.

[EvilMonkey]

So please tell me who in politics has a right to speak out on the environment? Are you aware of any politicians that don't drive a car (besides Ralph Nader), use solar power exclusively, and recycles their own water?

 

I applaud the work that Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in California and yet his carbon footprint is probably 100 times greater than the average American.

You don't have to be Ed Bagley Jr to talk about the environment, but you have to be at least making an effort to live up to what you espouse. That's what keeps nailing some of the 'family values' politicians who talk about marraige, but then screw around and get caught doing it. Edwards can talk about the environment all he wants, but until he actually tries to do SOMETHING himself to help it, it is just empty talk. He could have followed up his comments with something like "In the spirit of my request, I too will be making some sacrafices in my daily life to help minimize my impact on the environment. To that end, I will be getting rid of any SUV's that I own, and will be forgoeing the use of limousines when I can. " But, he didn't. And he isn't. He is just an empty suit.

[Balta1701]

Well, I know this will spark the whole debate about carbon offsets again and whether or not the systems currently set up work, but I will at least post these couple bits about Mr. Edwards:

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – As part of his efforts to combat global warming, Senator John Edwards announced today that he will make his campaign "carbon neutral." Edwards believes global warming is one of the great challenges facing America and the world and that we can all take immediate action to decrease the amount of carbon we produce. By conserving energy and purchasing carbon offsets, the Edwards campaign will offset the carbon emitted by Edwards and his staff's campaign travel, and the energy used in his campaign headquarters and field offices.

 

"Global warming is an emergency and we can't wait until the next president is elected to take action," said Edwards. "Each of us can take responsibility in small ways to make a big difference. I encourage all Americans to conserve energy in their own homes and workplaces and help fight global warming."

Call it “Dancing with the Stars”: Global Warming Edition. Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards showed his best dance moves trying to avoid questions about how energy efficient his 28,000-square-foot mansion really is and how much the power bill costs each month.

 

The March 20 edition of CNN’s “American Morning” showed Edwards hyping global warming, promoting his energy plan that mandates carbon caps and claiming that his new mega-McMansion was actually being operated in a “carbon-neutral way.”

That all said...the more effort put forth at every level...by both government initiatives and regulations and by personal investment/treating it as a chairty, the better off we'll all be. This problem can't be solved solely by personal action, and it can't be solved solely by government action, and it can't be solved solely by business/scientific action

[EvilMonkey]

Well, I know this will spark the whole debate about carbon offsets again and whether or not the systems currently set up work, but I will at least post these couple bits about Mr. Edwards:

 

That all said...the more effort put forth at every level...by both government initiatives and regulations and by personal investment/treating it as a chairty, the better off we'll all be. This problem can't be solved solely by personal action, and it can't be solved solely by government action, and it can't be solved solely by business/scientific action

regadless of whether they 'work' or not, the whole concept just goes against Edwards whole '2 America's' theme. Rich people can afford to purchase 'offsets'. most common folk cannot.

[Balta1701]

regadless of whether they 'work' or not, the whole concept just goes against Edwards whole '2 America's' theme. Rich people can afford to purchase 'offsets'. most common folk cannot.

At least to my eyes...this is actually a part of the solution...not necessarily a part of the problem.

 

Right now, we're leaving a period where carbon emissions have been viewed as completely irrelevant. There has been virtually no effort to conserve them as a commodity, and therefore, even the smallest steps have not been taken yet. There are dozens of ways we could rapidly cut down on carbon emissions with only slight changes; i.e. compact fluorescent bulbs, more focus on carpooling/mass transit, building wind farms in the hundreds of locations in this country where they would be practical...but very few of those things were done in a major way before a few years ago.

 

Every little bit that we do now to cut CO2 emissions does one important thing; it buys us more time. The less CO2 we emit now, the longer we have to find actual alternative energy sources that can do a better job. So, if the rich right now are paying extra money for things like building more wind farms, planting more trees, and buying compact fluorescents, then they are paying part of the bill for those initial reductions that will buy us the time in the long run.

 

We don't have to cut carbon emissions to zero right now to stop this problem. But we have to start getting them going down instead of up every year, and an appropriately built carbon offset market which the wealthy treat as a charity is actually one way to get started. It would also help if it was designed well, and I think most of the evidence so far shows that the European system is not, but it's at least a band-aid on the wound.

[southsider2k5]

So please tell me who in politics has a right to speak out on the environment? Are you aware of any politicians that don't drive a car (besides Ralph Nader), use solar power exclusively, and recycles their own water?

 

I applaud the work that Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in California and yet his carbon footprint is probably 100 times greater than the average American.

 

So I am sure you are applauding Larry Craig for his work on the anti-gay marriage amendment, right?

[GoSox05]

I'd like to see SUV's gone because people can't drive them. They sure as hell can't park them.

[BigSqwert]

So I am sure you are applauding Larry Craig for his work on the anti-gay marriage amendment, right?

No because I am pro gay marriage.

[sox4lifeinPA]

No because I am pro gay marriage.

 

what makes a homosexual have more of a right to get married than two first cousins?

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'd like to see SUV's gone because people can't drive them. They sure as hell can't park them.

 

 

Texas will secede from the union before this will happen.

[BigSqwert]

Texas will secede from the union before this will happen.

And that's a bad thing?

[BigSqwert]

what makes a homosexual have more of a right to get married than two first cousins?

Are the cousins both men?

[GoSox05]

Texas will secede from the union before this will happen.

 

only in my dreams.

[sox4lifeinPA]

And that's a bad thing?

 

I would suspect that the US economy would be in a heap of trouble if CA, NY or TX were to disappear from its economic make up. So, "ha ha" it's funny to make jokes about rednecks (every state has 'em) I thank God for the rich culture and unique nature of the state of Texas.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Are the cousins both men?

 

why should that matter?

[sox4lifeinPA]

only in my dreams.

 

whatever, bigot.