I was going to post a response there, but (surprise, surprise) I became a little too verbose.
As a result, this post was born......
Annelise Connell:
Anti-smoking is a misnomer. It is a label invented for propoganda. Big Tobacco refers to pro-clean air activists as "antis" in their internal documents for a reason. But there is no need to accept the slur.
Garbage.
Sounds to me like you've been immersing yourself in the TC propaganda for too long.
Read Carl's remarks and you'll see that the TC movement has nothing to do with air, clean or not.
That makes a sizable portion of the movement anti-smoking. or anti-tobacco if you prefer.
Our group is pro clean air, and anti-air pollution. As such, everyone knows that to eliminate air pollution you must find the souce and eliminate it - offering other options for the desired result. For smoking, the desired result is the nicotine high - not the smoke.
No.
Your group, in particular, is "anti-air pollution".
That does not mean that every (or even most) TC groups are about anything but tobacco.
Smoke from burning leaves? - compost instead.
Oh goody, let's trade visible smoke production for invisible greenhouse gas production.
By the way, which form of composting are we talking about, aerobic or anaerobic?
Please explain to me the long term effects of trapping those gases (and bacteria, parasites, etc) in the soil, transferring them into plant matter (through gardening with the result), and then into the human body.
Or are they being released into the wild somewhere en-route to your mouth (say through cooking)?
Please also explain why keeping said decaying matter in close proximity to humans over the long term is or is not a bad thing.
Smoke from charcoal barbeques? - use gas grills instead
*sigh*
Which type of gas are we talking here?
How much pollution and environmental damage is caused in the production of said gas, from start to finish (please include the damage from transporting it)?
Is this a good trade-off, or is it simply foisting off the problem to some less visible or more spread out location?
Smoke from power plants? - save energy instead, and use the cleanest fuel - wind, solar etc
The state of the art for wind, solar, etc is not currently good enough to provide power for the size of the world's population at anything even close to cost-effectiveness.
That might be an option in another decade or two, if we can convince government to invest very heavily in development now.
Even then, I suspect the best alternatives are going to be hydrogen/fusion or solar power satellites.
Want to make a bet on how many NIMBYs pop up when we start talking fusion power plants or microwave power transmission?
I'd also lay odds that you and your brethren will be on the "anti" bandwagon then too.
While we're at it, please tally up the environmental damage caused by the production of solar cells and wind farms.
Please include the damage done to bird populations caused by adding hundreds of large spinning blades in the air, as well as the damage caused in adding the power line framework to and from the new "power farms".
Please show, as well, that it's actually possible to replace the existing infrastructure in terms of actual and consistent power being generated and at a similar cost to both government and the consumer.
Then (and only then) can we discuss whether these potential solutions are really cost effective on an environmental basis.
Tobacco smoke - don't light tobacco. Period. You want nicotine, go get nicotine. But just don't strike the match or use the lighter.
Bad monkey, no banana.
While there is some desire for nicotine involved with a choice to smoke or not, the actual act of smoking is the main thing for a great many.
NRT does not alleviate that as an issue.
Your group claims to be supported by individual donations, but the inclusion of SHS and promotion of NRT seem a little off-topic for your stated goals.
Can you please post the donation lists to your site so we may all see that there is no funding from pharmaceutical interests.
The propoganda seeks to direct you to other labels "too far", "not far enough". It is all misdirection to avoid the main issue - clean air.
I am pro-clean air. No other label sticks.
We'll ignore for the moment that you labeled yourself as "anti-pollution" (rather than "pro-clean air") just a couple of paragraphs ago.
You seem to be saying that there is no such thing as "too far" here.
Is that accurate?
Going by the "stated goals" on your site I'd have to say your suggested policies as stated are impractical, ill-thought, and that you have made little or no attempt to suggest viable alternatives.
From the site:
What must Government and LegCo do?
Power companies must show an aggressive plan to reduce emissions by 90% or lose their licenses.
Woopsy. How are they expected to do this?
I can see no discussion of options on your site, except for a recommendation of LNG. While LNG is less polluting to a certain degree (and please note, it's still a fairly major emitter of greenhouse gases...on top of being more expensive), it's real benefit is that the majority of the pollution/environmental damage is done in unpopulated areas. More NIMBYism at it's finest.
I also note no discussion of what "emissions" we're talking about...are we talking simply particulate matter (which a switch to LNG entirely might decrease by 90%), or are we talking greenhouse gases (which the same switch might decrease by perhaps 40-50%)?
Just to be at least a *little* uncritical (and slightly positive...a novelty for me) somewhere in here, I would suggest pushing your government to begin experimentation into MHD generation, as it can be used with coal (which you state is already what is being used), but increases efficiency and thereby decreases pollution.
There was some good research on MHD done in the US in the 60's (Avro was the company doing it I believe), but funding was dropped by the guvmint in favor of nuclear, IIRC.
Or is this just a black/white coal bad/solar good (ugh. me ugluk) argument?
And, no, discussion of a single experimental wind farm does not qualify as suggesting an alternative.
Bus companies must show an aggressive plan to reduce emissions by 80% or lose their licenses.
Ummm. And the alternative is.....?
I note your site suggests eliminating the subsidy and using that money for "pollution-free" (which aren't) hybrid buses.
That, according to you will replace half of the current "polluting" diesels.
What about the other half?
What about the the increase in buses needed, since you also advocate not building 15 new roads and increasing road/tunnel tolls to reduce traffic?
Ban new diesel mini-buses and passenger vans, phase out all pre Euro III vehicles by 2008
Again, you don't seem to suggest a viable alternative...just an outright ban. We're talking a massive cost to the driver due to replacement of vehicles, but no discussion of how people are going to afford this or bettering transit options. This is the mentality that gets you labeled an "anti", as an "anti" is simply against something, regardless of the societal cost or discussion of whether it's even possible. A "pro" would at least be able to show some viable alternatives.
From what I see, I'd have to agree that you are anti-pollution...although from what I can see I would use a completely different term....luddite.
By the way, good luck with that IT career in the future you and yours are pushing for.
It's probably the most resource wasteful (and expendable) career choice you could have made.
No comments:
Post a Comment