Hypocrisy 101

[Son of A Tiger 649]

58 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

And what is that bigger picture?

Overall climate control.

[Son of A Tiger 649]

46 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

That's not true. In the past, lighting was a huge percentage of overall energy use. It has obviously improved, but It's still quite significant. Most people think about households in this regard, where adoption of new technologies tends to lag because of cost, but in industrial and particularly commercial sectors the reduction has been significant. I ran a brief search to try and find some charts to give an idea, but couldn't find much to show this specifically. Main one I found showed that between 2003 and 2013, the percentage of energy use in the commercial sector that went to lighting fell from 38% to 17%. That's enormous, particularly in a 10-year stretch.

I don't understand railing against improvements like this. In one breath you'll slam those that oppose increasing fossil fuel development, but in the next you do the same when they try to reduce energy consumption, so that perhaps that drilling won't be needed. 

Then somebody needs to tell AU to turn off more lights. If you walk around campus at night there are thousands of lights on. Then put this on a national scale and I ask......why not allow only a limited number of lights to be on?

Edited April 3, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[TexasTiger 14,500]

13 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Overall climate control.

Then complain about that.

[Leftfield 3,412]

1 minute ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Then somebody needs to tell AU to turn off more lights. If you walk around campus at night there are thousands of lights on. Then put this on a national scale and I ask......why not allow only a limited number of lights to be on?

Which is why it's so important to reduce the energy that lighting uses. 

I know you're being facetious about government stepping in to tell us how many lights a household/business/institution can use. This is the problem with total distrust....in your mind, if we allow a push to eliminate incandescent bulbs, it's an absolute certainty that government will keep rolling over us and institute a mandate on how many lights we can use. There is such a thing as a middle ground.

[homersapien 12,289]

24 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Overall climate control.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that replacing incandescent bulbs with more efficient technology isn't contributing to that goal?  It's not a worthwhile endeavor?

[homersapien 12,289]

22 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Then somebody needs to tell AU to turn off more lights. If you walk around campus at night there are thousands of lights on. Then put this on a national scale and I ask......why not allow only a limited number of lights to be on?

That would likely create a security issue.

Would it not be better to reduce the energy consumption of the lighting you need?

[aubiefifty 18,430]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That would likely create a security issue.

Would it not be better to reduce the energy consumption of the lighting you need?

they just had a rape or two in the last month or less and i believe they said assaults were up so i agree on the security thing. as for led lights they have come so far abd save a decent amount of money. and you can get bright ones now as well. used to be all 60 watts best i can remember. but then remember these is the same party that attacked a little girl for trying to save the world.

[AU9377 6,094]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I certainly think he is disingenuous on his views of the climate. He is another typical "do as I say and not as I do" politician. He only got rid of his family's private jet because of the backlash. Claiming that he is offsetting by buying carbon credits is laughable too. 

He attached himself to this cause like many of the other celebrities because it makes them feel good and most importantly.........they can financially benefit from it. If you want to claim you are trying to save the climate....don't show up to the conference in your private jets. 

So anyone with money cannot be concerned about the environment?  Is it anyone with a private jet can't be concerned?  I agree that some of the climate issues are out of our control.  However, common sense tells us that fewer pollutants in the air is a good thing and that there are consequences to burning the level of fossil fuels that people are burning around the world today. 

What are the consequences of off shore drilling?  The oceans can withstand a lot, but how much is too much?  Should people just not care as long as there is enough to make it past their own lifetime?  That just seems irresponsible and short sighted, but it is, unfortunately, the American way when it comes to resources and greed.

[wdefromtx 3,705]

57 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

So anyone with money cannot be concerned about the environment?  Is it anyone with a private jet can't be concerned?  I agree that some of the climate issues are out of our control.  However, common sense tells us that fewer pollutants in the air is a good thing and that there are consequences to burning the level of fossil fuels that people are burning around the world today. 

What are the consequences of off shore drilling?  The oceans can withstand a lot, but how much is too much?  Should people just not care as long as there is enough to make it past their own lifetime?  That just seems irresponsible and short sighted, but it is, unfortunately, the American way when it comes to resources and greed.

When did I say anyone with money cannot be concerned about the environment? Did you not read the title of this thread? Not sure if you are trolling or that dumb, or just so brainwashed by your ideology to see the hypocrisy of people claiming to be about the environment telling others what to do then hoping on their private jets.

 

The rest of your ramblings......not sure what off shore drilling has to do with hypocrisy and Kerry.

[AU9377 6,094]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

When did I say anyone with money cannot be concerned about the environment? Did you not read the title of this thread? Not sure if you are trolling or that dumb, or just so brainwashed by your ideology to see the hypocrisy of people claiming to be about the environment telling others what to do then hoping on their private jets.

 

The rest of your ramblings......not sure what off shore drilling has to do with hypocrisy and Kerry.

I have no ideology.  However, if your biggest issue with Kerry is his taking private jets while working around the world with environmental issues, it would seem that you are looking for a reason to discount his work that has little to do with his work.

[wdefromtx 3,705]

20 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I have no ideology.  However, if your biggest issue with Kerry is his taking private jets while working around the world with environmental issues, it would seem that you are looking for a reason to discount his work that has little to do with his work.

Yes I take issue with people talking about climate change and trying to lecture everyone about it all while their actions go in the opposite direction. I am not alone in this sentiment....look at the backlash with how many travelled to Davos. Happens every year or whenever they have it. 

[Son of A Tiger 649]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

That would likely create a security issue.

Would it not be better to reduce the energy consumption of the lighting you need?

No it has little to do with security. I'm talking about all the unnecessary lights in building rooms/labs that aren't in use at night.

[aubiefifty 18,430]

11 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

No it has little to do with security. I'm talking about all the unnecessary lights in building rooms/labs that aren't in use at night.

little? well does it or does it not? we call this waffling.............