High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition News & Informative Articles Get the Latest High Definition News & Informative Articles Here! Please post newsworthy information here only! This forum is NOT for your first post. Thank you!

England to ban Plasma TV's!?

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-07-2008, 07:59 PM   #91  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob Jones View Post
Come on Boby, it should be fairly obvious that I can spend time learning about HD and still devote energy to environmental protection issues. I agree with your concern about China. Their numbers alone are staggering and when you combine that with the burgeoning ability to afford gadgets (as my wife calls my toys), the impact on the environment can not be favorable if we continue down the current path. Personally, I believe the USA has to take the lead on this issue and for the past almost 8 years, the solution to the fuel crisis has been let's dig for more oil. Did anyone really expect an ex-oil man to do anything different? Without vision and leadership at the highest levels, most of us will continue to live our lives as though the polar ice caps will never melt. I just don't see a movement from the general population developing over this issue. I hope I am wrong.
Actually, Bush has been a major proponent of Ethanol and has made it a centerpiece of his energy plan. What will happen after he leaves remains to be seen, but his plan received fairly good bipartisan support around the country. At least his response is better than the whackos against it who say things like "how will the poor eat if we use our corn for energy?" or "do we really want our energy policy in the hands of American Agribusiness?" (as if having it in the hands of hostile foreign nations and multinational oil conglomerates is somehow better).

I guess my point was (and I'm not singling you out) if any of us were really concerned about it, would we be spending our time figuring out new and better ways of entertaining ourselves using equipment that is more than likely going to add to the problem: Petroleum-based Plastics, mercury in LCD backlights, toxic byproducts of gallium arsenide in LEDs, lead in solder, ferric chloride etchant for circuit boards, vinyl chloride for vinyl-coated steel chassis, etc., etc.?

There is hardly a step in producing consumer electronic equipment that doesn't produce toxic byproducts and use energy. Even the polycarbonate in optical discs is bad news. Where do we start?
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 07:07 AM   #92  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,179
Default

Be fair. Bush's record is mixed at best. He also supported opening up the Alaskan wilderness for oil exploration. I don't believe any fair-minded person would call him an environmentalist president. Like many of us, he gives with one hand and takes with the other. He also opposed the Kyoto agreement. In any event, your point on the adverse effects of consumer products is well taken. I'm not sure how a groundswell on this issue can be initiated. Americans (and perhaps people in general) tend to be reactive and not proactive. Something bad has to happen to spur action. This has been our history. Unfortunately, this pattern of apathy will have permanent and serious consequences on the environment. What do you suggest?
Jim Bob Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 10:07 AM   #93  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

No point in continuing the Bush Debate--I certainly never said he was an environmentalist President. IMHO, however, his move toward ethanol is one of the most significant energy policy moves any President has attempted.

The failure to submit the Kyoto treaty to congress for ratification dates back to Clinton. You might gather from my previous post that I don't support the Kyoto treaty and, as an American, I'm glad we have not bound ourselves to international treaties that attempt to control our sovereignty, redistribute our wealth, harm our economy and which are inequitable. I'm not sure it would even be Constitutional for the President and Congress to officially agree to that much foreign influence over this country's policies.

The fact that "punishment" for not meeting the standards and timetable is monetary makes it all too obvious the intent is really to redistribute the world's wealth, not protect the environment (and there are many environmentalists who agree based on careful analysis of the Kyoto protocols--they simply don't believe it can have the desired affect on the environment).

I think the United States can develop it's own approach and should. Currently there are a number of states (New England and California, for example) which have mounted their own efforts to reduce Greenhouse gases. This should be commended and encouraged (through tax credits, etc.) by the Federal Government, so that all states ultimately adopt programs that makes sense for them, or if a typical, inefficient "one-size-fits-all" Federal program is put in place, it should at least make sense for the country.

I'm afraid that something bad will have to happen before there is any sense of urgency, but we can all help enormously by being a little less of a "consumer" in most aspects of our lives. Difficult words on a forum dedicated to "Consumer" Electronics .

I'm personally concerned that our whole economy is built on supplying things consumers want, not things people need. When times get tough, people concentrate on what they need, not what they want and that could be devastating to our economy.

Hey, just trying to cheer everybody up!
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 10:47 AM   #94  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

TRIVIA: We are already living in an Ice Age. As long as ice sits on the poles, geologists classify it as a "ice age".

BobY:

You forgot President Carter who did just as much as Bush to push for more ethanol usage. Also New England and California are not doing anything to reduce greenhouse gases, as far as I can tell. They are pushing for cleaner cars that emit less pollutants (SULEV, ULEV, et cetera).

Jim Bob:

What's wrong with drilling oil in Alaska? 150 years ago we drilled for oil in Pennsylvania & Ohio. Did it ruin the wilderness? No. As far as I can tell, there's no sign that PA or OH were ever filled with oil derricks, and the woods are just as full of deer & trees as ever. (And this was before EPA regulations, when people didn't care if an oil spill happened. Today we are much more careful.)

ALL:

I think rising prices are doing more for environmental awareness than any policy in Washington ever did. People are trading-in for higher MPG cars. They are tossing out lightbulbs and replacing them with fluorescents that only burn ~20% as much energy. People are making fewer car trips.

- THAT'S what will get people to reduce their environmental impact.
- Not Washington programs. But hits to wallets.
- The desire to save money in the face of escalating costs will reduce energy usage.
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 11:07 AM   #95  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,179
Default

"What's wrong with drilling oil in Alaska?"

I don't see that claim anywhere in this thread. How convenient and efficient for you to manufacture it to butress your argument.
Jim Bob Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 11:14 AM   #96  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
You forgot President Carter who did just as much as Bush to push for more ethanol usage.
Didn't forget Carter, he was ineffective at getting support. So Far Bush has been more effective. It might be just the era, but so far the results are different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
Also New England and California are not doing anything to reduce greenhouse gases, as far as I can tell. They are pushing for cleaner cars that emit less pollutants (SULEV, ULEV, et cetera).
"As of January 18, 2007, eight Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI),[76] which is a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will indirectly apply pressure on the federal government by demonstrating that reductions can be achieved without being a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol.

* Participating states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Maryland (these states represent over 46 million people).
* Observer states and regions: Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Rhode Island.

On August 31, 2006, the California Legislature (representing over 33 million Californians) reached an agreement with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce the state's greenhouse-gas emissions, which rank at 12th-largest in the world, by 25% by the year 2020. This resulted in the Global Warming Solutions Act which effectively puts California in line with the Kyoto limitations, but at a date later than the 2008-2012 Kyoto commitment period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 11:44 AM   #97  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Thanks for the information.

What has Bush done to increase usage of ethanol, that Carter did not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob Jones View Post
"What's wrong with drilling oil in Alaska?" I don't see that claim anywhere in this thread. How convenient and efficient for you to manufacture it to butress your argument.
Oh how short is your memory. YOU said, "Be fair. Bush's record is mixed at best. He also supported opening up the Alaskan wilderness for oil exploration. I don't believe any fair-minded person would call him an environmentalist president."

Clearly you don't think drilling oil in Alaska is a good idea, and that it is poor for the environment.
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 11:50 AM   #98  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,179
Default

No, it is not clear. What is clear is that many would argue (and did) that such courses are not environmentally friendly. I never stated my personal beliefs. It is not a matter of failed memory, it is a matter of your inability to accurately convey the import of my post.
Jim Bob Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 12:11 PM   #99  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
Thanks for the information.

What has Bush done to increase usage of ethanol, that Carter did not?
It appears he has been able to garner more widespread, bipartisan support for his energy policy for whatever reason.

I admire *some* of the things Carter tried to do (and actually did) back when he was President (though I have less respect for him today), but he was not good at drumming up support for his policies.
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 12:48 PM   #100  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob Jones View Post
I never stated my personal beliefs. It is not a matter of failed memory, it is a matter of your inability to accurately convey the import of my post.
Back-peddling. You clearly stated, "Bush's record is mixed at best. He also supported opening up the Alaskan wilderness for oil exploration. I don't believe any fair-minded person would call him an environmentalist president."

i.e. YOU think someone calling Bush an environmentalist is making a false claim.
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to England to ban Plasma TV's!?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
42" Plasma or LCD? mickey79 Flat-Panel TVs 23 01-30-2007 08:05 AM
For sale Brand New Cingular 8125 for just $270 keshi01 DirecTV Forum 1 09-15-2006 08:33 AM
Panasonic PLASMA CES 2006 News! E55 KEV Flat-Panel TVs 5 02-17-2006 05:00 PM
Dell Delivers Plasma TVs, Printers and Music Players for Home Entertainment; Customer Cass High Definition News & Informative Articles 0 10-14-2004 02:40 PM
Pioneer Releases Fifth-Generation Digital High-Definition Plasma TVs Cass High Definition News & Informative Articles 0 05-20-2004 06:43 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:26 AM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands