Can the US afford ‘wind power’?

ziggy wrote:

Who are the we that fail the people?

Whoever forgets that people are part of the environment.

Ziggy, I'm not sure where you are going here. Surely people are more important than trees? Not that the destruction of the trees would not be disastrous for people (although they do cause more vehicular deaths than most anything else).

I think the issue is one of priority. I believe that the earth is for man, not man for the earth. While that does not excuse being poor stewards of the environment, I do put the interests of earthlings above that of the "earth."

Surely, Zig, you put the interests of man ahead of, say, cows and pigs? Yummy cows and pigs. Yummmmmmmm.

I agree with Ziggy that people are part of the environment and we do have a profound effect on Mother Earth and we should do our very best to protect OUR planet in EVERYTHING we do. Every decision that has the potential to create harm for this planted should be avoided if possible and if it's not avoidable, then the impact should minimized as much as humanly possible.



That is the Cuyahoga River on fire. It's not an oil spill or a boat on fire and no one set it on fire. Chemicals were so thick that the river, which oozed, would catch on fire. It happened at least 13 times from 1868 to 1969.

I know right now there is a huge debate going on regarding MTR mining in WV. I will start by saying that I understand the reason for mining this coal via MTR and thus I strongly support this practice but by the same token, I do believe coal companies are getting away with too much. I believe we should closely monitor what can be placed in a valley fill, especially near a headwater and unless a viable post mining plan is in place before mining is started, then companies should be required to restore the mountain to as close the original contour as possible.

The way I see it is we're treating our mountains like Ohioans did the Cuyahoga did for years and it's wrong. If a company doesn't want to abide by the rules then leave the coal in the mountain. It's that simple.

SheikBen wrote:Surely, Zig, you put the interests of man ahead of, say, cows and pigs? Yummy cows and pigs. Yummmmmmmm.

I don't think we should limit our interests to what you and I might say- depending on what the rumblings in our tummies tell us. Let's let the cows and the pigs have a say in it too.

Ziggy, I'm not sure where you are going here. Surely people are more important than trees? Not that the destruction of the trees would not be disastrous for people (although they do cause more vehicular deaths than most anything else).

Ask the Lorax if people are more important than trees.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:So do you deny that people are part of the world's environment?

The same as you deny that envionmentalism is the new socialism.

I have neither denied nor agreed that "environmentalsim" either is or is not the "new socialism"- whatever that is.

So your answer is that you do not deny that people are a part of the world's environment. You could have just said so in the 1st place.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:So do you deny that people are part of the world's environment?

The same as you deny that envionmentalism is the new socialism.

I have neither denied nor agreed that "environmentalsim" either is or is not the "new socialism"- whatever that is.

So your answer is that you do not deny that people are a part of the world's environment. You could have just said so in the 1st place.

I don't deny that people are a part of the environment. I do deny that the present day environmental movement exists to bring attention to environmental issues. I believe the present day so called environmental movement is about control and obtaining power. I further believe that they are little more than looters using the environmental movement as a tool to extort wealth and redistribute it to people who have never earned it or deserve it.

Where did ya get that "we" crap?

It is the lefty liberal "treehugging" greenie conservationists Mother Earth worshippers that are "putting off" doing anything about it.

I guess you are part of the "we" that plans on not using electricity.

Nope. People like Terry would be whining and moaning. Additionally the figure isn't 10 % its over 20% of our land mass.

Willy. Shut up. You don't know anything about what I would support, you ignorant fool.

What is the number, then, since you disagree with the 10% number. I'd still probably be for it. You can still grow crops underneath them.