Outboards are incredibly polluting - WOW

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by captmikem

Wow, at that rate I would have to run my two stroke outboard 24/7 for 4.28 years to equal one hour of the pollution of Al Gore's private jet.



How selfish of me.



M

Except he doesn’t have a private jet. Crap made up to claim hypocrisy and disparage the other side rather than deal with the substance of the other sides argument.
https://sustainabilitymattersdaily.c...ets-hypocrisy/

.
That said there are plenty of climate campaigners / “supporter” that do have or use private jets.

[captmikem]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There is no logical rule, saying that there has to be a correlation between understanding what happens to our climate, and living a carbon neutral lifestyle.


But, for the record: Al Gore DOES live a fairly carbon-neutral lifestyle.
The former vice president [Al Gore] does NOT own a private jet, and offsets travel, for himself and staff, through a program that cancels out your carbon footprint, by, ostensibly, preventing emissions elsewhere [like planting trees or supporting renewable energy].

I see, so I just rent an outboard and plant a tree and all is forgiven.

M

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by captmikem

I see, so I just rent an outboard and plant a tree and all is forgiven.
M

You can deride Al Gore, and yourself, all you wish, for his/your hypocrisy.
Nonetheless, your/Gore's character won't change the facts, and remains irrelevant, to the issue[s], as does any potential forgiveness.

[captmikem]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Except he doesn’t have a private jet. Crap made up to claim hypocrisy and disparage the other side rather than deal with the substance of the other sides argument.
https://sustainabilitymattersdaily.c...ets-hypocrisy/

.
That said there are plenty of climate campaigners / “supporter” that do have or use private jets.

"Around 400 private jets carrying heads of state, billionaires, business leaders and celebrities converged on Glasgow for a global warming summit in 2021."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by captmikem

Wow, at that rate I would have to run my two stroke outboard 24/7 for 4.28 years to equal one hour of the pollution of Al Gore's private jet.

How selfish of me.

Well, if there's 50 million folks who feel the same, then it would only take each of you a few minutes of running to exceed the emissions from a private jet.

Originally Posted by captmikem

I see, so I just rent an outboard and plant a tree and all is forgiven.

Seriously... yes, it's a good start.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sir DAVID Attenborough has said:

"We can't go on increasing at the rate human beings are increasing forever, because Earth is finite and you can't put infinity into something that is finite"

[bolding mine]

Stated another way, you can't increase the rates of exploitation and consumption forever on a finite planet. Kind of obvious, right?

The linked article continues:

[Attenborough] believes that controlling our population is dependent on investing in sex education globally, giving women more political control over their bodies, and implementing other voluntary means of population control in developing countries.

"The only straw of comfort or of hope, and even that is pretty fragile, is that wherever women are given political control of their bodies, where they have the vote, education, appropriate medical facilities and they can read and have rights and so on, the birth rate falls, there's no exceptions to that," Attenborough says.

Putting more emphasis on women’s reproductive rights and empowerment, as well as providing universal access to birth control and education, will ultimately give people an opportunity to make informed family planning choices. Our only hope of living on this planet for a long time into the future is making sure we start planning for it now.

... in other words, pretty much the exact opposite of what the US just did.

I would respectfully add that if population reduction is to be considered, it would be most effective if we started by eliminating people who consume the most resources per capita.

So the guy who has been jetting about the earth for the last ~95yrs is a bit late to the party. Birth rates are dropping like a rock around the world.

Of course, lots of correlation without causation claiming it's education and rights. More likely, without a gaggle of kids, women have time to get educated (and parents can afford to pay for said education) and start careers. Then from a position of power, they can demand rights.

Of course, if overpopulation is the primary issue, your tongue in cheek suggestion is the worst approach as it treats the symptom not the disease. But it is an example of typical eco solutions where the flashy trumps the mundane but effective.

[captmikem]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You can deride Al Gore, and yourself, all you wish, for his/your hypocrisy.
Nonetheless, your/Gore's character won't change the facts, and remains irrelevant, to the issue[s], as does any potential forgiveness.

An analysis by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that Gore's Tennessee home "guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years."

In one month last year, the report found, Gore's home consumed more electricity than the average family uses in 34 months.

The electricity used just to heat Gore's swimming pool would power six homes for a year.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Of course, if overpopulation is the primary issue, your tongue in cheek suggestion is the worst approach as it treats the symptom not the disease. But it is an example of typical eco solutions where the flashy trumps the mundane but effective.

You misread. I clearly said "if population reduction is to be considered", then it only makes sense to reduce the numbers of those who make the most demands on the planet.

Obviously, it's a better solution to take positive steps that cause reductions in the overall birth rate, among other . Do you not believe that food and housing security, education, birth control and empowerment of women would have that effect?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You misread. I clearly said "if population reduction is to be considered", then it only makes sense to reduce the numbers of those who make the most demands on the planet.

No I got it. You eliminate those who aren't reproducing anyway and keep those who are reproducing...net effect, you get negligible population reduction.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by captmikem

An analysis by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that Gore's Tennessee home "guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years."

In one month last year, the report found, Gore's home consumed more electricity than the average family uses in 34 months.

The electricity used just to heat Gore's swimming pool would power six homes for a year.

That's somewhat true, but old news.



It was true in 2007, and what was really funny is the huge contrast between Gore's 20 room mansion near Nashville heated by natural gas and former President Bush's 4 room house in Texas heated with geothermal heat:



https://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/


But that's all out of date now. Bush has moved from the previous 4000 square foot house to an 8000 square foot one. And Gore's 10,000 square foot house is now heated with geothermal, and has solar panels.


I think it's pretty hypocritical of Gore to have done so little and so late, compared to President Bush, who was using geothermal since 2001 and living modestly.


For Pete's sake, I have been heating with geothermal myself (my lake house) since 2003. If I were Gore, I would not only have never been burning gas while preaching about the end of the world due to climate change; I would have invested a little money and produced my own sustainable power. A wind turbine costs 30 grand or so; he's got the land for pumped hydro storage. A truly carbon-free lifestyle requires significant capital investment, which is beyond the reach of many, but not out of Gore's, so it's hard to understand why he didn't do it.


At least he's a vegan (reportedly since 2013), though, and as we've discussed, that's more important than how he heats his house.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by captmikem

An analysis by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that Gore's Tennessee home "guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years."

... said a right wing propaganda source.

Rich ex-vice-presidents gonna rich. Rich anybody gonna rich. And if you don't understand how carbon offsets work, or consider the net harm reductions that Gore has helped spearhead, that absolutely dwarf his own footprint, then you won't ever see how this Gore "hypocrisy" argument is just a lame attempt to stifle an effective campaigner for ecological causes.

What's he supposed to do - live in a treehouse? ride a bike to COP21?

[gonesail]

climate change and environmentalism is totally politicized. what does it have to do with sailing and why is it allowed on this forum?

[Tupaia]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

For Pete's sake, I have been heating with geothermal myself (my lake house) since 2003. If I were Gore, I would not only have never been burning gas while preaching about the end of the world due to climate change; I would have invested a little money and produced my own sustainable power. A wind turbine costs 30 grand or so; he's got the land for pumped hydro storage. A truly carbon-free lifestyle requires significant capital investment, which is beyond the reach of many, but not out of Gore's, so it's hard to understand why he didn't do it.

Simply put Mr Gore's model encourages rich people to go about their business and pay someone else to plant trees on their behalf. I does absolutely nothing to reduce consumption. Mr Gore probably has enough land to plant trees but I guarantee apart from a PR stunt he has never done so.



Instead of carbon offsets, carbon rationing would reduce consumption but the rich politicians would find an exemption.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

No I got it. You eliminate those who aren't reproducing anyway and keep those who are reproducing...net effect, you get negligible population reduction.

You get the same resources supporting more people.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think it's pretty hypocritical of Gore to have done so little and so late, compared to President Bush, who was using geothermal since 2001 and living modestly.

For Pete's sake, I have been heating with geothermal myself (my lake house) since 2003. If I were Gore, I would not only have never been burning gas while preaching about the end of the world due to climate change; I would have invested a little money and produced my own sustainable power. A wind turbine costs 30 grand or so; he's got the land for pumped hydro storage. A truly carbon-free lifestyle requires significant capital investment, which is beyond the reach of many, but not out of Gore's, so it's hard to understand why he didn't do it.

Do you actually know what he has or hasn't invested in, or what his foundations have funded?

Everyone's got some different BS yardstick for why Gore is a hypocrite. Yours is that he isn't running some alternative energy test site . Any excuse to discount the message, or the effect of his campaigning. At least no-one's parroting the twaddle about how he gets rich from his campaigning. But the thread is young...