Al Gore's Carbon Footprint

[crb]

No I'm not even talking about his "house" I'm sure we've all seen the comparisons of George Bush's green ranch, and Al Gore's mansion, that didn't even have Solar until someone called him on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo

[Gan]

heh

That was pretty funny. Would have been funnier if it were done by Triumph the insult dog.

[crb]

btw... here is the house thing incase anyone has not gotten that forwarded email..

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

[crb]

heh

That was pretty funny. Would have been funnier if it were done by Triumph the insult dog.
Triumph's controller is one of the limosine liberals that the video was lampooning, it would have been like cannibalism had he done it.

[BriarFox]

These Gore protesters are freaking annoying; they keep searching for hypocrisy that doesn't really exist. Sure, the people in the video took cabs to get there (and they've only selected a few to show), but maybe they buy green electricity and offset their carbon footprints by purchasing carbon credits from tree-plantings in South America. If you look hard enough, you'll find inconsistencies in anything (as mudflinging journalists know all too well). Nonetheless, those inconsistencies don't undermine the overall goal.

As for Gore's house's use of electricity, it's comparable to other houses of that size in the area, it also serves as his and Tipper's offices, and they spend $500/month to buy green electricity. Most importantly, they buy enough energy credits to put their carbon footprint at zero.

[Gan]

wow

[Clove]

Carbon offsets are a joke. If you take a lethal dose of poison, can you offset it by not taking any the next day?

[crb]

Yes, carbon offset credits are a joke. Because it must be so environmentally friendly to dump iron into the ocean (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902553_pf.html). Can anyone say "unintended consequences."

But no, environmentalists always consider the unintended consequences... which is why they nipped Ethanol in the bud before it got rolling... er... wait... no, actually, they didn't think that one through.

[Gan]

I still have some carbon offsets to sell.

U2U me if you're feeling guilty about your wasteful lifestyle.

[BriarFox]

Yes, carbon offset credits are a joke. Because it must be so environmentally friendly to dump iron into the ocean (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902553_pf.html). Can anyone say "unintended consequences."

But no, environmentalists always consider the unintended consequences... which is why they nipped Ethanol in the bud before it got rolling... er... wait... no, actually, they didn't think that one through.

"Planktos -- with 24 employees, a Web site and virtually no revenue -- has raised money to send a 115-foot boat called the Weatherbird II on a voyage to stimulate the growth of plankton that could boost the ocean's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the air."

Actually, that sounds like a rather decent idea, at least as an exploratory notion. Also, the word the other poster was looking for was "antidote." If you take poison and then take the "antidote," it is, actually, effective.

[Warriorbird]

I think Republicans spend more time thinking about Al Gore than Democrats do.

[Clove]

Carbon offsets are not an antidote. Nothing is released to neutralize the effects of the previously released carbon.

[Gan]

I think Republicans spend more time thinking about Al Gore than Democrats do.

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/article/13298887/2008/06/17/12256301.jpg

[Warriorbird]

How many Republicans have written books/articles/complaints about Gore?

I think it actually helps him market. He's pretty personally boring.

[Gan]

How many Republicans have written books/articles/complaints about Gore?

I think it actually helps him market. He's pretty personally boring.
Nobody's saying he's not a good capitalist. I admire his ability to make a buck. ;)

[Keller]

Nobody's saying he's not a good capitalist. I admire his ability to make a buck. ;)


All kidding aside (and remember, PB isn't here to mock you for being honest) do you believe Al Gore is insincere?

[Gan]

All kidding aside (and remember, PB isn't here to mock you for being honest) do you believe Al Gore is insincere?

Not 100% insincere. But he's definately motivated by more than just his care for the environment. If he were truly an E champion then he would not have put it on the back burner during his campaign for president in 2000. I know he's historically been one to champion its cause - but he's also sold it out on a few occasions.

His behavior now does not help that perception in the least... and it gives those who would naysay his cause great ammunition to portray him as being disingenuous about it. Nor has his positioning on the boards of several of the offset corporations and funds that specialize in carbon offsetting (profit motive) along with book proceeds, speaking proceeds, and dont forget about that castle he has.

Those who walk the talk usually have better results in getting people to get involved with the movement/mission.

Personally, I think the idea is a grand one. I would love to convert my whole house to something that resembles Bush Jr.'s house. Diode lighting, solar power, rain collectives, etc. But my resources are all going towards education and my internet business for the moment. And my resources are finite as compared to someone like Gore. I find it a shame that he has the opportunity but does not 'capitalize' on it. (pun intended).

[crb]

I think after losing in 2000 Al Gore was despondent and listless and needed something to give his life direction. I think he latched onto global warming as a cause not from any great ideology, but rather, out of a selfish need. I think he has since convinced himself of his own magnificence in this regard.

Contrast this with Bill Clinton, the causes Bill has undertaken (such as teaming up with Bush Sr. for tsunami relief) I feel he actually cares about.

In anycase, the ManBearPig episoide of southpark is classic.

[Latrinsorm]

If you look hard enough, you'll find inconsistencies in anythingWrong.

[RichardCranium]

In anycase, the ManBearPig episoide of southpark is classic.


This is truth. I'm super serious you guys.

[BriarFox]

Wrong.

Meaning that you don't need to look hard, or that some things aren't inconsistent, or that your head is stuck up your ass? Oh, look, I found an inconsistency. Bitch.

On another note, how does planting trees NOT offset carbon usage? I love how ya'll make vast, sweeping claims with no evidence (or cherry-picked evidence, in some other cases, like CRP's).

[Gan]

:popcorn:

[BriarFox]

:popcorn:

Haha. That was more of an eyeroll than a challenge, but I'm up for a challenge, too. We'll see if it's worth the popcorn.

[Clove]

On another note, how does planting trees NOT offset carbon usage? I love how ya'll make vast, sweeping claims with no evidence (or cherry-picked evidence, in some other cases, like CRP's).It helps the same way an umbrella helps offset the moisture from a tidal wave.

[waywardgs]

I think after losing in 2000 Al Gore was despondent and listless and needed something to give his life direction. I think he latched onto global warming as a cause not from any great ideology, but rather, out of a selfish need. I think he has since convinced himself of his own magnificence in this regard.


Armchair psychology cracks me up. Do you also think you know what plays the Cowboys should run and feel like those coaches should be consulting you?

[BriarFox]

It helps the same way an umbrella helps offset the moisture from a tidal wave.

What exactly are you comparing here, the output of an entire coalplant to the carbon offsets purchased by one home? The average person in the U.S. has a carbon footprint of 27 tons of CO2 per year. Carbon sequestration for trees (as just one example) varies greatly depending on the tree, but on average about 1 ton per acre of trees per year can be sequestered. That means that if you planted 27 acres of trees (though they'd need a few years to mature, obviously) and left them, you'd have offset your footprint more or less permanently.

Trees aren't even the best example because of expense. In the EU, one ton of carbon offset credits goes for about $28. That means that your average US person could spend about $756/year to offset his or her footprint. It's not exactly impossible.

In other words, it's more than possible to offset your carbon footprint, though it can be slightly expensive.

[Gan]

So 27 acres times 3 (family of) = 81 acres of carbon sequestration.

Looks like I have that covered with that acreage property I have up in east texas.

Looks like I have MORE carbon offsets to sell!

(This mean I can raise my price?)

[Clove]

Carbon offsets are bullshit. Period.

[Gan]

Carbon offsets are bullshit. Period.

SHHHHH!

Hush man!

I'm trying to make a buck here!

:tool:

[Clove]

Except for the trees in Gan's yard. Those will work.

[BriarFox]

Carbon offsets are bullshit. Period.

The glimmering brilliance of your inch-thick skull blinds me.

[waywardgs]

Carbon offsets are bullshit. Period.

I love this, too... Briar brings numbers and an argument to the table.
You respond by cursing. Really good stuff. Oh, and the fact that you took the time to spell out your punctuation just makes me all the more convinced that you know what you're talking about.

[crb]

Armchair psychology cracks me up. Do you also think you know what plays the Cowboys should run and feel like those coaches should be consulting you?
Dude... I was answering a question. Keller asked what we thought.



All kidding aside (and remember, PB isn't here to mock you for being honest) do you believe Al Gore is insincere?

[crb]

What exactly are you comparing here, the output of an entire coalplant to the carbon offsets purchased by one home? The average person in the U.S. has a carbon footprint of 27 tons of CO2 per year. Carbon sequestration for trees (as just one example) varies greatly depending on the tree, but on average about 1 ton per acre of trees per year can be sequestered. That means that if you planted 27 acres of trees (though they'd need a few years to mature, obviously) and left them, you'd have offset your footprint more or less permanently.

Trees aren't even the best example because of expense. In the EU, one ton of carbon offset credits goes for about $28. That means that your average US person could spend about $756/year to offset his or her footprint. It's not exactly impossible.

In other words, it's more than possible to offset your carbon footprint, though it can be slightly expensive.
Here is my problem.

1. How do you calculate your carbon footprint. Is it electricity used + (miles driven * mpg)? What if your card you drive uses more electricity to build than another car, how do you factor in your share of that? What about the shit you buy, do you factor in the distance it was transporter or how much energy went into it's creation? Then of course MPGs on cars are optimal estimates, your actual mileage will vary (hence, the phrase), fancier newer cars can give you a dash readout, but what if you don't have one of those.

Is public transportation carbon neutral? Well, technically, no, it isn't, you're still using energy, just not as much.

What about what carbon you exhale when you breathe? Technically a runner might take in more as they breathe in more air? How many tons of CO2 does Lance Armstrong breathe out in the Tour de France?

2. A tree is not a carbon offset. Carbon stored in biomass is largely released when that biomass decays after it dies. Thats just science. Decaying woodchips, leaf little, all that junk on the floor of a forest, all releases carbon.

So, my main problem is, the whole concept assumes you can accurately measure these things, and really, you can't. In the end it is someone's good faith estimate.

I think it is important to conserve and be energy conscious, as long as your conservation doesn't promote more problems. The mercury in CFL bulbs is a greater threat than all the extra energy incandescents used. Corn ethanol and other biofuels give hardly any energy benefit at all and in the end encourage people to burn down forest to turn it into cropland, which hurts the environment (not to mention the food issue).

So, put solar panels on your house, buy a home wind turbine (suprisingly affordable), walk and ride your bike more, drive less, buy a hybrid, monitor your energy use at home, etc etc.

But the whole carbon offset thing is largely a scam to relieve guilt and doesn't really help that much. If you really believe in this stuff, don't try to offset your carbon, try to prevent producing it, an offset is no replacement for prevention and the fear is, I think, that people are using it as such (see the video).

[Clove]

No, he posted economics. Let's assume there are 100 million households in the United States. That's 2.7 billion acres of trees to plant. There are 36.5 billion acres of land on the planet. 12 billion of that is arable. So if we cram 2.7 billion acres of trees into the 12 billion acres of (already arable and assumedly growing something) land, we can offset ONE country's carbon.

Oh yeah... it's not a money scam... this is for real!

[BriarFox]

I've got no argument that measurement is difficult, particularly precise measurement, but you have to agree that, in general, more trees (or whatnot) = more carbon sequestered. When the tree dies, if it's burned or left to rot, then a lot of that carbon is put back into the air, true. But on the other hand, if you take those trees and make furniture or homes out of them, you're not releasing it into the air again. Eventually, when you're done with those pieces of furniture or such, you can bury them in a landfill. Cover them over so the gases can't escape and they eventually become fossil fuels (though we're talking a huge span of time here) - the point is just not to re-release the carbon. You could even just take the dead trees and bury them, too, but that seems kind of pointless.

I also agree with your other points (except for the scam part - difficulty in measurement doesn't render carbon offsets useless), CRB, though I've always wondered about hybrid vehicles. Gore's all gung-ho about them, but the energy they use still has to come from somewhere and, in most cases, that's your local coal-fired power plant. I've never seen the numbers on them, but I wonder if they're really much of a net reduction in carbon waste.

[Clove]

Oh, suddenly my skull isn't 1" thick.

[BriarFox]

No, he posted economics. Let's assume there are 100 million households in the United States. That's 2.7 billion acres of trees to plant. There are 36.5 billion acres of land on the planet. 12 billion of that is arable. So if we cram 2.7 billion acres of trees into the 12 billion acres of (already arable and assumedly growing something) land, we can offset ONE country's carbon.

Oh yeah... it's not a money scam... this is for real!

Actually, the U.S. produces an inordinate amount of carbon in comparison to other countries, so we'd be offsetting a great deal of it. However, you're manhandling the point into absurdity - trees are not the only way to sequester carbon, nor necessarily the best. And, too, as CRB pointed out, reduction is a better goal in any case.

[BriarFox]

Oh, suddenly my skull isn't 1" thick.

No, I didn't say I agree that carbon-offsets are a scam. I said reduction is a better goal. So don't worry, you can still knock down a door with your head and not feel a thing.

[Clove]

A reduction is a better goal. And I'm not manhandling the point into absurdity. I mentioned that offsets really don't neutralize the carbon the way an antidote does and you brought up the price of trees. So I demonstrated the unfeasiblility of planting trees to offset carbon. China, India, Russia, Japan and Europe do a fair share of carbon emission too. I suppose we could put out carbon scrubbers.

[BigWorm]

Gore's all gung-ho about them, but the energy they use still has to come from somewhere and, in most cases, that's your local coal-fired power plant. I've never seen the numbers on them, but I wonder if they're really much of a net reduction in carbon waste.

By coal-fiired power plant do you mean gasoline?

[BriarFox]

By coal-fiired power plant do you mean gasoline?

Nah, plug-in hybrids run on a combination of electricity and gasoline.

[BriarFox]

A reduction is a better goal. And I'm not manhandling the point into absurdity. I mentioned that offsets really don't neutralize the carbon the way an antidote does and you brought up the price of trees. So I demonstrated the unfeasiblility of planting trees to offset carbon. China, India, Russia, Japan and Europe do a fair share of carbon emission too. I suppose we could put out carbon scrubbers.

You grunted and said I was wrong about carbon offsets working, with no support. I gave evidence that carbon offsets could work, you grunted again and said it was bullshit, with no support. CRB gave an argument for inaccurate measurements (though he extended the point, infeasibly I think, to argue that offsets are a psychological scam), to which I responded, agreeing with the idea of reduction. You jumped on the back of my reply to CRB to say that you were right, again with no support, and then, yes, reduced the idea of trees being able to sequester carbon to absurdity.

Anyone else noticing a trend here?

[Clove]

You grunted and said I was wrong about carbon offsets working, with no support. I gave evidence that carbon offsets could work, you grunted again and said it was bullshit, with no support.You gave an unfeasible, over-simplified plan, and I demonstrated it as such.

[BriarFox]

You gave an unfeasible, over-simplified plan, and I demonstrated it as such.

I was talking about a single household and said in the same breath that there were also other options. Then you tried to say that you couldn't plant trees for the entire planet. Yah ... I think I had that covered.

In any case, this specific conversation is pointless, so I'll let you get back to polishing that skull of yours.

[Clove]

I think you need to polish your skull, considering you're willing to pay someone to not do something.

[crb]

FWIW Hybrids, even plugin ones, do result in less carbon. Even if you get 100% of your electricity from coal, the conversion is better, and chances are, atleast a portion of your electricity comes from nuclear or hydro.

[BriarFox]

Cool.

[BriarFox]

Here's a Carbon Calculator, btw, which partially answers your earlier question about calculation, CRB: http://www.greenprogress.com/carbon_footprint_calculator.php

There's a lot of these things out there, actually (just do a Google search and you'll see), and some are more thorough than others.

[crb]

still just a guess.

[Warriorbird]

If you have some better calculation method I'm sure it'd be marketable.

As would some other better thing to spend money on.

I think some folks just love to hate anything environmental though.

[crb]

Oh believe me... I'm down with the green marketing, my business sells one product right now that is "green" and it does quite well.

[Parkbandit]

These Gore protesters are freaking annoying; they keep searching for hypocrisy that doesn't really exist. Sure, the people in the video took cabs to get there (and they've only selected a few to show), but maybe they buy green electricity and offset their carbon footprints by purchasing carbon credits from tree-plantings in South America. If you look hard enough, you'll find inconsistencies in anything (as mudflinging journalists know all too well). Nonetheless, those inconsistencies don't undermine the overall goal.

As for Gore's house's use of electricity, it's comparable to other houses of that size in the area, it also serves as his and Tipper's offices, and they spend $500/month to buy green electricity. Most importantly, they buy enough energy credits to put their carbon footprint at zero.

Holy shit, the Stupid Meter needle just got buried.

[Parkbandit]

I still have some carbon offsets to sell.

U2U me if you're feeling guilty about your wasteful lifestyle.


Get your own schtick bitch. I'm the Official Carbon Offset vendor of the Player's Corner.

[Parkbandit]

I think Republicans spend more time thinking about Al Gore than Democrats do.


I think most Republicans admire the scam Al Gore's pulling.. in the name of the 'environment'.

He's my fucking hero. Taking money from stupid liberals is a life long dream of mine.

[Parkbandit]

Carbon offsets are bullshit. Period.

Reported.

[Parkbandit]

FWIW Hybrids, even plugin ones, do result in less carbon. Even if you get 100% of your electricity from coal, the conversion is better, and chances are, atleast a portion of your electricity comes from nuclear or hydro.


As long as you don't include the production and refuse environmental issues with hybrids, then yes, they are more environmentally friendly than the traditional gas powered vehicle.

[Parkbandit]

If you have some better calculation method I'm sure it'd be marketable.

As would some other better thing to spend money on.

I think some folks just love to hate anything environmental though.

I think some folks just love to love anything environmental though.. even if it doesn't actually help the environment. Bio fuels is a prime example of this. Hybrids is another.

[BriarFox]

Holy shit, the Stupid Meter needle just got buried.

It's pretty easy to declare something dumb without any evidence, isn't it? When you and Clove finish your close-minded circle-jerk, let me know.

[Parkbandit]

It's pretty easy to declare something dumb without any evidence, isn't it? When you and Clove finish your close-minded circle-jerk, let me know.

It's pretty easu to declare something absolutely true without any real evidence, isn't it? When you and Ashliana finish your gullible circle jerk, let me know.

[CrystalTears]

It's pretty easu to declare something absolutely true without any real evidence, isn't it? When you and Ashliana finish your gullible circle jerk, let me know.
Kindly STFU. She's been good on her word of not posting anymore. Don't entice her to return.

[Gan]

I would LOL if she did...

[Parkbandit]

Kindly STFU. She's been good on her word of not posting anymore. Don't entice her to return.


W

T

F????


Who the fuck scared her off? I've never been so entertained my this forum! I was WONDERING why the political folder was eerily quiet!

WHO FUCKING DID IT!? I bet it was that Clove bitch.

[ClydeR]

Al Gore was on Meet the Press yesterday. Tom Brokaw asked him about his big house and private plane trips.


MR. BROKAW: Let me ask you about your personal lifestyle, because it's been the subject of a lot of dialogue on the blogs, as you know. You and Tipper have bought a big home outside of Nashville, and you had it retrofitted. But for a time there was a comparison between what the president has in Texas at his home as being more environmentally correct than your home. The Building Green Council gave you its second highest award. But Stephen Smith, who is with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, is troubled by the scale of your home. He said, "We all need to evaluate what we ... need in square footage." Present company included. We all have to look at scale, don't we? Why was it necessary for you to have a 10,000 square foot home? Because that is going to be more energy intensive than a smaller home for just the two of you.

VICE PRES. GORE: Well, there--I don't claim to be perfect, and all of us who care about this issue are, are trying to do our part, but I, I will say this. We buy green energy. The issue is carbon. The issue is carbon, and we have, essentially, a carbon-free home. We buy from wind energy and solar energy. Our roof is covered with solar electric panels, a geothermal system with all these deep wells, and we cut our natural gas bill by 90 percent, and I'm, I'm--we're, we're walking the walk and not just talking the talk. There are always people who are going to try to aim at the messenger if they don't like the message, and I don't claim to be perfect, but we are walking the walk.

MR. BROKAW: How often do you fly on a private jet?

VICE PRES. GORE: I've--much more frequently on public transportation. I'm flying on Southwest Airlines again today. But sometimes the schedule requires that, and sometimes I do that.

More... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25761899/page/3/)

Isn't energy fungible? If I buy green energy from someone else, then that energy vendor has less green energy to sell to other people, and those other people will have to buy dirty energy. Therefore, if I use more than my fair share of green energy, I am still causing pollution, since there's not enough green energy for everybody. Not sure if that applies to solar panels on Gore's roof.

Don't you hate it when your schedule just doesn't work out with public airlines and you have to take the private plane? :)

[BriarFox]

It's pretty easu to declare something absolutely true without any real evidence, isn't it? When you and Ashliana finish your gullible circle jerk, let me know.

I gave plenty of evidence earlier for how carbon offsets can work, and the only response was that they're poorly regulated - you're just conveniently ignoring that fact. Also, you're terribly original; I applaud you with one hand.



Isn't energy fungible? If I buy green energy from someone else, then that energy vendor has less green energy to sell to other people, and those other people will have to buy dirty energy. Therefore, if I use more than my fair share of green energy, I am still causing pollution, since there's not enough green energy for everybody. Not sure if that applies to solar panels on Gore's roof.

WTF?

[Parkbandit]

I gave plenty of evidence earlier for how carbon offsets can work, and the only response was that they're poorly regulated - you're just conveniently ignoring that fact. Also, you're terribly original; I applaud you with one hand.


So.. you have no problem with me taking private jets around the country, having a 10,000 square foot house, driving 3 SUVs, and pretty much carrying on with my life.. as long as I give some money to one of Gore's 'green' companies in exchange for carbon offsets?

Please say you don't have a problem with that.. because I'll be a very, very happy (and wealthy) man.

[Gan]

So.. you have no problem with me taking private jets around the country, having a 10,000 square foot house, driving 3 SUVs, and pretty much carrying on with my life.. as long as I give some money to one of MY OWN 'green' companies in exchange for carbon offsets, tax writeoffs, and of course green company profits/shareholder dividends.

Please say you don't have a problem with that.. because I'll be a very, very happy (and wealthy) man.

You have to admit. Its a nice racket.

YOU push the agenda. YOU create the green company that buys carbon offsets. YOU take the tax writeoffs from carbon purcahsing. And YOU cash the dividend checks from being a major shareholder of those same green companies you bought the carbon offsets from.

Its like Al Gore's private little Amway scheme.

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/178779981_973e83aa11.jpg

People think I'm kidding.. but I'm not. He's brilliant.

Also.. notice how he is backing away from "Global Warming" and now saying "Global Climate Change"? That's fucking BRILLIANT! Now, if it gets cooler OR hotter.. it's man's fault!

[Latrinsorm]

Meaning that you don't need to look hard, or that some things aren't inconsistent, or that your head is stuck up your ass? Oh, look, I found an inconsistency. Bitch.Meaning that problems on the part of you or those you choose to defend are not evidence of an endemic of problems of the same sort.

In general, I've found that the superior positions are those devoid of rather than fraught with inconsistencies. This may not be your experience!
still just a guess.It never ceases to amaze me, as a scientist, how transient people's use for science is.

[Back]

transient

Word of the day.

[crb]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/178779981_973e83aa11.jpg

People think I'm kidding.. but I'm not. He's brilliant.

Also.. notice how he is backing away from "Global Warming" and now saying "Global Climate Change"? That's fucking BRILLIANT! Now, if it gets cooler OR hotter.. it's man's fault!
If you haven't read "State of Fear" yet PB, do so. There is a whole chapter on that.

And ya, people will say Crichton doesn't know what he's talking about, but every scientific fact in his books in footnoted and referenced to a legitimate organization, NASA, NOAA, etc.

That book is so itching to be made into a movie.

[Gan]

Also.. notice how he is backing away from "Global Warming" and now saying "Global Climate Change"? That's fucking BRILLIANT! Now, if it gets cooler OR hotter.. it's man's fault!

LOL

I heard that today on the radio while channel flipping on the way home from work.

Sad, and yet morosely funny at the same time.

[Warriorbird]

The evil environmentalists are GOING TO GET YOU, crb. They're also behind Sorcerors not being updated.

Oh...

Ashlianna = Parkbandit

[Parkbandit]

Ashlianna = Parkbandit

You shouldn't give up your day job (if you even have one.. I'd be surprised) to take up any sort of detective work... since most detective work requires at least a half a brain. Clearly, this would be a profession you wouldn't have the necessary requirements.

[Warriorbird]

You could bold some things. It might make it more interesting.

[Parkbandit]

You could bold some things. It might make it more interesting.

You could start by simply lighting yourself on fire and posting a video of it on YouTube. That would definitely make it more interesting.

I know I would tune in.

[crb]

The evil environmentalists are GOING TO GET YOU, crb. They're also behind Sorcerors not being updated.

Oh...

Ashlianna = Parkbandit
Actually... I've got a pretty good well positioned life and income stream, environmental zealotry that hurts the economy isn't going to hurt me that much, it'll even help, as I've been betting on the zealots winning and so have invested heavily in alternative energy companies.

That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean I wouldn't care if my autoworker father in law lost his job because of zealotry slowing down our economy through the placement of unrealistic regulations on industry. And it doesn't mean that I wouldn't care if people all over the world go hungry because they cannot afford food things to misguided biofuel fanatacism.