You seem to be suggesting that we should just wait around to see what happens. Don’t do anything, don’t complain, don’t even talk about it.

I am, of course, suggesting no such thing.

You seem to be suggesting that we should just wait around to see what happens. Don’t do anything, don’t complain, don’t even talk about it.

I couldn’t disagree more. Things move when enough people do talk about it and complain about it to make even the most somnulent interested.

The current head-in-the-sand posturing deserves mocking and sneering. Used with care, shaming can be an effective teaching tool.
We are not discussing real public campaigns here. When, we get to those, we can address the necessary nuances and enducements and marketing techniques.

Right now, it would help just to get everyone’s attention.

Are you referring to the two groups that still refer to themselves as environmental groups those being Greenpeace (400,000 members) and the Sierra Club (250,000 members) which also happen to be 501c4 organizations (lobbying groups).

Or are you also adding in groups that refer to themselves as conservation organizations like Defenders of Wildlife (roughly 400,000 members but they do have a PAC), The National Wildlife Federation (5 million members) which is composed of 900 individual hunting, fishing, friends of X lake/park groups and 50 state coordinating groups, Ducks Unlimited and The Audubon Society both of which own numerous preserves and have taken the govt to court for to protect water quality on several occasions,The Nature Conservancy (which only buys, sells, and trades land and currently owns enough property worldwide to equal the acreage of South Carolina) and finally Republicans for Environmental action (65,000 members) all of which are 501c3 groups (charities).

I’m not being nit picky but environmentalist can be used as a blanket term much in the same way Christian can, in that while they may have certain shared goals they differ on methodology and interpretation of their mission.

Agreed, there are many things wrong with Public Transportation, but you seemed to dismiss the concept of Public Transportation out out of hand. Crime and location are two issues but are no reason to dismiss it.

I suggest unabashedly that the public has to be educated about the consequences of their disengagement from the subject of energy sources.

And I suggest that the best means to do so might not be to dismiss or mock their concerns and objections to things like public transportation, but rather to try honestly to come up with policies that actually address them. To just blow them off as you did, well, its pretty much guaranteed to give you the reaction that I gave you. :+)

Same goes for the SUV/Prius discussion. South Park hit on something realy when it mocked the Prius as a producer of a “cloud of smug”. Suggesting that everyone should drive what’s trendy among the politically correct isn’t a very persuasive means to educate people. Perhaps suggesting policies that would give incentives for the production/purchase of hybrid SUVs would be more effective.

I suggest unabashedly that the public has to be educated about the consequences of their disengagement from the subject of energy sources.
There are examples (like in parke use) where environmentalists and profit sheekers have compromised, with both sides reasonably happy. I applaud those cases of success and feel that this is the best approach.
The ‘contempt over engagement’ description can be leveled in both directions. That you see only one direction, is something you’ll have to deal with as you see fit.

I do blame the public, however. We just want cheap goods, personal comfort at the reach of a button with no cares, no worries and no responsibility for the future.

As long as contempt remains more common than engagement and persuasion, environmentalists will continue to fail politically and will be forced to continue to rely on attempts at coercion.

- Public Transportation: While not always convenient, public transportation can be a viable alternative in some instances. Walking a few blocks and muggings are the reason public transportation is bad. Is that the best you got?

“….can be a viable alternative in some instances….” — not exactly a ringing endorsement.

And your simply dismissing the problem of crime and general scariness on public transport is an example of the typical approach when these concerns are raised — it doesn’t respond to the issue, it just mocks anyone who raises it. As long as that continues to be the approach, well, surprise surprise, people will continue to reject public transportation.

Yes, there are some good systems — Washington, D.C. comes to mind. But they are the exceptions, not the rule. And the D.C. Metro is good because self-interested government bureaucrats have made the investment in ensuring that it is relatively clean and safe. And even in D.C., convenience is lacking — try to get to Georgetown on the Metro sometime.

The ‘if and when” is the stickler. Someitmes, the solution to a prolbem needs prodding, or the ‘if and when’ never comes. We’ve been talking about this issue for more than a decade. Still talking and still waiting.

I agree that environmental concerns are often in conflict with new development. The issues they bring to light are important, but those not willing to compromise are obstructing the direction of develpment. Equally pig-headed are those who dismiss the environment as a mere inconvenience to profit making.
As in park use, it is quite possible to reach compromise without the need to sneer or demonize anyone. It’s the winner-take-all positions that are so neanderthalish – on both sides.

I do blame the public, however. We just want cheap goods, personal comfort at the reach of a button with no cares, no worries and no responsibility for the future.

I’ll grant that uou do have a few correct observations :
– “Oil companies” are interested in PROFIT, from oil or something else they can sell, they don’t really care. A for profit company out for profit, what a great observation you’ve made.

– Nuclear Power: Yes, more plants are needed to help cut our dependence on fossil fuels. We just need to get Yucca Mountain, or another viable alternative, up and running.

Your are WRONG on these issues:
– Fuel efficiency: We can raise the efficiency requirements without requiring you to buy a Prius or take away your precious SUV. Have you actually tried a Hybrid? I did, the Prius doesn’t feel like a “3-cyl crackerbox” to me as it went up our local canyon without issue. The Honda Accord hybrid has even more power than the Prius.

– Fluorescent bulbs: I’ve replaced 60% of the incandescent bulbs in my home with CFLs over the last two years and there is no strobing effects even in out multi-light fixtures in the bathrooms.
Did I do it to “save the planet” NO, I did it to save $$$. Sure they cost more up front, but CFL’s have made up for it in my electrical bill. I changed the lights I used most often and the others I’ll change as they are used up.

- Wind: “Environmentalists” aren’t the only ones who object to wind farms.

- Public Transportation: While not always convenient, public transportation can be a viable alternative in some instances. Walking a few blocks and muggings are the reason public transportation is bad. Is that the best you got?

- Opposition to Nuclear Power: If everyone who lives close to one is an “Environmentalist”, then yes, you’re probably right. Hint: It’s proximity to the plant and those Oil & Coal lobbyists who make up the bulk of opposition.

“Its easy to sniff self-righteously about how those ignorant fools [the environmentalists] just don’t get it,”

That’s right, I said, “including the oil companies”. Oil companies are interested in making money. They can make it by selling oil. But they can also make it by selling replacements for oil. If and when there are economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels, they will be first in line to invest in those alternatives to make money doing it. So let’s dispense with that red herring.

The problem with alternative energy sources is that none are both economically and politically viable. Economically, solar and wind power suffer from high transportation costs, high installation costs, and high generation costs. Nuclear power is crippled by regulation and lawsuits. Ethanol is not economically viable until a way can be found to create it does not consume more energy than it creates.

Politically, much of the primary opposition to alternative energy sources comes from environmentalists.

That’s right, I said that environmentalists are the ones blocking alternative energy development.

Environmentalists oppose large scale wind power projects because they kills birds, is ugly, and can cause soil heating and drying.
Environmentalists oppose all power-transmission projects (necessary to make wind and solar possible) because of the alleged health effects of high-power transmission lines.
Environmentalists oppose all nuclear power development because, well, its “nuclear” and therefore automatically bad. (Their arguments about danger are based on obsolete designs and their arguments about waste do not compare the amount and controlability of nuclear waste compared to fossil fuel waste.)

Conservation steps are supported by environmentalists, but in ways that are often laughable or are non-responsive to the limitations of conservation. Fuel efficiency standards sound nice until you realize that not everyone can afford a Prius and people tend to not like the idea of driving around in a 3-cyl crackerbox with no horsepower that a strong man can crush with his bare hands. Fluorescent bulbs sound great until you use one in a lamp for a while and get headaches from the constant flickering. Public transportation sounds great until you get mugged or until you realize that it doesn’t go anywhere you need to go nor does it go anywhere more than 3 blocks away in a reasonable amount of time.

Its easy to sniff self-righteously about how those ignorant fools in “the public” just don’t get it, but I think it is interesting to notice how the most prominent environmentalists even when they aren’t rank hypocrites (see Al Gore here) use wealth and fame to compensate for the shortcomings of conservations steps in ways not available to regular people. Self-righteousness is something they BUY.

The best immediate term solution for increasing energy production is nuclear power. Even taking into account its shortcomings (waste problems), nuclear power is far safer and easier to control than fossil-fuel production. For transportation, it is necessary to develop technologies like biodiesel and fuel cells that offer some promise of retaining decent vehicles instead of tilting at the SUV windmill yet again.

Environmentalism needs to start responding to people’s needs instead of trying to lecture them ore regulate them into submission.

Those in favor are extremely divided.
Wind power? not in my ocean view
Nuclear power? too dangerous
Ethanol and like sources? depends on how much my state can get in subsidies.
Fuel efficient cars? I like my SUV too much
Fluorescent bulbs? They’re ugly
Public transportation? That’s for other people

I think that slowly, slowly the topic is seeping into public consciousness.
We’ll see if the process is too slow or not.

I don’t want to even think about the polotics.