# I Just Made A Difference!



## TransitRider (Oct 2, 2009)

TransitRider is proud to be CarbonFund supporter, we purchased 10,000 miles equal 3,966 CO2 to be reusable energy and we focus to make sure every carbon dioxide being remove so we can be able to travel green for our planet.

I suggest you do the same and help offset to save our planet!


----------



## The Metropolitan (Oct 2, 2009)

I actually prefer to know that I'm doing something good by not owning an automobile, and using public transportation, biking, or walking for well over 95% of my travels.

When I see a fund that partners with Volkswagen and Hyundai where people can pay an offset for their environmentally damaging lifestyle choices, it strikes me as something of a "guilt tax." Or maybe I'm just too cynical.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 2, 2009)

The Metropolitan said:


> I actually prefer to know that I'm doing something good by not owning an automobile, and using public transportation, biking, or walking for well over 95% of my travels.
> When I see a fund that partners with Volkswagen and Hyundai where people can pay an offset for their environmentally damaging lifestyle choices, it strikes me as something of a "guilt tax." Or maybe I'm just too cynical.


I can see both sides of the debate. First off, I agree - reduce what you can first. I likewise don't own a car and travel primarily by transit and cycling. I live a multi-level, high density building which dramatically reduces energy consumption.

At the same time, I see carbon credits as a good way to buy renewable energy if your utility doesn't offer it. I think they make a lot of sense for offsetting pure energy purchases.

But if you're driving 10,000 miles a year, the solution isn't carbon credits if you want to be "green." It's a change of lifestyle.


----------



## sunchaser (Oct 2, 2009)

IMHO, it's ok if you want to reduce waste/recycle etc.

If you want to be more green, why not plant trees?

They live off of Carbon Dioxide, and produce Oxygen!

If you buy carbon credits, who gets the money? The people who don't produce as much carbon?

Or the company offering these 'credits'?


----------



## transit54 (Oct 2, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> IMHO, it's ok if you want to reduce waste/recycle etc. If you want to be more green, why not plant trees?
> 
> They live off of Carbon Dioxide, and produce Oxygen!
> 
> ...


Well, carbon credits, if structured in the right way, can be used to fund new, green energy. For instance, take the approach of Native Energy.

Not all of us can plant trees. I live in a small city - it's not like I have a yard where I can just start digging up the soil.

(For the record, I really don't buy carbon credits either. My transportation impact is pretty low and I live in a state with the lowest carbon emissions per megawatt hour of anywhere in the nation. So I don't really see the need.)


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 2, 2009)

I wont be buying any "green credits", this program is just a pr smoke and mirror scam that really benefits wealthy corporations!We can do all we can in our communities to help conserve energy/stop waste and abuse etc. but until corporations are forced by LAW, with enforcement, nothing is going to change since its still about "profits" for the greed machine!

Denying that the enviroment is not in trouble is as dumb as saying there is no health care crisis in this country! Its really not too late to start the healing

if we force our elected officials and corporations to take real action, the only way to do this is to Vote, get involved and do what we can locally ourseleves!

We really are our brothers keeper, we are all prisoners on this small,spinning ball in the universe and as President Kennedy said once upon a time:

"A person can change the world, a person has too!.." Riding trains, whether local or LD is part of the solution, Im proud to be among this group!!


----------



## sunchaser (Oct 2, 2009)

I just did a quick google search & found a few 'tree charities'.

I do not know or endorse them, just thought I'd list them.

(Sorry if we're going off the thread)

http://www.conservation.org/give/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.plantatreeusa.com/index.php

http://actrees.org/site/stories/donate.php...CFQ2fnAodlDCW1g

IMHO, the global warming issue has not been settled in my mind.

We may contribute some to the climate, but how much is another question.

I love history, geology & have been hooked on Nat Geo for decades.

I have seen many instances showing that the ocean levels all over the world were higher even 1800 years ago and centuries before that, before we had any industrialization.

As little as 5 years ago, the experts were wondering when we would have another Ice Age.

It very well could be that it is a normal cycle that the earth goes through, and that it is disturbing because we don't have any written record of the past events.


----------



## the_traveler (Oct 2, 2009)

I agree that "buying carbon offsets" from many large corporations doesn't make too much sense. As an example, some of the airlines in Britain are charging a "carbon offset tax". Who is getting that money, and what is it being used for? :huh: (I think if they really wanted to cut carbon emissions, they would not fly so much - not have a 150 passenger plane fly from A to B at 8:00 and another 150 passenger plane fly from A to B also at 8:30! :blink: )

You can "buy" "carbon offsets" using your AGR points - but what are they used for? :huh: Is the money used to purchase new train cars so more people can take the train and cut down on the carbon emissions they produce? :huh: I would much rather use my AGR points for a trip for myself - and cut down the carbon emissions that I would produce! 

Another thing that gets me is when companies say "... buy _(our product)_ and we will donate 10¢ per product sold (*up to $500,000*) to _____ ..."! :blink: If they really wanted to donate $500,000 to ____, why not just donate $500,000? :huh: Why sell xxx,xxx,xxx # of products and make an extra $10,000,000 profit - just so they can "donate" "up to $500,000"? :huh: I doubt they keep track, and only donate $389,487.30 - I bet they donate $500,000!


----------



## sunchaser (Oct 2, 2009)

I have found this website to helpful in determining exactly how charities divide up the money you give. 

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

They even provide a rating system.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 2, 2009)

The whole green thing is a sad highlight as to our status as a nation.

I drive an ancient car- atleast in a lot of peoples minds. Its a 1995. A Mercedes E300 diesel. My car isn't green. No sir, its black. A nice shiny black. With a black MB-Tex vinyl interior. And some brown Zebrano wood veneer trim. I think the hazard-light switch is red. Oh, and the instrument lights are orange bulbs, and the markings themselves are orange. No green here, no sir.

Its fairly efficient. Doing all highway driving, I get about 32-34 mpg. I get in the high-20s in town.

Oh, and it already exists. It doesn't need to be built. It runs quite nicely, besides needing a new head gasket and timing chain, which I'll get around to eventually. The air conditioning doesn't work, but I would try to avoid paying for the silliness that is automotive air conditioning on a new one.

But I shouldn't keep owning my car. Oh no, no dear god no. Its old. And its not green. There is something wrong with black cars, apparently. I should have our society use resources. I should have them use resources to recycle materials (it takes energy and carbon to do that, you know), mill more steel, stamp out body components, create more circuit boards, create the self-contained toxic waste dump that is a rechargeable battery. And I should go out and buy a Prius.

How retarded are people, seriously?

I should drive my car until it completely and fully falls apart. And then, fatigued metal and worn out engine, I can go shambling over to the car dealer and buy a new car. The resources used to build my car at this point have been utilized to their fullest potential.

We are supposed to be conserving. We call it conservationist, keep in mind. So we should conserve. And we can start by conserving the vehicles we already have instead of wasting time, money, and materials building new ones.

As for buying carbon-credits? If you enjoy giving money to confidence men, call me over to your house and I'll play some shell games with ya. Seriously.


----------



## sunchaser (Oct 2, 2009)

Exactly how I feel too. Makes no sense to buy a new one, muck things up more & use our resources when I have a functioning, older car that works well enough. Since we drive about 140 miles total per month, it makes no sense for me to blow money on a new one. We just don't drive that much. The carbon credits thing always makes me think of fantasy sports. And we recycle as much as we can, not just trash, but other things too.


----------



## The Metropolitan (Oct 2, 2009)

It reminds me one our license plate programs here in Maryland where you can pay extra per year for special "Treasure the Chesapeake" plates which have a portion of the proceeds going to Bay Conservation.

Genius - Make people think that driving is somehow GOOD for the environment.

It's a sad irony to see a car with these plates parked in a lot on a rainy day with an irridescent stream of oil heading directly from it to the nearest drainage grating that leads directly to the bay.


----------



## guest (Oct 2, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> I have found this website to helpful in determining exactly how charities divide up the money you give.  http://www.charitynavigator.org/
> 
> They even provide a rating system.


It is refreshing to read an environmental topic post from someone who actually understands lifecycle costs and impacts. Great job!


----------



## GG-1 (Oct 2, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> If you want to be more green, why not plant trees?


Aloha

This Idea is similar to mine. I believe that for every Square foot of Soil a building covers that the builders plant a Square foot, including vertical, of Oxygen generating, CO2.


----------



## Upstate (Oct 4, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The whole green thing is a sad highlight as to our status as a nation.
> I drive an ancient car- atleast in a lot of peoples minds. Its a 1995. A Mercedes E300 diesel. My car isn't green. No sir, its black. A nice shiny black. With a black MB-Tex vinyl interior. And some brown Zebrano wood veneer trim. I think the hazard-light switch is red. Oh, and the instrument lights are orange bulbs, and the markings themselves are orange. No green here, no sir.
> 
> Its fairly efficient. Doing all highway driving, I get about 32-34 mpg. I get in the high-20s in town.
> ...


Ancient, at 14 years old? Give me a break. My daily driver is a yellow '77 MB 240D with 350K+ miles and have no intentions of getting anything newer until the parts become unavailable or too expensive.


----------



## sueb (Oct 5, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The whole green thing is a sad highlight as to our status as a nation.
> How retarded are people, seriously?


Could we please not use the word retarded as a synonym for stupid or dumb?

For those of us with family members who actually are retarded, it is painful to see that term used to indicate choices and actions that we might be ecstatic if our loved ones could actually do them (even if enrivonmentally wasteful). People who are retarded are born that way and struggle to fit into a confusing world as best they can. I think GML is referring to people who have normal intelligence but make choices he considers thoughtless and short-sighted.

Not trying to be a nit-picker, just trying to point out that there are better and more effective words to get your point across.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 5, 2009)

Upstate said:


> Ancient, at 14 years old? Give me a break. My daily driver is a yellow '77 MB 240D with 350K+ miles and have no intentions of getting anything newer until the parts become unavailable or too expensive.


Hence my reason for saying "In most people's minds." I don't think its that old, my self. And parts unavailability on a Mercedes? Hell will freeze over first. A friend of mine has a 170D, a 1951 I think, and he ordered parts through the dealer direct from Stuttgart. I don't think about them as too expensive, though. I think about the option of spending a few thousand a year repairing it versus spending about double that on average buying a new car and keeping it for 5 years- which is about all these modern pieces of junk are good for.



sueb said:


> Could we please not use the word retarded as a synonym for stupid or dumb? For those of us with family members who actually are retarded, it is painful to see that term used to indicate choices and actions that we might be ecstatic if our loved ones could actually do them (even if enrivonmentally wasteful). People who are retarded are born that way and struggle to fit into a confusing world as best they can. I think GML is referring to people who have normal intelligence but make choices he considers thoughtless and short-sighted.
> 
> Not trying to be a nit-picker, just trying to point out that there are better and more effective words to get your point across.


I was born with a natural hatred for being pointlessly politically correct. My own mother tried to kick me of it, and she's failed. I doubt you'd do better.

I was also born with a wide variety of mental and physical handicaps. People have called me retarded over the years. I don't know why they think that, given that my IQ is in the top 2%, but whatever does it for them. Its never bothered me. Maybe when I was in kindergarten, but I think I was over it by then.

Furthermore, I have, as someone who enjoys history, seen that 200 years ago people operated with a great deal more common sense and innate intelligence than they do now. I think its because we have developed some weird ideas about not letting the weaker members of our society suffer the natural deselection that made us more intelligent than other forms of animals in the first place, but I digress. Compared to the greater common sense and more intelligent actions of people of times gone by, modern day man is retarded as such:



> retarded |riˈtärdid|, adj.delayed, held back, or retrogressed in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment


----------



## sueb (Oct 6, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Upstate said:
> 
> 
> > Ancient, at 14 years old? Give me a break. My daily driver is a yellow '77 MB 240D with 350K+ miles and have no intentions of getting anything newer until the parts become unavailable or too expensive.
> ...


I don't consider avoiding hurting other people to be "pointless," whether it is politically correct or not. There are other words that would have conveyed your meaning as well or better without the use of a term that denigrates a largely innocent population of people. You wouldn't say (at least I don't think you would), "Are we ****s or what?" although 50 (or 200) years ago that might have conveyed the same meaning as

"retarded" to some audiences. I hope we can all learn to be kinder and more informed from a study of history, not use it as an excuse to cling to ineffective habits of speech or behavior.

As you see, the system won't allow me to use the n word for a person of color. I think that only supports me point.


----------



## volkris (Oct 6, 2009)

sueb said:


> I hope we can all learn to be kinder and more informed from a study of history, not use it as an excuse to cling to ineffective habits of speech or behavior.As you see, the system won't allow me to use the n word for a person of color. I think that only supports me point.


Actually, that language is very effective: in the vast majority of contexts it clearly and precisely conveys an intended meaning to almost every member of the audience. It's a shame to lose an effective tool of communication for the sake of politeness.

And no, I think the censorship of the board works against you, as it's another case of politeness and social propriety overruling communication and freedom of speech.


----------



## Donctor (Oct 6, 2009)

volkris said:


> And no, I think the censorship of the board works against you, as it's another case of politeness and social propriety overruling communication and freedom of speech.


The can't possibly be overruling freedom of speech if it's something you have the choice to use. (Example: I attend a private school. I cannot argue that my school's rules illegally prohibit me from expressing myself. I am making a choice to attend said school and thus must abide by its rules.) Because you're _choosing_ to use this board, your argument that it is a case of "social propriety overruling...freedom of speech" is not valid.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 6, 2009)

Amtking said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > And no, I think the censorship of the board works against you, as it's another case of politeness and social propriety overruling communication and freedom of speech.
> ...


Actually it goes a bit deeper than choice in this case. It's the fact that this is a privately owned and run board, that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply. If this were run by the government, Freedom of Speech laws would still apply, even though you made the choice to join the BB.


----------



## Donctor (Oct 6, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Actually it goes a bit deeper than choice in this case. It's the fact that this is a privately owned and run board, that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply. If this were run by the government, Freedom of Speech laws would still apply, even though you made the choice to join the BB.


Ah.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 6, 2009)

Look, Sue, I doubt you are ever going to agree with me.

However:

If a group of black people use the N word within their group, that is, even today, considered acceptable.

If a person were to use that word, which doesn't actually have any historical meaning to it, it was created to be an offensive slur, to simply and impartially refer to the racial origin of a person, that is not inherently offensive.

If a person uses the word in a context where it is intended to demean people because of there standing in a certain race, then you are being offensive. Its not the word. If I substitute, "Dumb African-American," for "Dumb ******", does that really make it less offensive? Didn't think so. More comical, perhaps, but no less offensive.

Its not a fair word to use as a comparison, though. Why? Because the N word has no purpose or origin, except as a derogatory word for people of dark skin colour.

Retarded is the ajective form of retard, a verb, which means to slow down, or delay. For example, in older cars, during certain periods of running them, you'd use a switch to "retard" the cars spark. Retard as a noun is, when being used properly, spelled "Retardant", meaning a material that tends to retard. Usually used in the context of "Fire retardant."

If I say I'm going to retard my cars spark, I ain't talking about sticking mentally challenged people into my engine. Retarded is a fair and reasonable word to use in the context that I used it in. I use it to mean people that are held back, slow, stupid.

I don't use it to mean the people universally considered "retarded". Actually, it didn't even occur to me that someone would find it offensive in that manner, because I don't even think of the word in that context. I usually use the term "mentally challenged".

Lastly, and most importantly, I fail to understand why anyone should or would be hurt by the uninformed opinion of someone they don't know. Someone on this board calls me stupid, so what? Do they know me? Do they have a reasonable set of data on which to gauge my intelligence? Are they even intelligent enough to be able to gauge my intelligence? Do I care one whit about their opinion?

If the answer to most or all of these questions is no, then I wouldn't be hurt by it.

We spend too much time stepping around on eggshells trying to avoid hurting people, lest they ever understand what they are or what other people negatively think about them. A lot of people don't like me. A few people even hate me. I'm under no illusions. Call me a heel if you want. Use nastier words meaning about the same thing if it pleases you.

I am a heel. I'm better off for knowing the limits of myself as a person, and being a total jerk is one of mine. I'm a self minded, self conscious, selfish, uncaring, uninterested sociopath. And quite frankly, content to be.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 6, 2009)

Well GML, you are correct sir about being PC, but incorrect to keep arguing with someone who is offended by use of hurtful to them words, two wrongs dont make a right! But as Bob Dylan said: ".to each his own.." and he also said:

"."I ride on a mail train baby, ain't it a thrill"! Me thinks you owe the mom an apology and I disagree with your shrugging off people calling you names, its never OK no matter who does it when hurtful names are used to describe anyone!!


----------



## sueb (Oct 7, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> Well GML, you are correct sir about being PC, but incorrect to keep arguing with someone who is offended by use of hurtful to them words, two wrongs dont make a right! But as Bob Dylan said: ".to each his own.." and he also said:"."I ride on a mail train baby, ain't it a thrill"! Me thinks you owe the mom an apology and I disagree with your shrugging off people calling you names, its never OK no matter who does it when hurtful names are used to describe anyone!!


Thank you for your support, Jim.


----------

