Consider ignorance potentially fought. I had always heard the chainsaw reasoning for tree spiking. Your statement about lumber mills does remind me of what I read at the same time. The people I heard the chainsaw story from were both extreme anti and pro ecology. However, their hands on experience with said technique was… ah, nonexistant. It may qualify as an ‘urban legend’ sort of meme.
Seems accurate. Looks like it’d be a secondary effect. Of course, the article goes on to say that in non-us conditions, the flying shards could still hurt people pretty badly. http://www.peterherrick.com/content/treespiking5.htm
… Yep. Looks like I live and learn.
Well, let’s say that morons will do it poorly. On the other hand, if there wasn’t a touch of moron, they wouldn’t be terrorists, instead of activists.
It’s not safe, but it’s not land-mine dangerous, it’s still not especially right.
Still, it’s meant to make people alter their behavior or risk getting hurt doing an otherwise safe activity. Terrorism. Right?
As I understand it, the intention is to make them risk getting their machinery hurt: after a millworker was severely injured by a tree spike, despite evidence indicating that it wasn’t an environmentalist who placed the spike (evidence consisting of weird letters to the editor that came across like a personal vendetta against the mill owner), lots of environmentalist criminals swore off the practice.
Those who do it are reckless and criminal, but I think there’s a humongous difference between reckless disregard for others’ safety and an attempt to hurt other people.
Those colon maggots in ELF who think burning cars or houses somehow helps the environment are terrorists, and deserve to be locked away for a long time. It’s just luck that they haven’t killed anybody yet.
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. You are aware that you appear to be equating sitting in a tree with fucking arson and bombings that KILL people here? Perhaps you’d like to provide us with a list of what other acts of civil disobedience should be reacted to way out of proportion?
Is there any lunatic who justifys his actions because he’s “doing it to save animals” that you won’t defend? You tied yourself in knots a few months back making excuses for those PETA workers who were illegally killing puppies. Here you’re defending spiking because it’s “just” property damage. Your pattern is always the same. You say “Well, I’m certainly not defending X, but” and then you proceed to vigorously defend X. Tell me Daniel, what exactly is the difference between destroying a saw with a spike in a log and blowing up a saw with a bomb? They are both illegal, violent, terrorist attacks against innocent people or corporations simply because the perpetrator disagrees with the perfectly legal actions of the lumber mill. I don’t know what “mission” you’re taking seriously, but last I checked the board’s mission was fighting ignorance, not fighting for the ignorant.
You’ve dramatically missed the point, booklyn. I’m saying that an eco-nut who burns down a housing development or a bunch of Hummers is responsible for the risk to the firefighters who have to deal with the fire. It’s impossible to know, when you start a fire, what’s going to happen as it continues to burn and if it will become a threat to the people who have to douse it (even if you’re REAL sure it won’t hurt anybody else :rolleyes:).
Is this a PV (photovoltaic) solar cell? Manufacture of those devices is not necessarily “eco-friendly.” They contain a surprising amout of heavy metals: lead oxides, zinc sulfides, and cadmuim telluride mostly. The panels themselves, once fully assembled and installed, are pretty benign, but manufacture and eventual disposal? - not so much. Also the initial acqusition of these elements can be a pretty messy operation. And, of course, lots of work is being done to make the front- and back-end more environmentally friendly, but it ain’t necessarily the case right now.
Yes to all your questions and points. However, if some people don’t take the jump and risk to invest the technology won’t mature.
The Disposal will pose a risk, but by the stats I have seen, if they last 20 to 25 years operational, they will definitely be a net gain to the environment.
I think most rational people know that every technology we have for producing energy has drawbacks.
For instance, every report I have seen shows that so far Ethanol requires as much or more energy to produce than it provides. This does not mean that in 10-15 years it will not be far more efficient and maybe actually provide 10-15% of the Diesel needs as a renewable resource.
I would never advise everybody run out a buy Solar Panels. You have to consider that the payback without Government rebates is probably 30 years. That is the max expected life of the panels. NJ paid 70% of my install cost so my payback will be around 10 years. Even with this, it only worked for me as I plan to stay in my house for 15 to 20 years.
If you have the room for it, consider composting grass & Leaves. Eventually who will have some good topsoil (ok 7-10 years unless you work it every few months).
Use the new Compact Fluorescents light bulbs every place you can, a significant energy and Money saver.
Do not pour your oil down storm drains or into your backyard, take it to an Auto Parts store or Township.
Recycle papers if available. This technology appears to be cost effective.
Do the same with cardboard.
I recycle Cans and bottles but these are open to some debate as being cost effective. It still seems worth doing to reduce waste dumping. Long term view, no provable short term gain.
Look for Energy Star appliances. It will save you money.
Does anything I have said sound unreasonable? These are just off the top of my head.
Weirddave,
Is there anything short of calling for the death-by-torture of environmentalist criminals that you won’t mischaracterize as defending them? My “defense” of them consists of calling for their prosecution for crimes such as arson and major property damage. I somehow don’t think they’d want me on their defense team.
Maybe I’m not as bloodthirsty as you. That doesn’t mean I’m their friends.
Since nobody took me up on the offer of the bet that I made in that post, I’m retracting it now; it looks as if the charges have a chance of sticking after all. I’ll still be a little surprised if they do: I expect the main charges that stick against these assholes will be charges of misuse of controlled substances, improper disposal, etc.
You’ll note that, since that thread, PETA fired those workers. PETA’s not an organization I support or will ever support, but I have specific reasons for not doing so, and hypocrisy on PETA’s part is not one of those reasons.
I will participate in a discussion with you up to, precisely, the point where you pull out your nasty insults. I expect that in the next post, but I hope you can surprise me.
Nothing unreasonable in the least, Jim. Just as a point of clarification I failed to state earlier, that I’m not really trying to start an argument with you, or discourage anyone from investigating solar as an option for powering their home(s). I merely wished to point out to folks less well informed than yourself, that PV solar panels aren’t entirely “green” at this point in their development. It’s a common misconception, or rather a common failure, of many green power advocates to neglect consideration of all the facets of whatever alternative energy source they’re advocating. This is generally done, not as an attempt to obfuscate, but through a failure to understand the entire issue. I’ve got a buddy who is a research chemist at www.firstsolar.com, and have talked with him many times about his company’s products, so I probably know a bot more about solar panels than the average guy. I’m just trying to add information to the pool.
In any case, I applaud you for doing something more than just making noise (as so many are wont to do) and actually becoming an early adopter of the technology. Early adopters, often at great personal cost, do indeed make it possible for technology to become affordable to more mainstream consumers.
I agree with you, LHoD - this is exactly the way I read your last post, and was about to come in and ask Weirddave where the hell he got the idea that you were defending them.
If they took steps to ensure that the environmentalists were not inside, then I would call it arson, not terrorism. If they intended to burn the environmentalists or their families to death, I would call it terrorism.
Well, I got it from post numbers 79 and 82. Post number 79 consists of a paragraph explaining why tree spiking is nothing more serious than a fraternity prank before coming out with the obligatory “But I’m not defending their actions” disclaimer, post 82 follows the same pattern but the disclaimer is 'Hey, at least they aren’t trying to hurt anyone". ALF and ELF are terrorist organizations, and have carried that label since well before 9/11 lest you think calling them that is a part of a recent trend to label everyone the government doesn’t like a “terrorist”. To my mind they should be treated exactly the same as Timothy McVeigh or members of Al-Quieda. It doesn’t matter the tiniest bit WHY they are doing what they are doing, I could care less that they think they are saving the planet. I would feel the same if they were burning things in an attempt to get more liberalized concealed carry permits issued. If they were destroying lumber mills to get more resources for handicapped children I still think we should treat them the same. I support the death penalty after a proper and fair trial, so my reaction to these people is that they ought to be executed (after a proper and fair trial). there is nothing “bloodthirsty” about it.
If they were burning down these houses in a move to prevent people from joining a legal environmentalist group? Absolutely it would be terrorism, and should be handled appropriately (see above)
Thank You,
My wife and I made the decision that I would buy a cheap car and we could spend around $15,000 on the Panels. We consider it a social investment rather than a true investment. Total cost was around $47,000. We never had to pay out the extra $32,000 the state handled all of that with the installer. We have 6700 watts maximum power. The program is run through http://www.njcep.com/. I believe it will remain 70% rebate through at least July of 2006.
If Electric starts to go up faster than 3% per the payoff should be quicker than 10 years.
I hope that the low cost plastic based Panels become readily available within 10 years and make my panels looks like Black & White TV or a Commodore 64.
The Electronics are improving rapidly for conversion of DC to AC, Auto power sensing switches and Syncing to the power grid.
Someday I will take the next step and add the Batteries to allow me to run off grid when we have power outages. Currently I am part of the overall Power grid.
I am reasonably sure that in a long power outage I could Isolate the house from the street and run my Refrigerator and keep my wife’s laptop charged and a few other little items.
Has your friend been keeping up with the newer panels they are working on?
I can only keep up through Scientific America and similar Magazines.
Anyone who uses the words “oppressed” and “enslaved” when talking about lab rats has no basis at all for complaining about the use of the word “terrorism” when talking about the ELF.
On the other hand, anyone who uses the word “problematize” needs to be taken out and shot, so we should keep the above in its proper perspective.
So what? I’d be surprised if you got a single answer that wasn’t “9/11.” That doesn’t prove that the bombing of the USS Cole was not an act of terrorism, only that it wasn’t as dramatic and memorable an act of terrorism. Someone upthread mentioned that the IRA shifted tactics, and started phoning in bomb warnings before they detonated, so the target could be cleared of bystanders. Did that make the IRA no longer a terrorist organization, in your view?
Not to get too far off topic, but I thought of something. There are terrorism statutes that are used in civil and criminal courts. Most often, I think, in cases of stalkers. Does anyone know when these laws started being implemented? I think they were written for stalker-type things, but can’t clearly recall. It seems they were in force before 9/11.
No thank you. As I stated, one of the few things that sets us apart from other nations is the above. There’s nothing to discuss. Private and personal property and the right to defend said property.
Per’aps if you hang around and the subject comes up and it’s interesting…but I doubt all those conditions will come together at once.
There is a commonly used charge in my area called a “terrorist threat”. It’s pretty much a bullshit charge that accompanies any verbal or physical threat made to someone’s person. I say it’s “bullshit”, because it’s used anytime the powers that be wish to use the word “terrorist” to ellicit some sort of emotional or dramatic response from the people involved in law.
Is that what you’re referring to? Has nothing to do with stalking, however.