|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jul 13, 2009, 2:54 PM
Post #151 of 271
(3875 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
jmvc wrote: JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I would also make them live in a tent at the base of the monument and leave absolutely zero carbon footprint for that year. Practice what you preach! Then I will listen. I've got a feeling that you don't know what a carbon footprint is.
Your right I am not 100% sure what the definition is. Is this not a good definition from Wiki?
A carbon footprint is "the total set of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product" (UK Carbon Trust 2008). An individual, nation, or organization's carbon footprint is measured by undertaking a GHG emissions assessment. Once the size of a carbon footprint is known, a strategy can be devised to reduce it.
Carbon offsets, or the mitigation of carbon emissions through the development of alternative projects such as solar or wind energy or reforestation, represent one way of managing a carbon footprint.
The concept and name of the carbon footprint originates from the ecological footprint discussion.[1] The carbon footprint is a subset of the ecological footprint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint
I am also not the one who defaced a national monument in order to promote an issue that I wasn’t doing anything to resolve.
And I guess theoretically they would have to stop breathing in order to have a zero “Carbon footprint”. That would be an extreme punishment now wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 13, 2009, 2:59 PM
Post #152 of 271
(3863 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Carbon footprinting, offsets and most laughable of all, carbon banks of standing trees, is the SCAM OF THE 21st Century.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Jul 13, 2009, 4:16 PM
Post #153 of 271
(3835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: jmvc wrote: JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I would also make them live in a tent at the base of the monument and leave absolutely zero carbon footprint for that year. Practice what you preach! Then I will listen. I've got a feeling that you don't know what a carbon footprint is. Your right I am not 100% sure what the definition is. Is this not a good definition from Wiki? A carbon footprint is "the total set of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product" (UK Carbon Trust 2008). An individual, nation, or organization's carbon footprint is measured by undertaking a GHG emissions assessment. Once the size of a carbon footprint is known, a strategy can be devised to reduce it. Carbon offsets, or the mitigation of carbon emissions through the development of alternative projects such as solar or wind energy or reforestation, represent one way of managing a carbon footprint. The concept and name of the carbon footprint originates from the ecological footprint discussion.[1] The carbon footprint is a subset of the ecological footprint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint I am also not the one who defaced a national monument in order to promote an issue that I wasn’t doing anything to resolve. And I guess theoretically they would have to stop breathing in order to have a zero “Carbon footprint”. That would be an extreme punishment now wouldn't it?
They no more defaced a national monument than if they had done the same thing to the "Corn Palace", "Bedrock City", or Wal-drug (to keep it in S.D.)
However, I do wonder how the protesters got there? Did they fly?
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Jul 13, 2009, 5:24 PM
Post #154 of 271
(3815 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I am also not the one who defaced a national monument in order to promote an issue that I wasn’t doing anything to resolve.
In reading that sentence, I comprehend it as your writing the people who placed the banner aren't doing anything to (resolve the issue).
Don't see how you can possibly know what a person whose identity you don't even know is, or is not, doing.
Elevating awareness IS, imo, doing something. Not all of us can be, nor want to be, scientists, lobbyist, or what have you. One often cannot know what effect our actions have on others, but quite often information is the key that unlocks an interest to someone. As someone mentioned, an increase in donations to GP, a letter to a senator/other government agency, efforts in volunteerism - it's quite likely that the GP event triggered these actions in at least some people who wouldn't have done so otherwise.
Yes. They DID do something.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jul 13, 2009, 5:37 PM
Post #155 of 271
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
I just talked to a friend that was climbing around Marker (Rushmore area) and said he had talked to one of the Park Rangers about the ordeal. The Ranger had told him this wasn't going to go down well for the climbers or the climbing in the area.
Hope the Ranger was misinformed. It will be a few days till I get up there, I got an old concrete buddy that works up there now and I'll ask him what he's heard. Its really hard for me to believe they'd have a knee jerk reaction like this given the history between climbers and the monument.
Going to be a tide of backlash to Green Peace if it pans out this way.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 13, 2009, 6:04 PM
Post #156 of 271
(3786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Yawn. What influence and jurisdiction do the NPS employees of Rushmore have over the surrounding national forests?
If it is anything like here in Cali? NONE WHATSOEVER.
Your friend of a friend was barking like a dog, imo.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jul 13, 2009, 6:06 PM
Post #157 of 271
(3783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
happiegrrrl wrote: JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I am also not the one who defaced a national monument in order to promote an issue that I wasn’t doing anything to resolve. In reading that sentence, I comprehend it as your writing the people who placed the banner aren't doing anything to (resolve the issue). Don't see how you can possibly know what a person whose identity you don't even know is, or is not, doing. Elevating awareness IS, imo, doing something. Not all of us can be, nor want to be, scientists, lobbyist, or what have you. One often cannot know what effect our actions have on others, but quite often information is the key that unlocks an interest to someone. As someone mentioned, an increase in donations to GP, a letter to a senator/other government agency, efforts in volunteerism - it's quite likely that the GP event triggered these actions in at least some people who wouldn't have done so otherwise. Yes. They DID do something.
You are right, the only thing I know about them is that they defaced a national monument. And yes I think that what they did is “doing nothing about it”.
If I went out and blew up a Chinese Factory while shouting global warming, is that “doing something about it”? Sure it would get me on TV but that doesn’t tell anyone what to do about global warming.
All of this reminds me of that scene in Anchor Man where he says “Yelling Loudly”. These people think by just saying the word “global warming” while doing something illegal is raising awareness. Well, I am more aware now. I am aware that these people are nothing more than vandals.
If they wanted to raise awareness they could go out and show people how to be more efficient and produce fewer pollutants. There sign said nothing about that. Heck, they didn’t even put their URL on there big enough so that you could read it online. At least, that would have pointed people in the right direction.
I don’t actually disagree with their cause. I just disagree with the way they went about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Jul 13, 2009, 6:20 PM
Post #158 of 271
(3772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: happiegrrrl wrote: JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I am also not the one who defaced a national monument in order to promote an issue that I wasn’t doing anything to resolve. In reading that sentence, I comprehend it as your writing the people who placed the banner aren't doing anything to (resolve the issue). Don't see how you can possibly know what a person whose identity you don't even know is, or is not, doing. Elevating awareness IS, imo, doing something. Not all of us can be, nor want to be, scientists, lobbyist, or what have you. One often cannot know what effect our actions have on others, but quite often information is the key that unlocks an interest to someone. As someone mentioned, an increase in donations to GP, a letter to a senator/other government agency, efforts in volunteerism - it's quite likely that the GP event triggered these actions in at least some people who wouldn't have done so otherwise. Yes. They DID do something. You are right, the only thing I know about them is that they defaced a national monument. And yes I think that what they did is “doing nothing about it”. If I went out and blew up a Chinese Factory while shouting global warming, is that “doing something about it”? Sure it would get me on TV but that doesn’t tell anyone what to do about global warming. All of this reminds me of that scene in Anchor Man where he says “Yelling Loudly”. These people think by just saying the word “global warming” while doing something illegal is raising awareness. Well, I am more aware now. I am aware that these people are nothing more than vandals. If they wanted to raise awareness they could go out and show people how to be more efficient and produce fewer pollutants. There sign said nothing about that. Heck, they didn’t even put their URL on there big enough so that you could read it online. At least, that would have pointed people in the right direction. I don’t actually disagree with their cause. I just disagree with the way they went about it.
Jeue keep dusing dat word "defaced". I dinna think it means much here.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 13, 2009, 6:32 PM
Post #159 of 271
(3756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I don’t actually disagree with their cause. I just disagree with the way they went about it.
Ask youself this.... 'Why?"
No need to answer it here. I'm asking you to ask yourself - and answer honestly and with some introspection...
Why does the prospect of some protestors hanging a temporary sign on a figurehead carved on the side of a mountain bother you?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
irregularpanda
Jul 13, 2009, 6:46 PM
Post #160 of 271
(3743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 1364
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I don’t actually disagree with their cause. I just disagree with the way they went about it.
I agree with dingus.
If I saw a bunch of folks "showing me how to lower my carbon footprint", I wouldn't listen at all, and I would just go about my life normally, because I don't have time to listen to that shit.
If I showed up on your door, and tried to get you to lower your carbon footprint, would you care? Would it really make a difference?
Sometimes radical acts are the best way to raise awareness.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jul 13, 2009, 6:48 PM
Post #161 of 271
(3743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jul 13, 2009, 6:51 PM
Post #162 of 271
(3739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: If I went out and blew up a Chinese Factory while shouting global warming, is that “doing something about it”? Sure it would get me on TV but that doesn’t tell anyone what to do about global warming.
While that is some nice equivocation, I'd wager that the Green Peace site has seen a fairly decent spike in traffic as has the number of people engaged in climate change 'debates'. It's also likely caused some of the left wing, environmentalist vote -- who likely supported Obama during the election -- to go back to questioning the man in the White House.
In reply to: I am aware that these people are nothing more than vandals.
Well, the Vandals did sack Rome.
In reply to: If they wanted to raise awareness they could go out and show people how to be more efficient and produce fewer pollutants. There sign said nothing about that. Heck, they didn’t even put their URL on there big enough so that you could read it online.
Displaying your url has far less impact these days. Anyone who can type in the address can just as easily google Green Peace. It's largely assumed that they, like all major NGOs, have a web site, but anyone that so much as catches a glimpse of 'www.' or '.com' will instantly get it if they didn't before.
http://www.greenpeace.org... time to find? Less than ten seconds.
Greenpeace does have positive campaigns, as do other environmentalist NGOs, but sometimes it's the sensationalism that grabs people's attention. Sometimes more extreme actions make moderate stances seem more palatable.
(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Jul 13, 2009, 6:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bhickey
Jul 13, 2009, 7:01 PM
Post #164 of 271
(3711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 46
|
dingus wrote: Why does the prospect of some protestors hanging a temporary sign on a figurehead carved on the side of a mountain bother you?
It makes me sad that someone thought it was a good idea to blow up a mountain to make a tourist trap.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jul 13, 2009, 7:25 PM
Post #165 of 271
(3688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
knieveltech wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: Jeue keep dusing dat word "defaced". I dinna think it means much here. I figure if you wanted to deface Rushmore you'd need one of these: [image]http://us-cdn.creamermedia.co.za/assets/articles/images/resized/48617_resized_sandvik_dpi1500.jpg[/image]
Defacing something does not necessarily mean the act is permanent. You can deface a website and all it takes is a simple revert to the original page to resolve the issue.
However, that is still defacing even if all you did was put a small little advertisement on the right side of the page and left the picture of the companies past presidents alone.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jul 13, 2009, 7:33 PM
Post #166 of 271
(3682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
irregularpanda wrote: JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I don’t actually disagree with their cause. I just disagree with the way they went about it. I agree with dingus. If I saw a bunch of folks "showing me how to lower my carbon footprint", I wouldn't listen at all, and I would just go about my life normally, because I don't have time to listen to that shit. If I showed up on your door, and tried to get you to lower your carbon footprint, would you care? Would it really make a difference? Sometimes radical acts are the best way to raise awareness.
Honestly, I would have had more respect for them as activists if they had blown up that factory in China(As long as no one was hurt). Sure that is illegal, wrong, and causes property damage. However, that raises awareness of the problem instead of raising awareness of the activists. Now I am not suggesting that they should do that. Instead I am suggesting that it might have been a more effective way to protest even though both acts are illegal.
On a side note: I wonder which act would get them more jail time? Destroying a factory without any threat to human life or defacing a national monument? Are there specific harsher laws against vandalizing something in a national park?
|
|
|
|
|
limeydave
Jul 13, 2009, 7:34 PM
Post #167 of 271
(3671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2006
Posts: 2453
|
Was there any damage?
I tried digging through the global warming arguments, but cuoldn't find any damage.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Jul 13, 2009, 7:37 PM
Post #168 of 271
(3660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: knieveltech wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: Jeue keep dusing dat word "defaced". I dinna think it means much here. I figure if you wanted to deface Rushmore you'd need one of these: [image]http://us-cdn.creamermedia.co.za/assets/articles/images/resized/48617_resized_sandvik_dpi1500.jpg[/image] Defacing something does not necessarily mean the act is permanent. You can deface a website and all it takes is a simple revert to the original page to resolve the issue. However, that is still defacing even if all you did was put a small little advertisement on the right side of the page and left the picture of the companies past presidents alone.
It was a bad pun.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jul 13, 2009, 7:50 PM
Post #169 of 271
(3653 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
dingus wrote: JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I don’t actually disagree with their cause. I just disagree with the way they went about it. Ask youself this.... 'Why?" No need to answer it here. I'm asking you to ask yourself - and answer honestly and with some introspection... Why does the prospect of some protestors hanging a temporary sign on a figurehead carved on the side of a mountain bother you? DMT
That is an awesome question and I actually would like to answer it here.
I thought about it and I think that the thing that I didn’t like about them vandalizing the monument is that it had nothing to do with their cause. Personally, that monument itself means nothing to me. However, what it stands for and the fact that the country recognizes it as a national treasure does.
To me they took a “big old dump” on what the monument stands for by placing that banner on there. Even though they didn’t permanently damage it. They have said to me “The Greenpeace message is more important than the national treasure”. In my mind that is wrong and far worse than destroying public property.
I guess I just don’t agree with where they choose to display their message. Does Global warming threaten Mt. Rushmore? If it does then that would be a good reason to choose it. However, they have failed to show me how it does.
I think I would have been more open to them posting their message on someone’s favorite climbing glacier and saying “if you don’t stop the factories in China this won’t be here anymore”. That is “doing something about the problem”. However, that would not get the attention they desired so they choose the mountain instead.
What they did was get the word out there. What the failed to do was to convince me to get up and do something about it.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jul 13, 2009, 7:52 PM
Post #170 of 271
(3647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
limeydave wrote: Was there any damage? I tried digging through the global warming arguments, but cuoldn't find any damage.
As far as I have read there was not any physical damage done. However, it did say they were investigating to see if any had been done.
Side note: Have you been climbing lately?
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 13, 2009, 7:55 PM
Post #171 of 271
(3641 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
And what exactly does the monument stand for?
Nothing. It's a show of dick size.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jul 13, 2009, 7:57 PM
Post #172 of 271
(3634 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
dingus wrote: Yawn. What influence and jurisdiction do the NPS employees of Rushmore have over the surrounding national forests? If it is anything like here in Cali? NONE WHATSOEVER. Your friend of a friend was barking like a dog, imo. DMT
First off, he's not a friend of a friend, he is my friend, and a vary reliable one at that.
Second, the National Parks Service may or may not have any influence over the surrounding National Forest, in any case your barking up the wrong tree. There are several pretty major climbing areas on Rushmore Monument land that are under their jurisdiction that are directly under fire and are a concern those that climb them.
|
|
|
|
|
limeydave
Jul 13, 2009, 7:58 PM
Post #173 of 271
(3625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2006
Posts: 2453
|
Nah, trying to stay out of the gym.
Playing soccer for fitness and training fingers at home.
New River Gorge to work on my project this weekend though.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 13, 2009, 8:03 PM
Post #174 of 271
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
limeydave wrote: New River Gorge to work on my project this weekend though.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Jul 13, 2009, 8:07 PM
Post #175 of 271
(3107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
limeydave wrote: Nah, trying to stay out of the gym. Playing soccer for fitness and training fingers at home. New River Gorge to work on my project this weekend though.
Jealous I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
