Couldn't that logic be applied to other resources? What about gasoline? Could we not argue that those of us who drive SUV's are overusing a resource? The more of us that have and use large vehicles which take a LOT of gasoline to power means that there is less gasoline available for others. We've always made the arguement that we're willing to pay the high cost, so we should be allowed to have it. If gasoline was rationed like in WWII, more would be available for everyone and the bonus prize would be that the price would go down.
What about housing? Why should someone have 3 houses when that means that 2 of them sit empty for a good portion of the year? Isn't that reducing the number of houses available? If everyone only had one house, that would mean more houses available for others, and with more on the market the prices would be lower and more people could afford them.
How about food? Some of us have access to large quantities of food while others have limited access. Why should one family have all that extra food stored in their pantry when others have none? If we all only bought what we needed, there would be more for others, and again, the price would go down and more people could afford more options.
I agree that this guy is being greedy and should be stopped, but because I feel that way I started to think about how consistent my position is in regard to other resources.
There is a difference here.
Individuals don't have to have gasoline to live.
As for housing, food, clothing, etc, there is no shortage of these items. People that don't have them don't have them because they cannot afford them.
This guy is using up a resource that at the moment there is very little of that most people can afford. Plus, it is being rationed while the other things are not.
Water is a necessity to live. You have to have drinking water. You also have to have water to bathe in and keep things clean or germs and disease can spread.
Well, they haven't seen him physically watering his lawn because I'm sure he has the pop-up sprinklers installed that are set to water at about 1 a.m.!
This is my thought too. Either this or he has spinkler hoses buried just underground that may be constantly running.
Exactly and good point made. That's the "let them eat cake" mentality I'm talking about. It's not a liberal position to want to conserve, though some will try and paint it this way. I have seen previous debates on this board turn out that way. Trying to conserve and being concerned about America's resources is to me, a matter of national security in some ways. It does America no good to consume and waste the amount of oil and other resources we do. The faster we can cutoff our dependence on foreign oil and take some of the strain off our national power grids, etc, etc, the better off we will be. Some Americans should realise that being patriotic is a lot more work than just waving a flag or putting a vinyl decal on the back of their car. We're all in this together, if you think about it.
ITA!
While I am mostly liberal, I lean on the conservative side.
But, I don't subscribe to any political party.
I think that the vast amount of Americans conserve, not only because it makes sense to do so, but it makes CENTS to do so. Very few people can afford NOT to concerve. I can tell you for a fact that I raise the temp of my house to 65 when I get up in the morning. At night it is 62. I wonder what personal contribution Al Gore makes, while he is preaching to the rest of us. The ONE thing that would make a tremendous impact would be to drill in ANWR. In fact, if it were announced tomorrow, we would see the price of oil fall, just on the announcement of it. It won't happen however as long as the dems hold a strangle hold on Alaska. Even the Alaskan citizenz would welcome the jobs and the stimulus to the economy. As long as we are being held hostage by the Crazy Chavez and the middle east, commodity traders will bid it up and we will all pay more at the pump.
I think you're wrong on the majority of American conserving. Hello? SUV's anyone? Plus, I know of very few people that either carpool or take public transportation. Just about every vehicle I pass during rush hours have only 1 person in them.
In my house, we have changed the temp before, but it hardly ever happens because it's never thought of by my dad. And I know of no one who actually does this at all.
Most people will buy better light bulbs, and turn out lights. They might recycle if it's convieinent (it's not in my area). But most people won't do anything if it's not convienent enough or to their liking.
And to drill in ANWR is just not conserving. That's more using and destroying.
Drilling more oil and destroying an ecosystem is not the way to conserve.
Finding new renewable resources is what should be done instead.
Of course because it started during the Nixon years, still makes Carter the worst president in modern history, and I was a registered democrat then.
