To the people of Wyoming...

[FLAK]

1. Chouinard? is holier than thou.
2. Probably Rinella also.
3 We are headed towards the Hunger Games kind of scenario
if these Global Elitest climate change Kooks ever get full control.
4. I been hearing about climate/greenhouse gases since 4th grade (1976).
5. Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.
6. Climate change happens.

 

[coloyooper]

Red neck is a term from when a bunch of miners in the Appalacia, spelling, lol went on strike and put red bandanas around their necks and the state government came in? I'm going from memory. : ) That is where the term originated. It has evolved into meaning a red, sunburned neck, from working in the hot sun. Bill

You might be the only man left in America that uses redneck in that way.

There's so much hate in here for a guy trying to do some good for the environment. Why is it that if people don't believe EVERYTHING that you believe then we resort to name calling?

One big thing I picked up on in these comments is a lot of people calling him a hypocrite for several different reasons. Well, I hate to tell all of you that you're no different. If you trust biologists regarding grizzly hunting, then you should trust them for the reintroduction of wolves. If you trust scientists for EVERYTHING else is in life, you should trust them on climate change. Picking and choosing specific things to believe and disbelieve just to suit your preconceived ideas or what you "want" just makes people look ignorant.

funny, in colorado the scientists (CPW) are against the introduction of wolves yet the lovely folks in California have started a coalition to force the introduction.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Sure makes me want to live in Wyoming....

 

[lak2004]

Oh boy the anti other people's opinions folks certainly are triggered again.....

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

Oh boy the anti other people's opinions folks certainly are triggered again.....

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Totally

 

[bigsky2]

He hit the nail on the head as far as Wyoming's lack of a stream access law goes. The fact that you can't even pull over to take a piss because the landowners own the stream bed is flat out ridiculous.

 

[gbflyer]

Big fan of Patagonia customer service. I have an SST that started with me in 1995. It’s been replaced for free 5 times since when it starts to leak. And leak they do, I assure you. Also find their stuff cheap at second hand stores. Return them too for new. I’m doing my part to break him

 

[Bigwindymt]

Problem is a lot of the scientists didn’t want wolves

This simply is not true. Wolves were coming from Canada anyway and the endangered species act would have afforded them complete protection. Many scientists (among other parties) pushed reintroduction of an experimental, non-essential population to work around the necessity of killing wolves when, not if, they caused problems. Our overly powerful judicial system screwed everything up, twisting the wording of the written law, only after paws were on the ground already.

 

[KurtR]

This simply is not true. Wolves were coming from Canada anyway and the endangered species act would have afforded them complete protection. Many scientists (among other parties) pushed reintroduction of an experimental, non-essential population to work around the necessity of killing wolves when, not if, they caused problems. Our overly powerful judicial system screwed everything up, twisting the wording of the written law, only after paws were on the ground already.

Like you said they were forced into it by trying to get around the ESA. They had there hand forced but when asked it seems alot of the biologist did not agree with the re introduction but new it was going to happen so had to try and get ahead of it. So i will re phrase it the biologist didnt want the re introduction of experimental non-essential population of wolves but new they were going to take it with no lube so tried to form a plan to side step the esa

 

[cuerro viejo]

Every time I’ve listen to him here recently, he has bragged about how his charity work has exponentially Increased sales and touch/open markets(new customers) once thought unattainable. Hummmmm......

 

[Billinsd]

You might be the only man left in America that uses redneck in that way.

I don't define redneck in it's original definition. I pointed out where it came from. To me redneck can be a bit derogatory or complimentary when I say it. Like with most things moderation is the key. Being a little bit Redneck is a good thing. Kinda like Donnie and Marie, "I'm a little bit country and I'm a little bit rock and roll!!!". : )

 

[Gutshotem]

And used as an ignorant bigoted derogatory term for white rural people

The racist Regressives , like Chouinard , love to use the term to dehumanize and shut down any conversation.

That’s why Chouinard took his Patagonia operations to China to subjugate Chinese sub human slave labor to make his over priced products so he could purchase multiple mansions and private jets.

There are no
Labor laws in China and Chouinard ,the racist eco warrior , jumped on this because he did not want to pay a living wage to his employees in the US.

Yet some on here still worship him

Let's also not forget how he started his company with a coal fired forge.

 

[Montana Slim]

Which you are assuming as there is no factual data with the proper time table to back it. Is trying to have less emissions a good thing of course but at the detriment of society or not being able to see the long term is worse than the short term benefits is a question. I have asked this of wind energy before and no one really knows how many gallons of diesel is involved in building one tower. Then the life span is roughly 20 years and blades and generators are being replaced. They are a really inefficient way to generate electricity and the on top of the negative effect on both animals and the landscape are they worth it? It’s green energy so it has to be right every thing green is good? Is it really green or has it been sold that way buy some good sales man making lots o money both off government subsidizes and the construction. You say nuclear and people almost faint but if you look long term 0 emissions and environmental impacts it’s tough to beat. I look at all view points and as has been stated what happened to the 70’s ice age those guys were cutting edge scientists back then and thought they had it right. The ozone is a little different it had a specific problem with specific things that were causing it and was able to be targeted. Climate change is still in data gathering mode in another 10000 years maybe they have enough to have a definitive answer but right now it’s a lot of guessing and most guesses lead to dollar bills.

Good points about the total costs of wind energy not being accounted. Similar to the ethanol situation, where a marketed 'green' energy source led to the removal of heaps of CRP, and something like 3 gallons of water and one gallon of diesel to make one gallon of ethanol.
Nuclear is spooky, at least to me. It certainly could provide huge amounts of energy, but the byproducts, and potential impacts of an accident overwhelm the benefits to me. However, I am by no means knowledgeable about the subject.
As for subsidies... well, oil and gas are being heavily subsidized, and there are people making gobs of money there.
I would argue that trying to move toward new energy sources is looking at things long term, and is not the short-sighted view. Saying there is no factual evidence of human induced climate change is misleading. Science gives the best explanation for the way the world works with the best set of facts available. It is fallible. However, to ignore what an overwhelming body of research is indicating because it will be extremely difficult to change, is the short-sighted view in my opinion.

I think this is a great discussion, and I really value what (most) everyone is adding. It is a difficult topic, but one that certainly need to be addressed.
Thanks guys. Hope your seasons are going well!

 

[Billinsd]

He hit the nail on the head as far as Wyoming's lack of a stream access law goes. The fact that you can't even pull over to take a piss because the landowners own the stream bed is flat out ridiculous.

You can pull over to piss, or just piss over the side of the boat. You can't pull the boat over and stand on the land, because the land owner owns the land. How is that ridiculous? I can see it is annoying, sure. Bill

 

[realunlucky]

You can pull over to piss, or just piss over the side of the boat. You can't pull the boat over and stand on the land, because the land owner owns the land. How is that ridiculous? I can see it is annoying, sure. Bill

Because the high water mark was the standard forever.
Can hardly tell your a Californian Bill, trying to run everything and everyone from the West coast.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[IdahoHntr]

Good points about the total costs of wind energy not being accounted. Similar to the ethanol situation, where a marketed 'green' energy source led to the removal of heaps of CRP, and something like 3 gallons of water and one gallon of diesel to make one gallon of ethanol.
Nuclear is spooky, at least to me. It certainly could provide huge amounts of energy, but the byproducts, and potential impacts of an accident overwhelm the benefits to me. However, I am by no means knowledgeable about the subject.

This is exactly what keeps us from real progress in the energy front. Ask any engineer in the energy field and they would tell you nuclear is the ONLY way to actually have sustainable green energy. Nuclear is the most efficient source of energy and has by FAR the least impact on the environment, yet people are scared of it. If you don't know anything about it, then what is there to be scared of? There have been like 4 major nuclear accidents since the 70s and none of them involved reactors like what is being used today. Even so, the damage caused by those accidents has been relatively minor and almost all nuclear accidents have very little to do with radiation danger itself. Your taking more radiation risk by owning a cell phone than living next to a nuclear plant. Get educated and stop being scared of nothing.

If a person is pushing green energy and they are not pushing for nuclear energy, then they have an agenda that involves dollars and power. Plain and simple. You can't say you believe in science, and then not believe in the science that clearly shows that nuclear is by far the best energy for the future. Too many people picking and choosing what "science" to believe.

 

[ODB]

A lot of people like focusing on the potential dire outcomes of CC, but really, the problem is on the front end. There is a ton of focus on CO2 emissions as the driver of CC. First, I think putting all the eggs in the CO2 basket is unwise, but also if you look at the emitters, things get very challenging.

Of global CO2 output, China is about 30%, the US 15%, followed by India at about 7% and Russia at about 5%. Every other country is less than 5%. Four countries are well over half the emissions. Seems like a slam dunk case that we are the problem because if you follow the outrage, the US bears a disproportionate amount of blame. Let's say in a perfect world we cut emissions to 0%. That means you still have 85% of the CO2 being emitted. Great! But then you STILL have to contend with the rest of the countries who either a) have no interest in cutting emissions or b) can't. For a country like Germany at about 2% of global CO2 emissions to cut to just 1% will take a massive effort for almost no net gain. In other words, they need to cut emissions by 50% to make an overall 1% difference, that's basically reshaping their entire energy system - which, by the way, will take how much energy to accomplish? How many countries can cut emissions by 50% to make these 1% changes? Germany is on 40% coal - only about 13% of their energy comes from nuclear, and small amounts from solar/wind, etc. 61% of their energy comes from fossil fuels in total. There's not enough wind or sun in Germany to replace that kind of consumption - nuclear is the only way out, which is anathema to many CC activists. So, what to do...what to do...?

Developing countries, like most of Sub-Saharan Africa will struggle to not increase their CO2 output as they develop. Take a ramble around Kenya like I just did and you will see a mass of humanity trying to NOT live in the dark ages. They want and need fresh water, constant electricity, sewer treatment - all of which needs energy, which is NOT going to come from hydro or wind. Solar is gaining, but in small hops - not leaps and bounds. But to Chuinard, these people living 'close to the ground' are models to follow because of their 'simple' lives. Simple hell - I think of Borassa, and Caroline, and Saidi - people I met who struggle to make a living and want more than they have because the struggle to put food on the table is a REAL problem. I think about the woman I saw urinating in a water-filled ditch and the fellow 200 yards downstream washing his motorcycle in the same water, and then 200 yards further down a mother washing clothes in yet still the same water - ah yes, the simple life!! There are 40 million Kenyans, most of which live in a way we could never imagine who want to move intro modernity. This will take energy, and a hell of a lot of it. Tell me how Kenya will accomplish this without assistance from those very countries who the CC alarmists want to punish with carbon taxes and restrictions? How does this work?

Don't let this mislead you into thinking I don;t give a shit about our natural world- I do, a great deal. But for every person on the "don;t do anything because it's hard," there is an equal or greater number of "just do somethings" who offer absolutely no solutions except taxes, credits, and restrictions. We CANNOT regress our way out of this - period, and punishing people is a form of regression. And you also can;t speed up the issue by just commanding people to 'find a solution." Per capita CO2 rates in the US are the same as Canada and is on the DECREASE to 1960 levels. Things are moving in the right direction regarding technolgy in general, but it's not keeping up with the energy demands of a growing population in countries seeking to move from developing to developed. The per capita trend is up almost everywhere, EXCEPT in the countries actually doing the technological work to address a more sustainable energy model (but not China) - so we ARE putting our money where our mouth is. It's just not reported so no one knows. Just check the facts from reputable sources.

Whatever we are doing to the climate by whatever fraction is something to study and work on, but, unlike many think, it can't be the ONLY thing on our minds. It has to be a part of the entire, holistic conversation about where humanity is going and how it is going to get there. And if anyone is telling their kids that they have 12 years to live, stop abusing your kid. Climate anxiety is a real thing, and it is NOT helping the situation. We need level heads working together on many different issues at once, and hysteria from any viewpoint will do nothing for real progress.

Just my .02c

 

[Billinsd]

Because the high water mark was the standard forever.
Can hardly tell your a Californian Bill, trying to run everything and everyone from the West coast.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Well I am controlling, yes. I'm extremely opinionated. I'm not always right, just ask my wife. What do you mean the high water mark was the standard forever? I'm from Missouri, show me.....

 

[Montana Slim]

This is exactly what keeps us from real progress in the energy front. Ask any engineer in the energy field and they would tell you nuclear is the ONLY way to actually have sustainable green energy. Nuclear is the most efficient source of energy and has by FAR the least impact on the environment, yet people are scared of it. If you don't know anything about it, then what is there to be scared of? There have been like 4 major nuclear accidents since the 70s and none of them involved reactors like what is being used today. Even so, the damage caused by those accidents has been relatively minor and almost all nuclear accidents have very little to do with radiation danger itself. Your taking more radiation risk by owning a cell phone than living next to a nuclear plant. Get educated and stop being scared of nothing.

If a person is pushing green energy and they are not pushing for nuclear energy, then they have an agenda that involves dollars and power. Plain and simple. You can't say you believe in science, and then not believe in the science that clearly shows that nuclear is by far the best energy for the future. Too many people picking and choosing what "science" to believe.

I guess I just disagree...

You seem to imply that the environmental impacts of nuclear power are essentially zero, and that it is very safe.
Four accidents in less than 50 years is not a great track record, and the damage has hardly been minor. Nuclear may be cleaner CO2 emissions wise, but there is more to consider than just that... there are byproducts of power production other than CO2 to be aware of. If nuclear power is more utilized on the landscape, there is more opportunity for catastrophic impacts to the land. That is something that should certainly be of concern. Nuclear as a 'forever solution' doesn't seem to cut it to me.

 

[Billinsd]

I guess I just disagree...You seem to imply that the environmental impacts of nuclear power are essentially zero, and that it is very safe. Four accidents in less than 50 years is not a great track record, and the damage has hardly been minor. Nuclear may be cleaner CO2 emissions wise, but there is more to consider than just that... there are byproducts of power production other than CO2 to be aware of. If nuclear power is more utilized on the landscape, there is more opportunity for catastrophic impacts to the land. That is something that should certainly be of concern. Nuclear as a 'forever solution' doesn't seem to cut it to me.

Nuclear power is the best sustainable world power supply. Sure, there are risks, there are risks with anything. It is very safe. It has been very safe in the US and in France. However, I would not personally trust China or Russia (Chernoble, trying to save money building the plant) with Nuclear power plants, and Japan didn't seem to know what they were doing. I don't trust these same countries do anything regarding energy either. In the US nuclear power has been safe and in France I understand they utilized it very well. The problem in the US is where to put the tiny, but extremely dangerous waste, which is the real issue. No one wants it in their backyard of course. And it is so hazardous for thousands, and thousands of years. My Hydrogeology Professor in the 80s wrote something against storing nuclear waste in the Nevada Mountains somewhere. Others had argued that by the time any of the waste could travel to any driving water aquafers, thousands of years, the waste would be inactive. However, my professor showed that there were some fissures and fractures that the waste could travel through to get to a drinking water source before it was safe. The disposal question is complicated and very political. Right now the waste sits at the nuclear power sites, where it is more dangerous than if it was transported and disposed of. In European countries and the US and Canada nuclear is the best and only clean, long term answer to energy. The only real problem is the disposal of the waste. Otherwise the US has more oil reserves than any other place in the world. It's just going to be difficult extracting it from the ground and producing it and harder on the environment. Bill