Friday Daily Delawhere [1.3.14]

Filed in Delaware by on January 3, 2014

About the Author ()

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SussexWatcher says:

    Celia has the news that Sean Barney, war hero and ex-Carper and -Markell aide, is the choice to obliterate Chip Flowers. http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/1-14resolved2014.asp

  2. Gemma says:

    Does anyone know him? His bio reads like a great candidate for whatever office he runs for. Swathmore/Yale/Harvard and war hero, is this person too good to be true?

  3. I’m leery of both ‘ex-Carper’ and ‘ex-Markell’.

    However, when you consider the alternative…

  4. fightingbluehen says:

    They go down to Antarctica on a little cruise to gawk at the global warming, and end up stuck in the ice.

    Then they need two massive carbon spewing ice breakers to attempt to remove them.

    Then they open their pie holes, and pledge to plant some trees to offset the carbon footprint that resulted from their misguided adventure…….you can’t even make this shit up.

    BTW, I put less than 10,000 miles per year on my personal vehicle which doubles as my work truck, and I haven’t been on an airplane in eighteen years.

    Me and my hobbit sized carbon footprint probably plant more trees than most of these global warming nut jobs with their sasquatch sized carbon footprints…..go figure.

  5. cassandra m says:

    You should stick to hoarding your incandescent bulbs, I’m thinking.

  6. puck says:

    Meanwhile it is 120 degrees in Australia, where 2013 shattered all records for heat.
    s

  7. fightingbluehen says:

    The point is that most of these snarky elites who travel around the country and the globe smugly patting themselves on the back for their perceived contributions to the cause, generally have the biggest carbon footprints of anybody.

    Here’s a little piece from The Nature Conservancy to give some perspective.

    http://www.conservationgateway.org/News/…/case-against-flying-so-mu.aspx‎

  8. fightingbluehen says:

    It appears to be a bad link. The title of the article is “The Case Against Flying So Much” – Conservation Gateway

  9. puck says:

    Your point is worth a chuckle but is not a serious argument.

  10. cassandra_m says:

    It’s not even worth a chuckle. People whose work means that they need to fly to places shouldn’t have to give up said work in order to prove to a incandescent light bulb hoarder that they are serious about reducing a carbon footprint. There are plenty of ways to reduce your net carbon footprint without living your constrained life.

  11. fightingbluehen says:

    “There are plenty of ways to reduce your net carbon footprint without living your constrained life.”

    That’s the whole point of the article, cassandra_m.

    All of your “plenty of ways to reduce your carbon footprint” add up to nothing if you fly around in jets.

    I’m not knocking it. I’m just pointing out fact. It’s all about measured tonnage of carbon output.

    Just because some people fly on jets as part of their way of monetarily enriching themselves doesn’t negate the fact that they are adding to the size of their own carbon footprints, and no amount of planting trees or buying phoney-baloney carbon credits can change this.

    To use an analogy I once heard….You can’t lose weight by paying someone else to lose it for you.

  12. cassandra_m says:

    All of your “plenty of ways to reduce your carbon footprint” add up to nothing if you fly around in jets.

    This is QUITE wrong, which you should be used to by now. Sheesh — time to get out of Sussex Co a little and see how the world works.

  13. puck says:

    FBH – your point is similar to the facile argument that if you think taxes should be raised, you can always voluntarily pay more taxes. Taxes and fixing global warming are team sports, not individual accomplishments.

Switch to our mobile site