5 ms·

"one person could have flown coach from New York to Japan (and back) 3,408 TIMES with the amount of fuel the Governator used to commute within California." Who

"one person could have flown coach from New York to Japan (and back) 3,408 TIMES with the amount of fuel the Governator used to commute within California." Who does he think he is lecturing poor people like me about what I ought to be eating for dinner?! http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/214841-how-much-jet-fuel-did-arnold-schwarzenegger-waste http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/214841-how-m...

Turbots 10y ago
Even though, indeed, he used up a lot of fuel (and therefore emitted lots of carbon) to perform his duties as governor (which is measurable as proven by your link), I still think he had a positive net effect on the climate by the actions he took as governor (which is much harder to measure ofcourse)
Infinitesimus 10y ago
I think most of us here agree that ditching the Gulfstream will do wonders for the environment; but this isn't a pitch for "Arnold is living the best life for the environment." He is a man who is becoming more conscious of his meat intake and taking steps to reduce that and his footprint. Can he do better? Of course! Does that negate the validity of the argument that reduction of meat intake is a good idea for the environment? Nope. The overall point is that we can all take little steps to reduce our footprint and meat is just one of them. That said, it is quite amazing just how much fuel has he used.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  > Does that negate the validity of the argument Does that matter? Most people will just say "What a hypocrite" and ignore the message. People don't respond well to logic, they respond to emotion. A valid argument that doesn't convince anyone is worthless.
- IIJamesII 10y ago
  I'm saying it's a glaringly bad strategy. Buy hey, continue trotting out complete and utter hypocrites to lecture us on what ought to feed our families for dinner.

Turbots 10y ago

Even though, indeed, he used up a lot of fuel (and therefore emitted lots of carbon) to perform his duties as governor (which is measurable as proven by your link), I still think he had a positive net effect on the climate by the actions he took as governor (which is much harder to measure ofcourse)

Infinitesimus 10y ago

I think most of us here agree that ditching the Gulfstream will do wonders for the environment; but this isn't a pitch for "Arnold is living the best life for the environment." He is a man who is becoming more conscious of his meat intake and taking steps to reduce that and his footprint. Can he do better? Of course! Does that negate the validity of the argument that reduction of meat intake is a good idea for the environment? Nope. The overall point is that we can all take little steps to reduce our footprint and meat is just one of them. That said, it is quite amazing just how much fuel has he used.

khedoros1 10y ago
> Does that negate the validity of the argument Does that matter? Most people will just say "What a hypocrite" and ignore the message. People don't respond well to logic, they respond to emotion. A valid argument that doesn't convince anyone is worthless.
IIJamesII 10y ago
I'm saying it's a glaringly bad strategy. Buy hey, continue trotting out complete and utter hypocrites to lecture us on what ought to feed our families for dinner.