a classic do as i say, not as i do

i read this earlier this week, and i've been pondering it in my slow inimitable way.

first of all, the whole article from the sanfran comical is here.

the gist of the article is that while our state legislators here in california are hot and heavy on the path towards abating the newest cause d'celeb global warming, they are definitely not putting their money where their mouth is.

a few points:

In the Senate, Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), whose district has some of the worst air quality in the country, drives a GMC Yukon Denali, which gets 12 mpg in the city and 16 mpg on the highway. Florez, who has authored several measures aimed at reducing pollution in the Central Valley, also voted for the global warming bill.

and

One of the worst offenders among state legislators who voted "yes" on this year's global warming bill is Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, who said she commuted from her Oakland home to the state's capital four days a week during the legislative session.

The Democrat drives a 2004 Lincoln Aviator that gets 13 mpg in the city and 18 mpg on the highway.

"I would admit that I should get a better mileage car," Chan said. "But I mainly looked at the crash-test factors. I drive every day from Oakland to Sacramento, and I see these horrific accidents on I-80

so it's ok for her to drive an SUV because she is an important figure in the running of our state, but it's not ok for you to own and drive an SUV to protect your family because it is environmentally unsound? really, WTF?


see, we've been exposed to this mindset of do as i say, not as i do for more years than i've been alive. it has long been accepted that the majority of americans pushing for some morality or belief don't usually practice their beliefs. we're humans, and as humans, we have our own agendas. fine. but don't push your agenda on me if you don't actually practice what you preach.

and regarding the legislation passed in california to make us the "most progressive and aggressive fighter against global warming", a few ideas:

anyone that has been around this blog long enough knows that i am personally in favor of stopping all research work at all the nations federally funded labs and redirecting their efforts into finding an alternative to fossil fuels.

and i'm not a big fan of using biofuels.

in an article on the BBC on Tuesday, someone in the press is finally reporting on what i've been saying is the negative on biofuels. i can't imagine anyone with a shred of intelligence would take arable land that can be used for food production, and plant for use in biofuel production. it just doesn't make sense. and what about pinning your entire economy and ability to USE energy on growing cycles and the weather. the article on the BBC is Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?.

there has to be a better way. we just need to make it the top issue in our scientific community. that way, we can let those fookin' weasels in the middle east and venezuela piss off.

alternatives? can you say NUCLEAR?


and if you are up to it, i seriously recommend a trip over to The U.S. Senate and read one hell of an intelligently formulated speech about global warming. I wish i lived in this guy's state so i could vote for him