It's not David Suzuki's choice to have the ad on a lit billboard, dummy!
Why don't you keep your great ideas to yourself?
The ads are great and so is his show "the Nature of Things". I'm glad its back on Sunday nights.
What a crock Mr Suzuki
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Suzuki didn't give his permission for his face to go up on a billboard? Or he doesn't know that billboards are lit up in such an energy-consuming manner?
Good ad or not, the message kind of gets lost when it is presented in such a hypocritical fashion.
Good ad or not, the message kind of gets lost when it is presented in such a hypocritical fashion.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Where do you live ??? I can't remember ever seeing a -
Golden Flyer
- Rank 7
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:46 pm
I can't believe this is a thread! The shit you guys post. I believe you have to start somewhere and gain attention to a cause. Widow, you're intelligent. You don't need to post such b.s.
If you're fighting against global warming, and one of your focus is jet emissions, does that mean you don't fly? Well, the fact is you need to fly to get where you want to go. That is all we have at the moment, but bringing light to the situation will hopefully force change. That means, grabbing the governments attention so they'll implement new plans and create an alternative source of energy. You know that Widow!
If you're fighting against global warming, and one of your focus is jet emissions, does that mean you don't fly? Well, the fact is you need to fly to get where you want to go. That is all we have at the moment, but bringing light to the situation will hopefully force change. That means, grabbing the governments attention so they'll implement new plans and create an alternative source of energy. You know that Widow!
"Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible"
Edward Vernon Rickenbacker
All Pilots & Prospective Pilots Should Have Read:
http://walter.freefuelforever.com
Walter Gilles
Emirates: B-777
Edward Vernon Rickenbacker
All Pilots & Prospective Pilots Should Have Read:
http://walter.freefuelforever.com
Walter Gilles
Emirates: B-777
-
monkeyspankmasterflex
- Rank 7
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:12 pm
If the ad wasn't for energy-efficient light bulbs, I wouldn't necessarily think it hypocritical. There are lots of ways to advertise that don't use valuable resources - or honking great lightbulbs.
While I doubt that Suzuki was directly involved with the billboard decision, one of his "people" was, and they should have been more careful in how they decided to advertise. In my mind, the decision could be equated with a "tree-hugger" using glossy paper pamphlets to publicize the cause. Or me, flying through galeforce winds in an overweight and undermaintained aircraft with no flight follower in order to take my "cause" to Ottawa!
Thank you, yes, I do agree that I am intelligent. But I also try to be consistent.
While I doubt that Suzuki was directly involved with the billboard decision, one of his "people" was, and they should have been more careful in how they decided to advertise. In my mind, the decision could be equated with a "tree-hugger" using glossy paper pamphlets to publicize the cause. Or me, flying through galeforce winds in an overweight and undermaintained aircraft with no flight follower in order to take my "cause" to Ottawa!
Thank you, yes, I do agree that I am intelligent. But I also try to be consistent.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
No matter what method is used to get the message out, there will be an impact on the environment.
It's wise to use the most effective method that can reach the most people with the money available.
Lighting a sign with the currently available technology is much more effective than some other means and it certainly is acceptable. The original post suggests that the power used could light a small town. Sounds like extreme exageration and alarmism from someone who is opposed to David Suzuki's message.
There is far too much of this hysteria driven by inaccurate statements and hypernbole on this forum.
It would be interesting to find out what the FACTUAL power consumption of the sign lighting is and what sort of exposure the location enjoys. How effective is the use of energy and resources? If it has David Suzuki's name attached to it, I assume it's quite reasonable.
It's wise to use the most effective method that can reach the most people with the money available.
Lighting a sign with the currently available technology is much more effective than some other means and it certainly is acceptable. The original post suggests that the power used could light a small town. Sounds like extreme exageration and alarmism from someone who is opposed to David Suzuki's message.
There is far too much of this hysteria driven by inaccurate statements and hypernbole on this forum.
It would be interesting to find out what the FACTUAL power consumption of the sign lighting is and what sort of exposure the location enjoys. How effective is the use of energy and resources? If it has David Suzuki's name attached to it, I assume it's quite reasonable.
Well CID, your comments led me to do a little investigating!
Now I can't say for sure, but maybe clunckdriver didn't see the power source running those lights ...
When one thinks about what communities are doing for the environment these days, chances are that many billboards already do use a type of LED light. I still think the image clunckdriver described would also have seemed incongruous in my mind. And still seems similar to the image of a "tree-hugger" handing out glossy paper pamphlets.
Concepts of advertising.
Now I can't say for sure, but maybe clunckdriver didn't see the power source running those lights ...
When one thinks about what communities are doing for the environment these days, chances are that many billboards already do use a type of LED light. I still think the image clunckdriver described would also have seemed incongruous in my mind. And still seems similar to the image of a "tree-hugger" handing out glossy paper pamphlets.
Concepts of advertising.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
-
Golden Flyer
- Rank 7
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:46 pm
No, I was just focusing on the comments that Widow made. My post was not meant to be offensive. I like the lady. Nothing but respect for her.. I just expected her to understand the cause. Though her opinions are her opinions, and she is entitled to just that...Meecka wrote:Golden Flyer... why the focus on Widow? They did not start the thread. Up to now this was fairly benign.
"Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible"
Edward Vernon Rickenbacker
All Pilots & Prospective Pilots Should Have Read:
http://walter.freefuelforever.com
Walter Gilles
Emirates: B-777
Edward Vernon Rickenbacker
All Pilots & Prospective Pilots Should Have Read:
http://walter.freefuelforever.com
Walter Gilles
Emirates: B-777
widow,
LEDs are wonderful things. For the purposes of indication they certainly can reduce power consumption. The many LED christmas lights that are available reduce power consumption a great deal. They are also great for signal lights and vehicle brake and signal lights.
However, for general illumination, very few very recently developed expensive LEDs can provide the power required for outdoor illumination using less power than other forms of light. Ever wonder why we haven't seen LED headlights flood the market yet?
There are a few issues here. First, LED light is very directional. It concentrates its light over a narrow beam. For general illumination you either need several LEDs pointing in different directions or advanced optics. Using several LEDs poses yet another problems since each little light source creates it's own shadow of objects in front of it. Imagine having 20 rings around each shadow cast in a room.
LED light is also very narrow spectrum. Pure LEDs emit light in a single frequency (colour). White LEDs are actually just blue LEDs with a yellow phosphorus filter. It attempts to approximate white light but it's still a very blueish light that doesn't work very well for general illumination where several colours are used like in a billboard. So red might not show up as red with a white LED pointed at it.
MOST LED sources for general illumination consume at least the same amount of power as fluorescent lights. The industrial versions of florescent lights last a long time so generally speaking it will take a long time before LEDs replace flourescents in those applications.
An incandescent light uses glass, tungsten, and a couple of common metals.
White LEDs for general illuminatuon use much more exotic materials and electronic parts. High power LEDs require a heat sink and a constant current source as well so think about the resources required to build them. More energy and resources are used to produce them. Luckily, they last much longer than an incandescent light so there are pros along with the cons. It's like the old argument about cloth versus paper diapers. Cloth diapers don't fill the landfills but they use a tremendous amount of water, soap and bleach (which ends up in the sewer system).
http://members.misty.com/don/lede.html
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/ms/article ... efficiency
LEDs are wonderful things. For the purposes of indication they certainly can reduce power consumption. The many LED christmas lights that are available reduce power consumption a great deal. They are also great for signal lights and vehicle brake and signal lights.
However, for general illumination, very few very recently developed expensive LEDs can provide the power required for outdoor illumination using less power than other forms of light. Ever wonder why we haven't seen LED headlights flood the market yet?
There are a few issues here. First, LED light is very directional. It concentrates its light over a narrow beam. For general illumination you either need several LEDs pointing in different directions or advanced optics. Using several LEDs poses yet another problems since each little light source creates it's own shadow of objects in front of it. Imagine having 20 rings around each shadow cast in a room.
LED light is also very narrow spectrum. Pure LEDs emit light in a single frequency (colour). White LEDs are actually just blue LEDs with a yellow phosphorus filter. It attempts to approximate white light but it's still a very blueish light that doesn't work very well for general illumination where several colours are used like in a billboard. So red might not show up as red with a white LED pointed at it.
MOST LED sources for general illumination consume at least the same amount of power as fluorescent lights. The industrial versions of florescent lights last a long time so generally speaking it will take a long time before LEDs replace flourescents in those applications.
An incandescent light uses glass, tungsten, and a couple of common metals.
White LEDs for general illuminatuon use much more exotic materials and electronic parts. High power LEDs require a heat sink and a constant current source as well so think about the resources required to build them. More energy and resources are used to produce them. Luckily, they last much longer than an incandescent light so there are pros along with the cons. It's like the old argument about cloth versus paper diapers. Cloth diapers don't fill the landfills but they use a tremendous amount of water, soap and bleach (which ends up in the sewer system).
Doing a "little investigating" sometimes leads you down the wrong path. It's not a good replacement for in-depth knowledge.I still think the image clunckdriver described would also have seemed incongruous in my mind. And still seems similar to the image of a "tree-hugger" handing out glossy paper pamphlets.
http://members.misty.com/don/lede.html
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/ms/article ... efficiency
It was a joke CID. Although I did come accross a number of companies that make low consumption LEDs for spotlight and billboard purposes. LEDs are also not the only form of low-energy lighting.
But thanks for the lesson anyway.
Oh, and just because I see the image portrayed by cluckdriver as incongruous, does not mean I do not support the green movement. I do, and I try to do my small part.
But thanks for the lesson anyway.
Oh, and just because I see the image portrayed by cluckdriver as incongruous, does not mean I do not support the green movement. I do, and I try to do my small part.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
-
ScudRunner
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
I was watching one of Suzuki's ads on TV the other day, where he tries to convince a guy to replace his old, inefficient beer fridge, which costs "$150/year" to operate.
The ad demonstrates the idiotic logic that the green camp tries to use in this campaign. My immediate thoughts were:
- How much does it cost to power a brand-new fridge? $80/year? $90/year?
So I'm saving $70 per year. Great. That way it'll only take 10-12 years for my new $800-$1000 fridge to pay for itself. And in the meantime I've generated extra demand for that new fridge, which needs to be manufactured and shipped, all of which incur emissions.
Maybe I should replace all my old appliances. That way I'll only spend thousands of dollars in order to save a couple hundred, and I'll generate huge offsetting manufacturing emissions in the meantime. Great idea, Dave!
The ad demonstrates the idiotic logic that the green camp tries to use in this campaign. My immediate thoughts were:
- How much does it cost to power a brand-new fridge? $80/year? $90/year?
So I'm saving $70 per year. Great. That way it'll only take 10-12 years for my new $800-$1000 fridge to pay for itself. And in the meantime I've generated extra demand for that new fridge, which needs to be manufactured and shipped, all of which incur emissions.
Maybe I should replace all my old appliances. That way I'll only spend thousands of dollars in order to save a couple hundred, and I'll generate huge offsetting manufacturing emissions in the meantime. Great idea, Dave!
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
ROFL.. That's like the VP of PETA who is against animal testing but is diabetic and her insulin was tested on animals...Golden Flyer wrote: If you're fighting against global warming, and one of your focus is jet emissions, does that mean you don't fly? Well, the fact is you need to fly to get where you want to go. That is all we have at the moment, but bringing light to the situation will hopefully force change. That means, grabbing the governments attention so they'll implement new plans and create an alternative source of energy. You know that Widow!
Sorry, With that logic we should shoot everyone with guns, to promote that "guns are bad and should be banned and registered"
Yes, but I didn't necessarily mean it as a critique of your comments. I saw the incongruity of the ad in your mind, and my remark was more one of reflection. clunckdrivers billboard, marketing product "A" as "saving $'s" and "saving the environment" while the advertising format harms (or at least appears to harm) the environment. Your commercial, advertising product "C" as "saving $'s" and "saving the environment" while the production of the product "C" harms the environment.the_professor wrote:Was that in reference to my post? Because as far as I can tell, you'll neither save money nor help the environment by inflating the demand for new appliances.Widow wrote:It's not really about how much money you save, but the long term environmental effects.
As CID noted in relation to clunck's billboard, it would be interesting to find out the factual difference in environmental impact between using old appliances until "end of life" and making and distributing the new appliances now.
As I said (and so did you in different words) it's not about the money.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
The key isn't "use" it's "abuse". There's nothing wrong with using electricity to advertise an environmentalist message.
If the method uses a great deal of energy, that also can be offset by the number of people the message reaches. It does little good to make a billboard advertisement if nobody can see it.
If the method uses a great deal of energy, that also can be offset by the number of people the message reaches. It does little good to make a billboard advertisement if nobody can see it.
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
I've often wondered about using energy hogging appliances and cars until there dead and then replacing them with new energy saving appliances.
I read that manufacturing a new car uses the equivalent of 840 gallons of oil.
If I replace my beater that gets 29 mpg with a hybrid that gets 55mpg I will need to drive about 23000 miles just to make up for the manufacturing. Thats probably about 18months of driving for most people.
It's a tough call. I just replaced my old but functioning washing machine with an energy efficient one and the hydro company gave me $100 thankyou.
I also got $25 to replace lightbulbs with flourescent ones, the problem is I'm replacing functioning lightbulbs. Is it really environmentally friendly?
I read that manufacturing a new car uses the equivalent of 840 gallons of oil.
If I replace my beater that gets 29 mpg with a hybrid that gets 55mpg I will need to drive about 23000 miles just to make up for the manufacturing. Thats probably about 18months of driving for most people.
It's a tough call. I just replaced my old but functioning washing machine with an energy efficient one and the hydro company gave me $100 thankyou.
I also got $25 to replace lightbulbs with flourescent ones, the problem is I'm replacing functioning lightbulbs. Is it really environmentally friendly?
