Jump to content
Not sure you get offsets. They invest in sequestration (ie. planting trees) that removes an equal amount of carbon from the air. Emissions don't stay in the air forever, that is ridiculous. Green house gasses flow to and from the earth in a cycle (ie. co2 used to be coal that used to be dinosaurs that used to be plants that used to be greenhouse gasses). The idea is to emit less than is being sequestered.
The roads are already there and not paved for the sole purpose of transporting beer their portion of those emissions is small.
Panels and turbines will eventually produce enough energy to offset their manufacture.
They "invest" in projects to help restore damaged watersheds and help keep rivers clean for all to enjoy. Accomplished mainly through manpower. But you knew that because you read the article.. or did you just show up to argue how hippies are destroying the world.
Packaging is certainly the largest portion of their emissions. It does take energy to recycle but much less than manufacturing from virgin materials so worth the emissions spent which they try to offset as well.
They try to use sustainable materials for building like bamboo and paulonia that are faster growing and much less energy intensive to process.
I'm not saying their business is 100% sustainable but they are more sustainable than the rest. I want to support that. I don't think my beer choice will save the world but if all businesses tried as hard it would make a difference and our planet would be a better place for it.
I drink New Belgium because they are trying to do beer in a responsible way. Their Ft. Collins plant is 100% renewable powered by panels on the roofs and an on site wind turbine. That is what the future of renewable looks like and it is beautiful. They buy offsets for transportation, are employee owned and treat their people right. They invest in clean water and community health. They have since day one focused on sustainability over profit. The result... they are now one of the most profitable micro-breweries in the world. Business 101: social responsibility is good for business. Intangibles often times are the key to success. We should be focusing on sequestering carbon not digging more of it up. If done right renewables don't have to scar the landscape and can create way more jobs than the fossil fuel extraction industry. Capitalism 24902! The B team!
You can deny all you want but the truth of the matter is that the future is uncertain for this generation. The current consumerist lifestyle of most Americans is unsustainable even short term. The Earth has finite resources and our consumption without regard will deplete many of them in our lifetimes.(http://www.sciencearchive.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm?q=nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm) There are also many earth system thresholds aside from emissions/climate change that we have already crossed or are nearing. Human caused species/genetic diversity loss, biochemical flows, ocean acidification, and land system change all threaten to tip us out of the holocene era. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.full) Attitudes and resulting behaviors about sustainability are formed early in life and teaching children to be more conscious in their consumer choices is exigent in sustaining our current standard of living. Awareness that little things can and do add up in the big picture helps reduce feelings of guilt for not acting uber-sustainable all the time,one of the main psychological blocks to sustainable behavior. (http://www.aashe.org/resources/student-research/where-meaning-lies-student-attitudes-and-behaviors-related-sustainability) Ya'll are free to abstain from this event, but please try not to actively dissuade our youth from trying to achieve a more vibrant future for themselves.
If your not sure where you stand on the issue, follow the money.
Right to know, yes on 105 is an all volunteer grassroots organization of over 800 health professionals, educators, parents, sustainability advocates, farmers, concerned citizens, and conscious consumers. Who have raised nearly a million dollars in private donations.
No on 105, is a corporate funded lobby. The largest supporters include Monsanto(GMO seed), DuPont (chemicals), PepsiCo(high fructose corn syrup), BASF(chemicals), Bayer(chemicals like bee killing neonicitanoids), Dow(chemicals), Syngenta(GMO seed), Coca-Cola(high fructose corn syrup), Nestle(one of the world's worst polluters), and ConAgra Foods(C.A.F.O.s). They have dumped over 12.5 million into defeating 105. The folks you see on those commercials are admittedly paid industry lobbyists.
Who do you think has your best interest at heart?
Mark, that is exactly my point. GMO's are still experimental. 105 does not ban GMOs just labels them so people can choose whether they want to be a part of the experimented on or not.
Harvey, for someone who has stated here: "Governemnt(sic) can not be trusted!", you sure put a lot of trust in big gov bureaucracy to make your food decisions for you. The FDA has repeatedly approved foods and drugs that cause severe health problems only to recall them and then face suits that cost tax payers millions. Time and time again they put corporate profit over people. In this case it's profits in the oil based synthetic chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, and the designer seeds that the current system is reliant on. All GMO safety studies evaluated by the FDA have thus far been conducted by the companies seeking approval. To me that seems like a conflict of interest. There are no medical practitioners coming out against labeling while many are saying that labeling will give them more information to track where today's excessive health problems like the rise in food allergies, gi tract disorders, ALS, autism, childhood obesity and diabetes amongst others are starting. You know, treat the disease not the symptoms. There is a better way and we can be a part of the solution by making informed and conscious food choices and 105 will help us do that. Cheers.
Jerry, just so you know Prop 105 was proposed by a group of concerned citizens including, among others, conservatives concerned about consumer rights, sustainability, and Monsanto's negative effects on rural communities. This is not a partisan issue, although bio-tech funded propaganda is attempting to polarize it. Don't let them take away your right to know what is in your food.
Recent nationwide polls show wide support of labeling across party lines. 90% of GOPs, 93% DEMs, 91% INDs, on the high side and 70/81/75 on the low side. Enforcement will be handled within current regulatory framework and appropriations will come from the general fund. No new taxes, no new bureaucracy, just enhanced consumer rights, and corporate transparency.
I voted yes on 105!
Don't you think that we have a right to know what's in our food? GMO's have not been proven safe for long term human consumption. Here are a couple of facts to help clear up some misconceptions:
Colorado has what is called a single subject initiative law. That means only one statute can be amended or added per initiative. Because meat, dairy, alcohol, gum, pharmaceuticals and restaurant food are governed by different state statutes by law they had to be exempted from this initiative but are not exempted from future regulation. This initiative applies to packaged foods and produce which is 70% of what is in the grocery store.
No plant varieties have been engineered to be drought resistant. GMO's use the same amount of water as conventional varieties. Roundup Ready gmos are designed to withstand higher doses of herbicides and higher residual levels of glyphosate make their way into the food stream, ground water, and waterways. Long term glyphosate exposure has been proven to be harmful to health.
There is no national labeling system pertaining to gmos. Organic certification is voluntary and the GMO Free label is completely independent from any governing body. Because the USDA and FDA are populated by former big ag and biotech executives it is unlikely that that there ever will be. It is up to concerned citizens to make it happen on the state level.
Food exported from the state will not be required to be labeled unless it's destination has labeling requirements.
Farmer's are not required to do anything differently except inform their buyers of the type of seeds they use. If they choose to go GMO free then the expense of the change should be covered by the higher price that non gmo crops command.
Changing labels costs producers next to nothing. They change labels regularly. Food cost have not risen in the 64 other countries that require labeling.
The cost to taxpayers is estimated to be two cents per Coloradan per year.
All other ingredients that are man made, that is they do not occur naturally, are required to be labeled as such (artificial or synthetic). GMOs should be considered artificial because they were created in a laboratory and could never occur naturally. Some GMOs are even designed to produce toxic insecticide in every cell of the plant. While the creators of these plants claim there is no health risk, again there are no studies to show long term consumption is safe.
Please don't let the biotech industry's misinformation campaign convince you that you don't have the right to know what your eating. Because you do! But only a yes vote on 105 will preserve that right.
What about the diesel, oil based fertilizer, and pesticides that are used to grow the food that powers the said shoveler?
Last login: Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.