BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: UB Ed
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 02:36 PM

Off to Part Two!

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Skeptic
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 01:33 PM

Continued

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 11 Apr 01 - 08:58 AM

Troll, sage words of advice and an interesting question...thanks for muddling through all the hot air to contribute constructively.

Peg, you went to the trouble to post, I wish, if nothing else you, would have told me if consumption or pollution is the greatest concern, its a point which intrigues me. But I also realize that my penchant for cutting and pasting has caused a quick growth in this thread. Perhaps we can share our views at some other time when you are not quite so upset with me, the size of the thread, and hot air in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Troll
Date: 10 Apr 01 - 11:09 PM

Can someone tell me why Clinton did not sent the Kyoto agreement to Congress for ratification? It was completed during his term and he had three months to deal with it.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Peg
Date: 10 Apr 01 - 09:42 PM

this thread has gotten way too big. All that hot air, I shouldn't wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 10 Apr 01 - 11:42 AM

"the great anonymous one wrote: "

**actually, UB Dan wrote it...thanks for the 'great' however. You should notice that in the very next post I apologized for forgetting to put in my name.

"Oh....I get it, I disagreed with you because you are a woman? Being offended is a convienient short cut to thinking... --I do not think of being offended as a short-cut to thinking. You yourself seem to think you were inviting me to "put you in your place" and clearly you were trying to provoke me. I am offended because you seemed to be saying that I obviously didn't know the "truth" abou tthe difference between "emmisions" of old vehicles versus new SUVs...and I don't think you are in a position to say that.

**I (UB Dan) was not trying to provoke you individually, I was trying to provoke discussion and reason. I may not have been in a position, in the past, to say you did not know emmission from vehicles from 1976 and newer, but I'm willing to place a good bet. BUT, you assume that this is a misogynistic opinion. SHAME ON YOU!! Get down off your cross, we need the sticks. I am willing to bet that 9 out of 10 people do not know the emmission ...myself included. Perhaps I was trying to provoke you into looking up the actual data, because I was too lazy, and I did leave myself an 'out' in case I was wrong (i.e. I never claimed that YOU would be suprised, I said ONE OF US would be surprised).

(In addition, The US has some of the strictist emmisions standards...catalytic converters are not required overseas. --and this would indeed be a bigger problem if those countries consumed as much petroleum as we did; they don't. Our strict "emmisions" standards don't mean shit if people are going to continue consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels to serve their own vanity or convenience...) "Is the problem the depletion of fossil fuels or the byproduct of using them? If its the by products than yes, emmision standards do mean something. I think you may underestimate the population of the world outside of the US and the number of vehicles that exist outside of the US."

--I am well aware of the population outside the US and how many of those people used cars compared to the US; if you read my earlier posts you'd see I comment on the fact that we as a nation consume far more resources per capita than anywhere else in the world; that's the point of this discussion...the US, as the biggest consumers of fossil fuels, should be the most willing to deal with the damage they have caused by this consumption.

**I was genuinely asking, is it the consumption alone or the pollution alone that causes the greatest concern? In other words would you prefer that we use more with less overall pollution or use less with more overall pollution. (ps still UB Dan).

(There are real problems that need to be solved, but a majority of the people on this thread are unwilling to recognize the bulk of history that existed prior to this year and have now concluded that all pollution is due to George W. Bush driving an SUV. --if you are really this simple-minded, blind and bull-headed it is not really worth debating with you...) "Do you mean it is because George W Bush drives an SUV or do you mean that global warming is not George Bush's fault."

--I meant, your reducing this to a ridiculous statement like the one above, and ascribing it to "most of the people" on this thread, is an example of your simple-mindedness and bull-headedness; which part of that do you not understand? Shall I type more slowly?

**Yes, it is a ridiculous statement...and it is hyperbole...but tell me that you, personally, blame neither George W. Bush nor SUV's for environmental problems.

--I personally believe calling someone "passive-aggressive" is itself VERY passive-aggressive.

**Then you are wrong. Calling someone passive aggressive is, if anything, aggressive. If I tried to pretend that I was a victim and that any disagreement with me was an attack on all women, volvo owners and left handed people....that would be passive aggressive.

There is nothing passive about me, jerk.

**Okeydokey...but you know there is some room in between passive-aggressive and hostile-and-insulting.

UB Dan

another from Carl Sagan: Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will. "

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Peg
Date: 10 Apr 01 - 10:48 AM

the great anonymous one wrote:

(Peg says "I used to own a 76 Volvo; even the oldsters are better on mileage than the new SUV monstrosities so many people are driving..." - I'd like to see the real figures on this...I think one of us would be real suprised. --what are "real figures?" Do you assume because I am a woman (or a liberal, or a former Volvo owner) that I cannot deduce such things for myself from astute observation?)

"Oh....I get it, I disagreed with you because you are a woman? Being offended is a convienient short cut to thinking. I didn't say I knew exactly which way the figures would head, but I think I can safely assume that neither of us KNOWS the emmission figures from either vehicle. And no, I don't think they can be deduced...actually finding the statistics could have potentially put me in my place, but being offended is so much easier."

--I do not think of being offended as a short-cut to thinking. You yourself seem to think you were inviting me to "put you in your place" and clearly you were trying to provoke me. I am offended because you seemed to be saying that I obviously didn't know the "truth" abou tthe difference between "emmisions" of old vehicles versus new SUVs...and I don't think you are in a position to say that.

(In addition, The US has some of the strictist emmisions standards...catalytic converters are not required overseas. --and this would indeed be a bigger problem if those countries consumed as much petroleum as we did; they don't. Our strict "emmisions" standards don't mean shit if people are going to continue consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels to serve their own vanity or convenience...) "Is the problem the depletion of fossil fuels or the byproduct of using them? If its the by products than yes, emmision standards do mean something. I think you may underestimate the population of the world outside of the US and the number of vehicles that exist outside of the US."

--I am well aware of the population outside the US and how many of those people used cars compared to the US; if you read my earlier posts you'd see I comment on the fact that we as a nation consume far more resources per capita than anywhere else in the world; that's the point of this discussion...the US, as the biggest consumers of fossil fuels, should be the most willing to deal with the damage they have caused by this consumption.

(There are real problems that need to be solved, but a majority of the people on this thread are unwilling to recognize the bulk of history that existed prior to this year and have now concluded that all pollution is due to George W. Bush driving an SUV. --if you are really this simple-minded, blind and bull-headed it is not really worth debating with you...) "Do you mean it is because George W Bush drives an SUV or do you mean that global warming is not George Bush's fault."

--I meant, your reducing this to a ridiculous statement like the one above, and ascribing it to "most of the people" on this thread, is an example of your simple-mindedness and bull-headedness; which part of that do you not understand? Shall I type more slowly?

"p.s. great tag line...being offended and refusing to discuss anything any further...wow, great passive-aggressiveness"

--I personally believe calling someone "passive-aggressive" is itself VERY passive-aggressive.

There is nothing passive about me, jerk.

And feel free to use a name next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 10 Apr 01 - 09:00 AM

McGrath, I can't speak for all people who voted for Bush, but I did not follow this issue that closely. If his promise was to do something constructive to lower air pollutants, than rejecting the Kyoto deal is not antithetical, it is not a good deal and it will not be constructive, outside of being a costly gesture. It would be more effective to develop a U.S. law than to sign an unenforcable international agreement. If his promise was to sign the Kyoto deal, then I'm glad his position changed

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." --Carl Sagan

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Apr 01 - 04:04 AM

No, because they wish he hadn't made the pledge. And Bush lying is okay because Clinton lied more.

At least this is what I glean from MAV's posts.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 01 - 06:37 PM

No takers on my query up there? So I pose it again:

I was reading that what Bush has just done goes directly against a pledge he made during the election. Is that true? If so, does it matter to the people who voted for him?

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 09 Apr 01 - 10:04 AM

Sorry the above submission was from me...I forgot to put my name in

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 01 - 10:03 AM

Wow....Hi

Bush won the election...--well, DUH. Doesn't make him legitimate or worthy, though.
- Yes...yes it does make him the legitimate winner. The legal winner. The actual winner. It sure as heck doesn't make anybody else the legitimate winner.

George Bush was able to become president and you were not able to become president...therefore in some ways he is more capable, saavy, cunning, or intelligent than you. --or was perhaps born with a silver spoon up his nose? I mean, what planet do you live on that you don't realize that this man saw the presidency as his BIRTHRIGHT! He just declared press conferences off limits because he is TOO STUPID to answer questions from journalists.
Lots of people think the presidency is their birthright...not all of them are president...lots of people think they deserve to be president...still doesn't make it so...Its ridiculous to say he became president merely because he thought he should. I live on earth...in the U.S.A. where people vote for an electorate to select a president. Like it or not Peg, at some point you are going to have to realize that some people did vote for George W. Bush and he is the lawfully elected President of the United States of America. "TOO STUPID to answer questions from journalists?" ...looks like it was a pretty smart move in retrospect, eh? I'm not saying he is Einstein...But he's got to have some sort of Machiavellian (sp?) cunning. You don't just get it by demanding it.

Nobody has addressed or even recognized Scotsbard's point that the Kyoto deal was a bad deal that did not solve the problems being addressed. --NOTHING will SOLVE all the problems. But it is crucial to make a beginning...which, thanks to Bush, we will not have done and redressing the environmentakl degradtaion we have wrought will noe bw dealyed even further...
Sometimes a bad deal is a bad deal. Putting a picture up to cover a hole in the wall is only going to delay ffixing the whole a lot longer.

Naemanson says "UB Ed and others have brought up the question of the science behind global warming. The Repulican conservatives harp continually on the disagreement between the scientists about the warming trends." Yes kind of...Actually Ed was bringing up that some science used as support has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Saying subterranean volcanos are the product of freon is like saying carbon dioxide causes foot and mouth disease. --no, not true. Freon has been proven to cause global warming. It was banned for a reason.
Okay...but global warming (raising of surface temperature) does not make underground volcanos hotter. You focused too much on the global warming aspect and did not pay enough attention to the actual comment, facts, science in what I was saying...hmmmm.

Naemanson says "They disagree about the causes but the majority of them agree that humans are part of the problem"... Well I'm not willing to be culled. --more's the pity...humans ARE destroying the planet. Head in the sand attitudes surely aren't helping.
Chicken Little attitudes don't help either.

And I think we do need to have some idea of what the problem is before we implement solutions.. --we KNOW what the freakin' problem is!!! A fraction of the world's population consumes the vast majority of its resources! The world population is growing at rates the planet cannot support. We are destroying the protective ozone layer ands as such are radically and irreparably altering our atmosphere. We are killing the human race and everything that lives on the planet.
Well, then the problem will take care of itself.

.Naemason also said "Sure, Kyoto wasn't enough but it was a start!" All it would do is cost the US more to have all the countries behave the exact same way they are now. --oh dear me, the US might have to spend some MONEY??!!?? Heavens to Betsy!
Yes, and nothing will change except it will cost U.S. and us more...if you feel guilty, mail someone a dollar.

Peg says "I used to own a 76 Volvo; even the oldsters are better on mileage than the new SUV monstrosities so many people are driving..." - I'd like to see the real figures on this...I think one of us would be real suprised. --what are "real figures?" Do you assume because I am a woman (or a liberal, or a former Volvo owner) that I cannot deduce such things for myself from astute observation?
Oh....I get it, I disagreed with you because you are a woman? Being offended is a convienient short cut to thinking. I didn't say I knew exactly which way the figures would head, but I think I can safely assume that neither of us KNOWS the emmission figures from either vehicle. And no, I don't think they can be deduced...actually finding the statistics could have potentially put me in my place, but being offended is so much easier.

In addition, The US has some of the strictist emmisions standards...catalytic converters are not required overseas. --and this would indeed be a bigger problem if those countries consumed as much petroleum as we did; they don't. Our strict "emmisions" standards don't mean shit if people are going to continue consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels to serve their own vanity or convenience...
Is the problem the depletion of fossil fuels or the byproduct of using them? If its the by products than yes, emmision standards do mean something. I think you may underestimate the population of the world outside of the US and the number of vehicles that exist outside of the US.

There are real problems that need to be solved, but a majority of the people on this thread are unwilling to recognize the bulk of history that existed prior to this year and have now concluded that all pollution is due to George W. Bush driving an SUV. --if you are really this simple-minded, blind and bull-headed it is not really worth debating with you...
Do you mean it is because George W Bush drives an SUV or do you mean that global warming is not George Bush's fault.

p.s. great tag line...being offended and refusing to discuss anything any further...wow, great passive-aggressiveness

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: UB Ed
Date: 09 Apr 01 - 10:00 AM

Peg, I was reviewing your response to Dan. You're not really advocating the culling of humans, are you? Or are you just suggesting we cull Dan?

Naemanson, I agree its prudent to do things now. Again, however, I advocate doing things that make sense. Earlier I gave an example of newer technology for conventional fuels. Emissions can be reduced over 90% for the majority of pollutants.

The US non-participation in Kyoto isn't the end of the dance....

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 11:18 PM

I may not have expressed myself clearly. Let me try again.

There is a faction that says the scientists disagree about global warming. They use that to justify the need for more study. They use it to justify waiting until full agreement is achieved.

That faction is focusing on the disagreement without realizing that the disagreement is not about the overall effect, i.e., global warming. Everyone agrees the globe is warming up. The disagreement is about the mechanisms causing global warming. Once again, everyone agrees that humans have a hand in what is happening. They do not agree on how much of an effect humans are having.

That is not enough to base delays on. We need to do something NOW!! Sure, we may be worng and we may not need to do something but wouldn't we be wiser to err on the side of caution? The stakes are too high to allow a drastic error. Yet our Fearless Leader has elected to make sure his buddies in the business community do not suffer needlessly. That short term line of thinking is going to kill us all. At least his buddies will be able to afford expensive caskets.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Peg
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 10:41 PM

UB Dan said:

Bush won the election...you can argue about whether he should have and you can claim that the voting system in retrospect is flawed (even though it has always served us well and was specifically designed to support the power of each state) but you must recognize that he is president, and therefore won the election. --well, DUH. Doesn't make him legitimate or worthy, though.

George Bush was able to become president and you were not able to become president...therefore in some ways he is more capable, saavy, cunning, or intelligent than you. --or was perhaps born with a silver spoon up his nose? I mean, what planet do you live on that you don't realize that this man saw the presidency as his BIRTHRIGHT! He just declared press conferences off limits because he is TOO STUPID to answer questions from journalists.

Nobody has addressed or even recognized Scotsbard's point that the Kyoto deal was a bad deal that did not solve the problems being addressed. --NOTHING will SOLVE all the problems. But it is crucial to make a beginning...which, thanks to Bush, we will not have done and redressing the environmentakl degradtaion we have wrought will noe bw dealyed even further...

Naemanson says "UB Ed and others have brought up the question of the science behind global warming. The Repulican conservatives harp continually on the disagreement between the scientists about the warming trends." Yes kind of...Actually Ed was bringing up that some science used as support has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Saying subterranean volcanos are the product of freon is like saying carbon dioxide causes foot and mouth disease. --no, not true. Freon has been proven to cause global warming. It was banned for a reason.

Naemanson says "They disagree about the causes but the majority of them agree that humans are part of the problem"... Well I'm not willing to be culled. --more's the pity...humans ARE destroying the planet. Head in the sand attitudes surely aren't helping.

And I think we do need to have some idea of what the problem is before we implement solutions.. --we KNOW what the freakin' problem is!!! A fraction of the world's population consumes the vast majority of its resources! The world population is growing at rates the planet cannot support. We are destroying the protective ozone layer ands as such are radically and irreparably altering our atmosphere. We are killing the human race and everything that lives on the planet.

.Naemason also said "Sure, Kyoto wasn't enough but it was a start!" All it would do is cost the US more to have all the countries behave the exact same way they are now. --oh dear me, the US might have to spend some MONEY??!!?? Heavens to Betsy!

Peg says "I used to own a 76 Volvo; even the oldsters are better on mileage than the new SUV monstrosities so many people are driving..." - I'd like to see the real figures on this...I think one of us would be real suprised. --what are "real figures?" Do you assume because I am a woman (or a liberal, or a former Volvo owner) that I cannot deduce such things for myself from astute observation?

In addition, The US has some of the strictist emmisions standards...catalytic converters are not required overseas. --and this would indeed be a bigger problem if those countries consumed as much petroleum as we did; they don't. Our strict "emmisions" standards don't mean shit if people are going to continue consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels to serve their own vanity or convenience...

There are real problems that need to be solved, but a majority of the people on this thread are unwilling to recognize the bulk of history that existed prior to this year and have now concluded that all pollution is due to George W. Bush driving an SUV. --if you are really this simple-minded, blind and bull-headed it is not really worth debating with you...

Peg

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 08:11 PM

?

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 03:05 PM

someone mentioned above that to supply all the worlds energy needs we would need to cover the entire planet with solar panels. I would like to know where this idea comes from in the first place. I remember from first year univ. geography when we covered the amount of energy from the sun that strikes the earth, something like 10-20% is reflected a certain percentage goes to heat the earth and oceans and certain amount to evaporation etc. I asked the professor on how much of the suns total energy goes to sustain all life on earth. The answer was that it is negligible, less than 1%. Which really makes you think. As far as global warming is concerned the one unknown is the oceans ability to absorb co2 but in general global warming is accepted in the scientific community. Since we are essentially conducting an experiment with our planet that may severely affect future generations isnt it better to err on the side of caution rather than dispute the science. It isnt about money either, how much money is Bush planning to spend on the new star wars (which in a recent Science Journal) article was shown to be unrealistic and flawed (ie all it takes is one terrorist with a bomb in a suitcase). I think that encouraging r&d in solar and other alternatives (eg hybrid cars (electric/gas) which is going to be the next step in the auto industry, especially if the price of gas stays up.) I havent heard anything about fuel cells either but Im sure that will be another major industry although the hydrogen now comes from natural gas (and adds to global warming). The point is the short sighted approach to pulling out of Kyoto accord means that we will pay for it in the long run as pollution is a third party cost that someone has to bear. Alternatively moving towards alternative energy resources may be a high growth area in the economy. And to the guy above who said this is all just mutual masturbation, what are you doing here?

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 09:45 AM

I was reading that what Bush has just done goes directly against a pledge he made during the election. Is that true? If so, does it matter to the people who voted for him?

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: UB Ed
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 09:45 AM

Naemanson-

No news flash. Scientists (and many others) disagree all the time. True they're looking at the same data, where they are differing is on (1) the interpretation and (2) recommended actions. All I'm saying is the disagreement is indicative of uncertainty and that a little digging would bring you to that conclusion.

When confronted with this type of uncertainty, I try to be as objective as possible (varying levels of success here). I find it reprehensible to advocate "solutions" which may or may not have the desired result with great expense. I would rather implement less draconian, common-sense based measures that are "good things to do anyway" than jump headfirst into a program that could potentially have dire global consequences.

Doom and gloom aside, my friend. Kyoto and the US withdrawal was not a waste. Although progress may not be to your liking, I think the discussion and attention received will enable folks to continue the debate and search for solutions either within or outside of the Kyoto forum.

Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 09:44 AM

The cost I was referring to is, of cost, the short term cost. I suspect that there are not enough people into severe self-sacrifice to voluntarily undertake the kind of financial burden required to make a significant difference. The thing that would be apt to work would be some high energy taxes, combined with government rebates for alternative energy sources. Political suicide for any proponents.

The only partial solutions that or not prohibitively expensive are conservation--a popular idea, if not one that's actively practiced--and nuclear energy (more political suicide).

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 09:28 AM

Bush won the election...you can argue about whether he should have and you can claim that the voting system in retrospect is flawed (even though it has always served us well and was specifically designed to support the power of each state) but you must recognize that he is president, and therefore won the election.

George Bush was able to become president and you were not able to become president...therefore in some ways he is more capable, saavy, cunning, or intelligent than you.

Nobody has addressed or even recognized Scotsbard's point that the Kyoto deal was a bad deal that did not solve the problems being addressed.

Naemanson says "UB Ed and others have brought up the question of the science behind global warming. The Repulican conservatives harp continually on the disagreement between the scientists about the warming trends." Yes kind of...Actually Ed was bringing up that some science used as support has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Saying subterranean volcanos are the product of freon is like saying carbon dioxide causes foot and mouth disease.

Naemanson says "They disagree about the causes but the majority of them agree that humans are part of the problem"... Well I'm not willing to be culled. And I think we do need to have some idea of what the problem is before we implement solutions...Naemason also said "Sure, Kyoto wasn't enough but it was a start!" All it would do is cost the US more to have all the countries behave the exact same way they are now.

Peg says "I used to own a 76 Volvo; even the oldsters are better on mileage than the new SUV monstrosities so many people are driving..." - I'd like to see the real figures on this...I think one of us would be real suprised. In addition, The US has some of the strictist emmisions standards...catalytic converters are not required overseas.

There are real problems that need to be solved, but a majority of the people on this thread are unwilling to recognize the bulk of history that existed prior to this year and have now concluded that all pollution is due to George W. Bush driving an SUV.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Hyperabid
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 06:05 AM

Maybe the boy George is comforting himself by looking to US history. I append some abstarcts from Washington's farewell address.

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

However he might have missed some of the things that have happened inbetween such as NATO....!

Hyper

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Hyperabid
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 05:26 AM

No...

And it was his father who originally signed up to the protocol.

Ahh business interests... don't you just love 'em!

Hyper

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: wdyat12
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 03:50 AM

Do you wonder why there is so much snow cover left here in April? Some radio station, which will remain nameless, assures us that the military in this country has been directed from the most high to do something about global warming. The frequency of military activity in the skies has been most notable with so many contrails over all of North America.

The radio station claims that the US military is trying to change weather patterns and even claims that they know how to do it. Yes, the US military has been trying to change the weather from the 1940's to eleviate the nuisance of cloud cover during bombing runs when B17's began flying day bombing raids over Germany.

A longer snow cover will reflect the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays back into space and reduce the heating of the Earth on an annual cyclical basis inspite of ozone holes. Sound far fetched? My Uncle Warren doesn't think so, and he was one of those B17 pilots.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Naemanson
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 09:49 PM

UB Ed and others have brought up the question of the science behind global warming. The Repulican conservatives harp continually on the disagreement between the scientists about the warming trends. Bush has based his decision to back out of the Kyoto Accords on this question of faulty science.

Well, here's a news flash. Scientists rarely agree on the nuts and bolts of any system but that doesn't mean they disagree about the data they are looking at. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in any of the sciences that thinks the globe is not warming up. They disagree about the causes but the majority of them agree that humans are part of the problem. The real disagreement is how much of the problem we are.

So let them argue. Let them do the research. Let them hold their conferences. But let us not sit idly by and do nothing while waiting for them to agree. That path leads to suicide and extinction!

Sure, Kyoto wasn't enough but it was a start! If you never start the journey you will never arrive. If Kyoto had been implemented by the US we could have seen that it wasn't enough and then we would have had to implement harsher measures. This would have taken years to come to pass and the cost of those harsher measures would have been spread out over those years. By waiting we will have to go straight into whatever science tells us we have to do and the effort will break us.

Doom and gloom rant over...

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 08:28 PM

Actually most of us don't have to go back more than a couple of generations to find ancestors who managed pretty well without using money at all, give or take a bit of a crises in dealing with demands for rent from landlords - rent and landlords being more nasty modern innovations.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: wdyat12
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 01:20 AM

Naemanson,

This is all I needed to hear yesterday morning after posting my last admission. I'm sure now from your's and other posts that Nader did have an effect on the election, but not in Maine. This state went for Gore.

The Green Party is not dead, so Democrats everywhere rethink the party platform. Incorporate some of the ideas Nader put forth, even after being muzzled by the big corporations that supported Bush and Gore. That would have been a real debate if Nader were allowed to speak and we all know it. Gore may have held his own, but Bush would have exposed himself as the dummy he is.

God Save the World From George W. Bush!

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 12:38 AM

I voted for him (Surprise! DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 12:35 AM

I was working from memory, which is not necessarily a good idea when you're me. My source, however badly I may have mangled it, is Guns Germs and Steel. I think the 10,000 year figure is for domestication of animals, which was a step along the way to monetary economy, but probably didn't coincide with it. I apologize for shooting from the hip.

Nevertheless, "modern," when referring to human society (west of the Himalayas, anyway), is generally accepted to mean "during or after the Reformation" or perhaps "after 1492" and money and armies were around a long time before then.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: GUEST,Pete M at work
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 10:45 PM

Alex I would be interested in the source of the dates you quote for the introduction of money and armies. Certainly the concept of money (an abstract intermediate allowing the exchange of goods and services at an agreed equivalence) and armies in the sense of a corps of professional fighters are so far as I am aware both dependent on a civilization developing to a point of consistent surplus production. Whilst this may be 'old' it is comparitively modern in terms of human existence. I would have thought that around 3 - 5000 years ago would have been more accurate, but I'm willing to be corrected.

Pete M

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 07:09 PM

That's what I meant by Neolithic.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 06:51 PM

I'm a geologist. Humans are modern.

The heat source on the Canaries is volcanic, I think. But having more rain (if they are) could be due to global warning.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 05:02 PM

Money and armies are modern innovations? Modern compared to what, dirt?

You must learn different history in those Scottish schools than we do in America. We learned that money and armies go WAAAAAAY back. At least 10,000 years, maybe 50 to 100,000.

What DID you mean, McGrath?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 04:58 PM

bert - I'm tryin to rehabilitate that word conservative. I can't remember if it was Noam Chomsky or Paul Goodman who described his gut politics as "Neolithic Conservative", but whoever it was, it has a lot going for it. Most of things that are generally referrd to as "conservative" are nothing of the kind, they are just unpleasant modern innovations. Money, armies...

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: UB Ed
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 04:46 PM

Brendy, Thief:

From thermodynamics, I believe I remember that PV=NRT, where N and R are some sort of constants and P is pressure, V is volume and T is temperature. So an increase in T without a change in V must increase P. (Don't ya love it?).

Anyway, my point from listening to all this is that its important to understand, to the best of our abilities, what's going on. The Science article has nothing to do with global warming; that water is heating up in the earth via the geothermal effect. Nonetheless, somehow it has been sited as a definitive source of another example of global warming. This is a common thing to do to support positions, but I don't think its responsible for "those in the know" to allow such things to propogate.

From what I have read, there are many scientists who are critical of the climate change research done to date. Apparently the climatological models are not accurate (this should not be surprising given the accuracy of local weather forecasts) because of the tremendously complex earth system that composes our weather. I remember reports that these predicitve models could not even replicate past weather. Then of course we get into the debate accusing some scientists of working for "big business" versus the scientists protecting their research honey pot by predicting dire consequences that need to be further studied.

Another issue that gives me pause is the natural warming and cooling experienced on this planet over millions of years. We've had ice ages and warming trends completely absent man-made spewings, so what's up with dat?

It bothers me to loudly proclaim an injustice when I don't have a complete view. Or to advocate sweeping social changes that could possibly make no difference.

All that being said, I can agree that humans should carefully evaluate their impact on this fragile planet. A number of fuel options are available and can be applied in a less obtrusive way. From a power perspective, one strategy would be to retire old coal and oil facilities and replace them with new coal and oil facilities utilizing the latest pollution control technology. Also build more Nukes. Such a strategy, implemented on a global basis would do much to reduce a majority of our man-made pollutants.

Peace

Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Bert
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 04:24 PM

sensible conservative thinking - kind of an oxymoron that!

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 04:13 PM

Apart from nuclear power, it's all solar energy anyway, and every leaf on the planet is a solar power plant.

There's no reason why it shouldn't actually be more efficient to use the solar energy directly rather than indirectly by growing plants and then burning them and so forth.

However we do it, the important thing is to use the energy at the time more or less, rather than save it up and splurge it all off in a hurry, the way we've been doing with fossil energy. There's masses of energy out there going spare - all we have to do is to use it cleanly instead of the messy way that makes George Bush's owners rich. (And I'd have thought that would be sensible conservative thinking. Waste not want not, use it up, clear it up, don't leave a mess behind you.)

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Bert
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 03:41 PM

Carrying on from Dick said. Alternative energy sources won't become used until there is a sufficient demand for them to be economically viable.

They are there waiting until enough people to get off their duffs.

I have a friend in Dallas who invented and built a solar air conditioning unit. When enough people want it he will be able to get enough financing to go into production.

Seems to me that there is one hell of a lot of energy in that caldera under Yellowstone. If enough people got togeteher and raised enough money, we could afford to tap into that and generate a fair amount of electricity. It would also releive the pressure somewhat.

And as an amusing aside. If everyone built windmills, would it slow the rotation of the earth?

Bert.

P.S. Oh and by the way, don't waste your time and energy discussing The President - He isn't going to do anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Naemanson
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 03:08 PM

Te last line doesn't read as I intended. I meant to say that I am one of those who are not like him at all. I can't/won't put that much effort into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Naemanson
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 03:06 PM

Cost comes in more than dollars and cents.

I have a friend who built his house out of demolition debris. He has solar collectors on the roof to heat his water and a huge central brick cistern to store it in. The cistern adds to the heat in the house. He also has solar panels to provide electricity. He is a potter and uses a wood fired kiln. He is making a very small footprint on this world. BUT....

He works very hard at it. It took years to build that house (it's a very nice house, by the way) because he had to scour various demolition sites for the materials. Oft times he had to tear out the materials himself, working alone and after the regular demolition crews knocked off for the day.

He is a very impressive person and I am willing to wager there are few in this world like him. And I must confess I am one of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 02:55 PM

Cost and expense all depend on how far-reaching your thought process goes. If you look too short term, the switch to alternative sources is, indeed, too costly. If you look too far ahead, you see that eventually the sun will flare and we'll be left sitting on a burned out pile of rock anyway, so why bother?

The solution (to prolong the interim) lies in following a balanced approach to changing our energy use patterns. We need to ween ourselves off fossil fuels and decrease our energy reliance. We need to develop alternative sources of energy, to augment the existing sources that feed the grid. Exploiting the oil reserves accessible through protected lands extends our use of natural gas and oil for only a few years; it just puts off the inevitable.

We need to change our way of thinking. Eventually we need to find a way off this glorious rock, or we will be as extinct as the fossils that we're using as fuel today.

And on that cheery note, I bid you "Adieu' for now.
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Lady McMoo
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 11:04 AM

But Dick, it depends how you do these costings. If you take into account the cost of environmental damage and clean-up (if indeed it is possible to assign a cost), health effects and other factors then what is the true cost of fossil fuels? The fact is that these costs simply aren't taken into the equation at the moment.

I agree with you completely Peg.

mcmoo

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 10:35 AM

The problem with all the "alternative" energy solutions is that they simply cost too much. You can supply your electrical needs with solar, but the equipment, maintenance and storage demands are excessive without some form of government support. Same for wind, water and cogeneration schemes. They all work, and they all cost the individual consumer much more than what he's paying now.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Peg
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 09:16 AM

I think the argument that alternative sources of power (wind, solar, hydro) etc. won't work because current structures won't support them is poppycock. We built the current infrastructure to support the use of oil and fossil fuels--now that that is clearly no longer practical, what's the big hoo-hah over rebuilding to support what we need to do to redress the damage done to the earth?

No one was whining like this during the industrial revolution and all the years after; yes, it cost money to build stuff then; but knowing it would all MAKE money was all anyone cared about.

Now we have a chance to save money in the long run; but one wants to spend any to decrease pollution and save the environment (and ourselves) because "it will cost too much to change things." Forgetting obviously that the supply of fossil fuels WILL run out eventually, while the loss of the wind and the sun is not likely any time soon...This is just illogical to me. It is as Naemanson said, not much is likely to happen until big oil finds a way to get rich off it. That is the linchpin of the problem.

Meantime, we wil drill in Alaska and destroy that habitat, for a few more years' worth of gasoline to run our SUVs. Stupid.

I grind my teeth every time I see some dork in a suit driving one of those to work, or some yuppie matron picking up her kids or groceries in it...these vehicles have no doubt never seen any terrain rougher than asphalt since they were made.

some days, in rush hour traffic, every third or fourth vehicle is a huge SUV...what is wrong with people????????

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 09:10 AM

Alex, I was not advocating a single source of energy. I was merely pointing out how much space one source would require. Solar energy is the one source that COULD be used everywhere. The winds don't blow everywhere, neither do the tides rise and fall in Kansas.
One answer is the abolition of all private internal combustion engines, everyone living in energy-efficient, government-run housing in urban centers, and a lifestyle that uses a minimum of energy. e.g. rationed electricity, hot water, etc.
I think we can do a little better than that though.
Doug, in New York in the 1890's, the dust caused by horse manure in the streets- dropped, dried, and ground to a powder by wagon wheels- caused major respiratory problems. And every neighborhood had to have it's livery stable with all the attendant problems.
The nice thing about Mudcat is that all our horse shit is virtual.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Naemanson
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 08:24 AM

Well, Woody, I voted my conscience as well. I knew my conscience would bother me no end if my miscast vote ended up with GWB in the White House. Now he is there and my conscience doesn't bother me.

And you may change your mind when he starts in on neutering the unions. Reagan and Daddy Bush both worked at it and Baby Bush will too.

Alternative sources of power will be considered when the oil companies can make big bucks on it. Not before. Until then we are on our own. It isn't impossible and it is something that appeals to me, being able to leave off the dependence. Unfortunately it is also very difficult and needs to be approached very carefully. Burning wood for heat may not be as environmentally friendly as other sources. Manufacturing solar panels and wind generators requires chemicals and compounds that need to be properly disposed of. Plus there is the fact that this country (the USA) is laid out all wrong for energy efficient transportation.

All this points to the fact that we have a set of problems that will require our best brains and that won't happen until the problems dominate our TV news.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: Walter Corey
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 08:17 AM

The papers today are saying that Bush's vote total would have tripled (all the way to 1600?)had the recount continued.That sort of lets the Supreme Court off the hook. Jeb Bush certainly helped his brother by his purging of the voting rolls of "felons" . Many of those purges were unwarranted, but it is still unclear how many of those purged were able to get reinstated in time to vote. So indeed it does come down to the some 26,000 Nader votes in Florida that put Bush in the White House. And it was the support of just enough people all over the country that kept him going.

Granted not all Nader votes would have gone for Gore, but it is hard to imagine a Greenie voting for Bush or not being committed enough to vote.

In a plurality take all system, it is virtually impossible for a 3d party candidate to win. We need to work within the system at the same time we are working to change the system. If we had had, for instance instant runoff elections in place then a vote for Nader wouldn't have had to mean a vote for Bush. But we didn't and it did..

The implication seems to be that Gore voters prostituted themselves with their vote. I certainly did not consider him the "lesser of two evils", and when I look at what the "greater of two evils" has managed to do in four months I wish that more Naderites could have taken a realistic look at what could be accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: wdyat12
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 03:20 AM

Yes, I did vote for Nader. I did not put Bush in the Whitehouse. Bush had Jeb and the Supreme Court to thank for that. I voted my conscience, not the lesser of two evils. From what I hear you all saying now, I wish more people on this thread had voted their conscience too.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 02:48 AM

If all you folk would start riding bicycles and horses, instead of tooling around in gasoline burning vehicles, there wouldn't be anything to worry about, right? Well, I guess the horses could create somewhat of an environmental problem though. The byproduct could produce some great rose bushes though!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 02:37 AM

But Troll, why should we supply the world's entire power needs using only one technology? Why not use wind where wind is practical, solar where solar is practical, tide power where tide power is practical, geothermal where geothermal is practical, and so forth?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be saying that it's either all-of-one-thing or none-of-the-other. Which strikes me as absurd.

Alex