 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal?
|
|
|
Subject: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 01 Apr 01 - 04:30 AM I could not see a thread on this subject which is extraordinary. The bbc world service has a discussion where you can comment instead of taking up Mudcat space. here Roger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: wdyat12 Date: 01 Apr 01 - 04:37 AM I went to your link Roger. IMHO the USA is contolled by the big corporations, Nader was correct. I can't say right in the same sentence. wdyat12 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: katlaughing Date: 01 Apr 01 - 04:38 AM I didn't vote for him and I am ashamed for our country. Thansk for the link, Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Mudlark Date: 01 Apr 01 - 05:20 AM Thanks for the link, Roger. I didn't vote for him either and this decision makes me feel like tuning in on the Stupid Americans show....ARGHHHHHHH......The arsnic in the drinking water setback isn't too great either.....hell in a handbasket..... nancy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: RichM Date: 01 Apr 01 - 05:51 AM I'm with the Europeans on this one. It's a shameful reaction from the $American$ government. Unfortunately, in Canada, we have a 4 way split in national politics that effectively gives control forever to the Liberal Party, who have absolutely no principled stance on anything, other than kissing Uncle Sam's butt. If they bend any lower, they'll need back braces permanently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: kendall Date: 01 Apr 01 - 08:16 AM Dont blame me, I didnt vote for that smirking doofus either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: RichM Date: 01 Apr 01 - 08:45 AM Smirking Doofus? Heeheehee... sounds like an irish tune. Rich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Apr 01 - 12:24 PM Florida goes under water first, so that's appropriate enough I suppose.
LBJ used to talk it about it being better having someone inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. Either choice sounds better than what you've got now though. What we've all got.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Apr 01 - 01:02 PM The fuckin' tent is soaked and leakin' Mac. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Apr 01 - 01:23 PM Hmmmmm........I think someone has taken a dump in here too..........and I notice we seem to have setup in the middle of a sludge bed. Looks like the tent may be a goner............... Ya' know, I don't mind that Dumbya is a stupid, insensitive, smirking, undesirable piece of crap. I mind that he's a dangerous, stupid, insensitive, smirking, undesirable piece of crap. Spaw |
|
Subject: Not that I know thing one... From: Clinton Hammond Date: 01 Apr 01 - 01:42 PM But of later there's been a add on Canadian TV for The Globe And Mail, I think...
...an opinionated rag if you ask me, but that's beside the point...
This add... Has people making blanket statements... ie
There's a quote from an article I read on a CNN page...
Smacks of another line from the Globe commercial
sad... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Peg Date: 01 Apr 01 - 01:54 PM I am horified by the Kyoto decision and no, I did not vote for this moron, either. I saw this yesterday and it is funy, scary and basically sums up my feelings on this greedy, smug dildohead. Peg From salon.com (copyright 2001 by Gary Kamiya) The unspeakable Bush As President Bush announces he won't hold any more press conferences, a relieved America comes together in gratitude. By Gary Kamiya March 30, 2001 The unelected president has become the unspeakable president. Literally. President George W. Bush, his spokesman announced Wednesday, will not be holding any more press conferences. Instead, he'll talk to reporters in a less "formal" way. "The president prefers an informality about certain things," said Ari Fleischer. Welcome to the wonderful world of George W. Bush's brain, where it's always Casual Friday! You can't really blame Bush for fleeing from the press with his larynx between his legs. You see, reporters have this annoying habit of asking questions. And when you don't know the answers and don't want to know the answers and there's no way when you're standing up in front of all these people for Dick or Colin to give you the answers, it's just like that horrible day in sixth grade when you had to give a report on the Mayans and you hadn't done any of the reading and didn't even know who the Mayans were and Jimmy Burton was going to slip you a crib sheet but he was sick that day and Mr. Snider made you get up in front of everybody and you couldn't get out of it and you had to say something so you said the Mayans were the people who invented Mayannaise. That was a really bad day. And when you're president, you shouldn't have to have days like that. Otherwise, what is the point of being president? And when you're the American public, you shouldn't be subjected to them either. It's embarrassing and hurtful to our national image. In fact, it's un-American. Even the people who voted for Bush knew he was a few beans short of a full burrito, so why make him stand up there and pretend he knows what he's talking about? That isn't him! It's unfair to him! And it's not why we elected him! What America, or at least five old geezers in black robes, wanted was a genial, figurehead-type CEO who is incapable of defending or even explaining the decisions made by his corporate masters on the board of directors, but who can make ignorance seem charming. And if that is what America wanted, that is what America should get! In the Age of Bush, silence is golden.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 01 Apr 01 - 02:03 PM LOL!! Too funny Peg!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Apr 01 - 02:13 PM As I understand it, even with the Kyoto agreement we're all way short of what needs to be done - the Kyoto deal was trimmed way way back below any kind of minimally realistic level of action, specifically with the aim of keeping the USA on baoard.
With the USA out of the picture it would now be possible to set some realistic levels that would have some prospects of maybe sorting things out in time.
After all, even if the 4% of the population who live in the USA is responsible for 30% of the pollution of the planet, that still leaves 70% of it split between the rest of us - and that's where the action has to be.
Look at it one way, having the USA on board was just an excuse to do sod all. Better off without it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Sorcha Date: 01 Apr 01 - 02:19 PM Unfortunately, whether we(personally) voted for him is not the issue. We have to deal with the moron. Maybe we could impeach him for Terminal Stupidity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Ebbie Date: 01 Apr 01 - 03:08 PM Since this administration began, it's been a case of one shoe dropping after another. What will be next. I would really like to know who's running the show and what their ultimate goals are. It's certain that it's not Bush himself and maybe not even the most obvious, visible people grouped around him. I would like to see an analysis done of the leaders' profiles. "White guys, average age 84, reaganesque in the most air-headed sense, wealthy, many holdings in developing companies...fill in the blanks" Talk about impeachment! Before the last shoe is dropped, we may all be taking to the streets demanding action. The only comforting part is that I think these four years may be no more than a blip in the history of the world- this administration is Bush League in so many different meanings of the word. Better to have them pass through at this stage, imo, when there is still hope of mending damage, than to see them in power for longer than the foreseeable future. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Peg Date: 01 Apr 01 - 03:16 PM good points all, Ebbie. I know the warning bells went off EXTRA loud for me on the day of the inauguration; when no fewer than THREE speeches included the words "our lord Jesus Christ." Now I am not anti-Christian by any means, but this to me represents a blatant violation of the separation of church and state... follow that up with the fatuous pro-right-wing "faith-based charity initiative", the recent pro-life-fuelled campaigns to restrict women's reproductive rights on international military bases, and, well, you can see that at least one major goal of the shrub's administration is to "take America back" from the heathen, baby-killing, gay-positive, devil-worshipping paradigm defined by the Bill-Hillary years... Be afraid, be very afraid.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Ebbie Date: 01 Apr 01 - 03:46 PM "Khomeini Bush"- kind of has a ring to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: kendall Date: 01 Apr 01 - 04:05 PM Usually, I love being right. This time, GOD I wish I was wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Naemanson Date: 01 Apr 01 - 04:30 PM Addressing the title of the thread: NO! Where are our resident conservatives to defend our dear president? Have they no words to defend his dishonesty and hatred of the future? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Peg Date: 01 Apr 01 - 05:15 PM Naemanson: my point exactly. There is no defending that monster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Apr 01 - 05:22 PM It surprised me too to see how long it took this thread to start. I have a personal interest. I just bought a house on the 5 metre contour! I think the Volvo will have to go - although I wonder whether the energy use in making a new car is not more damaging to the environment than the high energy use of the old one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Peg Date: 01 Apr 01 - 05:28 PM I used to own a 76 Volvo; even the oldsters are better on mileage than the new SUV monstrosities so many people are driving...plus you are supporting the idea of reusing, reducing, erecycling. Many Americans think one must get a new car every couple of years just to "stay in step." This is ridiculous. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and obviously don't get a new one... You can always put environmentally-aware bumper stickers on it! peg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Sorcha Date: 01 Apr 01 - 05:45 PM Will all the appalling stuff only stop when there is no planet to save???? The man is nutso!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Apr 01 - 06:55 PM "although I wonder whether the energy use in making a new car is not more damaging to the environment than the high energy use of the old one." Almost certainly it would be more damaging - the right thing is to look after it, keep it going for ever, and use it as little as possible.
As they said in the war "Is your journey really necessary?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Sorcha Date: 01 Apr 01 - 07:00 PM Newest vehicle around here is an '86 Toyota wagon, but I use it way too much. It's 4 blocks to the grocery, and I drive......(but--it's across railroad track and a right of way full of goatheads, aka stickers!!) Hell, I can't afford a new car; they cost more than my house did! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Mark Clark Date: 01 Apr 01 - 07:36 PM In case you missed The Nation's cover depicting Dubya as Alfred W. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: bigchuck Date: 01 Apr 01 - 08:27 PM I've been afraid for years that the only thing that would get people motivated enough to take the drastic steps we really need to take to guarantee the continued habitability of the planet would be some sort of major environmental disaster. I suspect that the odds have just gone waay up. May even be for the best, although I sure hate thinking that way. I'm glad I'm old and decrepit. I'll be gone before the worst happens. Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: kendall Date: 01 Apr 01 - 08:34 PM So will I, but, my grandchildren wont. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: bigchuck Date: 01 Apr 01 - 09:08 PM And that's the hell of it Kendall. Mine will have to live through it too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Ebbie Date: 02 Apr 01 - 02:18 AM Will Bush ignore this open letter that will appear in Time Magazine tomorrow? ( ...Bush said he opposes the pact, signed by former President Bush in 1998 but never introduced in the Senate, because he thinks the economic costs outweigh the benefits. The move has triggered a storm of criticism from around the world.) The open letter said that while the provisions of the Kyoto treaty were debatable, ``the situation is becoming urgent, and it is time for consensus and action''. ``There are many strategies for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions without slowing economic growth. In fact, the spread of advanced, cleaner technology is more of an economic opportunity than a peril. We urge you to develop a plan to reduce U.S. production of greenhouse gases. (em>Emphasis mine) ``The future of our children -- and their children -- depends on the resolve that you and other world leaders show,'' the letter said. It was signed by Gorbachev, actor Harrison Ford, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, former U.S. Sen. John Glenn, financier George Soros, primate researcher Jane Goodall, former CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite, Celera Genomics (news - web sites) chief J. Craig Venter, biologist Edward O. Wilson and physicist Stephen Hawking. These are pretty big guns- it seems probable that he will find a way to retract or modify his stance, don't you think? If he doesn't, in my view not only is he stupid, with no understanding of public relations, but certifiably insane. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: wdyat12 Date: 02 Apr 01 - 02:38 AM Nader was correct! wdyat12 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Linda Kelly Date: 02 Apr 01 - 04:39 AM I watched a programme recently which suggested that, because of the change in our climate due to the impact of greenhouse gases, that there was possibility of a landslide on a small volcanic island in the Canary Islands. This in itself did not seem particularly disastrous until it mentioned that the subsequent tidal wave caused by this, would be sufficient to create a Mega Sunami which would wipe out most of the east coast of the United States to a distance of some 23 miles inland. washington, New York etc would be swamped to a depth of 1/2 mile. Now if Mr Bush needs a little focus....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Naemanson Date: 02 Apr 01 - 06:01 AM I don't understand how global warming could cause that landslide, Ickle. I know that kind of thing happens but I can't see how warming and greenhouse gases can cause it. Can you find a website that would explain it further? Ebbie, the problem is not that he would ignore the letter. He will never see it. The president (any president and any leader from high up on the chain) lives in a glass bubble, carefully protected from anything that might upset him. So he will not be allowed to see the letter. Even if he does it is unlikely he will have the courage to face down his handlers and the puppet masters who control him. He was carefully chosen to be their robot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Brendy Date: 02 Apr 01 - 06:03 AM But it has to happen first, before these people pay much attention. Such is the way of the world. B. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Brendy Date: 02 Apr 01 - 06:12 AM From 'The New Scientist' B. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: GUEST,JTT Date: 02 Apr 01 - 07:43 AM In a way, Bush's reneging on the Kyoto Protocol may be the best thing ever - because it's made people start talking about the problem in a more real way. I was listening to the BBC World Service today, and two people were on from Tuvalu and Bangladesh, both countries which may cease to exist in the next few years as a result of rising water levels - the Bangladeshi rep was saying "Will America take this flood of refugees when we have no country?" One scary thing on the programme: a scientist was saying that if carbon (like the surface of most of England) is heated, it gives off carbon dioxide. If the climate gets 2 degrees warmer, he said, the amount of carbon dioxide being produced by the carbon surface of the earth will increase the greenhouse effect - and so on, in an unstoppable effect at an exponential rate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Peg Date: 02 Apr 01 - 09:39 AM The Hopi had it right. They made no decision affecting the entire tribe (i.e. detoruing a water way, cutting down a forest, slaughtering aherd, etc.) until they had determined how it would affect the tribe *seven generations into the future." Nw, people buy brands of semi-recycled toiler paper called "Seventh Generation" and think that's all they need to do. sigh. It's not enough! Even if every American idiot consumer started TODAY to do what he/she could to walk more lightly on the earth, MAJOR changes in industrial standards would still need to be made to halt the damage. Greenhouse gas damage is cumulative and slow. The results of what we are doing NOW won't be felt for another 20 years or so. Our culture of immediate gratification assures no one gives a shit about what will happen two decades from now; as long as it does not interfere with what we wanna do NOW. We are going to hell in a handbasket; and we ALL have a part in this. We must take a stand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Naemanson Date: 02 Apr 01 - 09:56 AM Peg, we were given the opportunity back in November to take a stand and came back with a resounding "MAYBE!"
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Peg Date: 02 Apr 01 - 10:00 AM If you are talking about the election, Naemanson, I believe the prevailing understanding is that Bush didn't actually win... (but I am not trying to go THERE if you know what I mean--we made our bed, we must now lie in it--just make sure you put on some 60SPF sunscreen first) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Jim the Bart Date: 02 Apr 01 - 11:08 AM Bush's moves are purely political. His administration has picked up on the Clinton philosophy (It's the Economy, Stupid) and without the curse of vision can act on what they see to be America's most immediate and pressing concern - re-electing George Bush. Let's face it, the rest of the Kyoto signees don't vote here. It's really easy to look at the treaty and say "Clean up your 70% of Co2 emissions before you start telling us how to run our country". Keep in mind, also, that many of the folks who supported GWB to begin with don't like us "entangled" by any kinds of treaties, much less ones unfavorable to the good old US of A. When you add in the army of "scientists" that can be trotted out to debunk global warming as "bad science", ditching the accords becomes way too easy. It is imperative that American voters begin to understand that there is no cheap energy. It all has a cost, either in hard dollars or environmental degradation. One expense is immediate, the other is long term and terminal. Between now and the nest election there will be a lot of horrible decisions made in the name of providing cheap, conventional energy sources. This is wrong-headed and ultimately disastrous. It's the cultivation of alternative sources that is needed. The short-sightedness of the Bush administration will bring it down, but only if US voters understand this - before they vote again. P.S. For any American who sat at home on election day, or voted for Nader because "voting for Bush is the same as voting for Gore": it's not about being right on all the issues, it's about who holds the office. Remember that YOU put George Bush where he is today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Apr 01 - 11:29 AM Rain is filling up vertical water reservoirs in the mountains of the Canaries. THe reservoirs are caused by vertical strata (well, you know what I mean) of impervious rock - lava from previous eruptions. When water pressure exceeds cohesion, the side of the mountain falls off. THat's the theory. The date, however, is a matter of geological timing, when the next second and about a million years are both "soon". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Brendy Date: 02 Apr 01 - 11:39 AM That's what that link to The New Scientist was all about, Richard. B. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Apr 01 - 11:44 AM Yes. Handy to have a summary here, no? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Troll Date: 02 Apr 01 - 11:45 AM Judicial Watch did a ballot recount of all the counties in Florida. Bush still won. Frankly, if you want to make changes, gassing on forums is the least profitable use of your time. Start now. Start organizing a grassroots political organization. Go to meetings, raise money, canvass, poll voters, hold information pickets, sign up volunteers. Let your local politicians know what you expect from them and clobber them in the elections if they don't deliver. You say people need to be educated? Educate them! Then enlist them in your environmental army. When you control the local elections, the big boys WILL listen and you can then make demands on a state and national level that will get consideration. Of course, if you'd rather be part of a mutual mastrubation society that sits around and congratulates each other on their "awareness" and smugly predicts the end of the world... Enjoy troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Grab Date: 02 Apr 01 - 11:51 AM As someone said earlier, at least now the US is out of the Kyoto agreement, they can actually make some progress - GWB can heckle from the sidelines, but he can't actually stick his oar in now, and the other countries don't have to pussyfoot around the Americans. The most telling feature of GWB's argument is, "well, the 3rd World countries aren't doing anything". After a few years of the rest of the 1st World actively assisting the 3rd World in cleaning up their act, that will at least be one argument he (or the next Pres) can't use again. Let's face it, it won't take long to get the 3rd World working more efficiently than the US. As an analogy, South Africa was in denial about AIDS until recently - the problem wasn't intellectual, it was that it was going to cost mucho money to do anything about it. It basically took a year or two of global public ridicule and campaigning by SA citizens to turn them around. As research into the effects of carbon production on global warming continues, hopefully there'll be enough unequivocal data to beat the US with until they'll look (even more) like fools for ignoring it - the only question left is whether enough ppl in the US will care to make it a political issue. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Brendy Date: 02 Apr 01 - 12:39 PM Indeed Richard. I didn't realise that that was what you were doing. Apologies all around, B. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Ebbie Date: 02 Apr 01 - 12:45 PM "The decisions that the Bush administration have made to date are certainly not pleasing to anyone who is concerned about the environment." Pretty euphemistic, aren't you! Not pleasing, indeed. Troll, I do hope you count yourself among those people. I would be embarrassed not to be - the environment is where I live. And you. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Apr 01 - 06:07 PM Actually it's a great sense of relief not having to worry about keeping the USA sweet. No excuses, no alibis, no saying it's all the fault of the Americans.
The Iron Curtain's gone, the Bamboo curtain looks pretty decrepit these days. In rolls the Smog Curtain, first new candidate for Evil Empire of the 21st Century.
I think the rest of us should concentrate on sorting out our chunk of the planet. I'm sure the Americans will in time recycle Bush very effectively.
(From what I could see in that New Scientist article, the impending Canary Island wipeout isn't anything to do with atmospheric pollution. It's just that the USA ought to have it a bit higher up its worry list. Along with this scary little item about about Yellowstone Park
Wasn't it great when all we had to worry about was whether some nut in the White Hoi use or the Kremlin would press the nuclear trigger? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: mousethief Date: 02 Apr 01 - 06:55 PM Peg: How horrid that somebody elected president should be allowed to have religious views, or mention them in public. Nobody in the business of running the state should go to church. To do so would be a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Hmpf. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Ebbie Date: 02 Apr 01 - 07:47 PM Mousethief, its a fact that we are a diverse society. Jesus is not everyone's Only Begotten Son of God. In my view, a president should, in public, represent all of the people. Any society, imo, that invokes or respects only one version of the Deity risks alienating all of the people who have a different view of the Deity. To put it another way, picture yourself living in Iran when the Ayatollah came into power. Would you feel well represented or even accepted by your country when attending one of his rallies or listening to one of his speeches? I wouldn't. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Naemanson Date: 02 Apr 01 - 09:20 PM Thank you Brendy and Richard. I knew of tsunamis caused by landslides but the threat from the Canary Islands got past me. I knew about Yellowstone, McGrath, but not of the connection to a nuclear winter type event. Makes sense though. Troll, these "mutual mastrubation (sic) society" meetings are how grass roots organiizations get started. We have to grouse ourselves up into enough of a fever pitch to do something besides vote against the bad guy. By the way, that was an interesting mental picture provided by a representative of the party that espouses family values and decent living. Which of your family values was that one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Peg Date: 02 Apr 01 - 09:35 PM Alex: I don't have a problem with a president being a spiritual being. Not at all. But politicians are not supposed to cram their gods down other peoples' throats...precisely because ofd the diversity issue mentioned (thanks, Ebbie). Richard: How can you equate someone who sits home on election day with someone who votes for the candidate they support? This doesn't make sense. I did vote for Nader; not for Bush. How can I be blamed for putting the shrub in office? I voted for him in Massachusetts, not Florida...no matter who wins the presidential election, those members of the citizenry who are not in agreement with what that administration is doing, have a moral imperative to do all they can as individuals and community members to work for whatever change they think is needed. And I do not agree there is no cheap energy. Hydro, wind and solar methods are very inexpensive to implement and virtually pay for themselves in no time. Their relative cost effectiveness, and the fact that we are not using them because no fat cat utility stands to get rich from purveying them, makes our use of petroleum and other fossil fuels look like a bunch of monkeys burning diamonds. Why doesn't anyone use solar or wind or hydro power? Because the infrastructure is currently set up to support huge corporate energy concerns charging outrageous prices for what should not be an uncontrolled commodity. I have always believed electric and other utilities should be government regulated. But the government seems more interested in regulating, oh, what women do with their bodies.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: katlaughing Date: 02 Apr 01 - 11:56 PM I've posted it before, but it bears posting again. For those who would work through cyber-grassroots efforts, please check out MoveOn. One of the things I've learned is vital in a grassroots org. or even in discussions like this is to give people signs of hope, too, so they don't get bogged down in despair. Right now, I am having a hard time coming up with much to offer. The National Writers' Union just sent me an email today which outlines their strategy for keeping a steady listing of jobs going, as they did during the recession of the early 90's. It amazes me how much can change in such a short time with such an idiot as Resident of the White House. We worried about David Duke, some even thought he might be the "anti-Christ"....looks like he was just a magician's sleight of hand to keep us from focussing on Dumbya, who to me, seems much, much more dangerous. Anyone worried about how he is handling the China airplane landing? I just have a huge feeling of total disbelief and despair that this man is actually supposed to be representing all of America. What the hell are the Democrats in Congress doing? I know, psychologically, I've put myself on hold regarding most of politics. I haven't even been able to write my weekly op/ed column..it seems too hopeless because I don't see Americans shaking off their apathy...here I am feeling swallowed up by it. Sorry for the negativeness and rant. kat
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Ebbie Date: 03 Apr 01 - 02:33 AM kat, regarding the China/American spy plane, I veer between holding my breath and busily sending good energy to the situation. This person, before he is done, could get us into the hottest water in 40 years, and this is just another step toward the tub. It is so infuriating- and so sad. Frankly, it reminds me of people who have finally found their way into the White House again- and this time they're "going to do it right!", damn the consequences. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Pete M Date: 03 Apr 01 - 03:26 AM For my last contract I was working on Funafuti, the capital island of Tuvalu, and I can confirmn that the highest point above sea level is about 3 or 4m. At one point, the narrowest part of the atoll, and with only a slight sea running waves currently wash over into the lagoon so any rise in sea level will definitely be catastrophic. The Tuvaluans are putting a considerable effort into things like waste management which is arguably a more immediate threat to them than global warming, and it is difficult to see what else they can do. Most islands have no or one or two motorised vehicles, Funafuti being the exception with a high percentage of people having motorbikes. They may not be doing everything right, but I suspect that if the US spent the same proportion of its annual budget in this way there would be little need for the Kyoto agreement. The other thing to bear in mind when considering places like Tuvalu and Kiribati is that the effect of global warming on the latitude of the cyclone belt is potentially a greater threat than a mean sea level rise. Unfortunately it looks as though Australia may be going to follow the US's lead on this, the politicians being led by the nose, as in the US, by the coal companies. So much for the Pacific community! Spend a couple of million on aid but spend orders of magnitude more on policies which will effectively destroy the countrys. As has already been pointed out, those most immediately affected don't vote in the US or Oz, and those who do and support things like the Kyoto agreement wouldn't vote for Bush or Howard anyway, so who cares if they are pissed off? Pete M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: wdyat12 Date: 03 Apr 01 - 03:45 AM Nader was correct! wdyat12 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: katlaughing Date: 03 Apr 01 - 04:31 AM Well a bit of hope on what we can each do ourselves to vote with our pocketbooks, from the Rocky Mountain Institute: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: mousethief Date: 03 Apr 01 - 10:38 AM I checked my throat, and Bush's god wasn't in it. Perhaps your throat is different. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Jim the Bart Date: 03 Apr 01 - 10:42 AM Peg - I think you credited statements to Richard that were actually mine. My rant was not against people who voted for Nader out of conscience, but rather those who cast a "protest vote" because they either hadn't looked close enough to discern the differences between Bush and Gore, or didn't consider those differences to be significant. There were significant and obvious (IMHO) differences; there is no question in my mind that we wouldn't be having the same concerns about the first 100 days of an Al Gore presidency. About "cheap energy". Alternative sources (Wind, Hydro, solar, etc.) are the answer, but retrofitting our buildings is not going to be cheap. It's over the long term, as these sources are used, that we will save a lot more than just money by moving away from fossil fuels and fission. Our current President has about as much incentive to support alternative sources of energy as he has to legalize marijuana. Regardless of the cost/benefit arguments, he has more to gain personally by pushing Big Oil's interests, along with the "nuclear alternative". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Naemanson Date: 03 Apr 01 - 12:06 PM I haven't heard that the "nuclear alternative" had reared its ugly head. Is he talking of that too? Haven't they learned anything yet? The question of who you vote for raises the question of multiple political parties. I personally believe it is a mistake to have multiple parties. As was seen in Daddy Bush's loss to Clinton and, possibly in Florida and other swing states, in this last election, third parties drain away support from the candidate that really has a chance at getting into office. Picture this scenario. A major party candidate has a platform. A group of people want to adjust that platform to meet their own needs/requirements/interests. their first opportunity is during the primary phase. They support the primary candidate that matches their concerns closest. We are talking enthusiastic support here. That candidate hears the support and more importantly all the candidates see what is happening and, magically the platform is adjusted to try to pick up those supporters. You won't get everything you want but you will be making a difference and you will be giving the person with the best chance of success a real shot at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: UB Ed Date: 03 Apr 01 - 12:49 PM Brendy, Richard: I read thru the new scientist article but saw no mention of global warming, rather underground thermal heating of water. Didi I miss something? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: mousethief Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:07 PM "Thermal heating" as opposed to that other kind of heating? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Walter Corey Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:17 PM I don't see that it makes a whit of difference where you voted for Nader, It was the vociferous support of people in all 50 states that convinced him to hang in there to the bitter end. I am relieved that more people in "safe" states didn't rely on their neighbor's "safe" votes for Gore, so that they could indulge their protest vote for Nader. Bush might have gotten the mandate that he now lacks (not that it's making much difference right now). I voted for Gore in Maine, so I counted electorally. Did a friend who voted the same in Texas waste a vote? Of course not. Together we gave Gore a moral victory that may eventually mean something if the national Democratic leadership ever comes out of hibernation and starts waving it in Bush's face. It is too bad that we could not have counted on our friends who wished to "send a message" to add to that victory. The Popular vote is the only crutch we've got right now. Only when we realize that politics is indeed the "art of the possible" can we start to blunt some of the havoc that this appointed president is wreaking |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Brendy Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:22 PM I think it may have been this quote, UB Ed: Day realised that when magma rises towards the surface through wet rock, the water in the pore spaces within the rock is heated and expands. Because liquid water is incompressible, small increases in water temperature can significantly increase the water pressure in a confined space. Working with Derek Elsworth of Pennsylvania State University, Day performed some calculations to see if the pressure generated by heating water would be enough to make the rock fracture. Sure enough, relatively modest warming gave huge increases in water pressure. At 1 kilometre below the surface, for instance, a temperature increase of as little as 15 °C would increase water pressure from around 160 atmospheres to 400 atmospheres--more than enough to split the rock and cause a collapse. To be honest, this is the first I've heard about it. I just went searching after Naemanson's request for some sort of a website that would explain this. But I imagine that global warming has something to do with the temperature increase in the water, which in turn... B. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: mousethief Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:43 PM Brendy, I don't understand. Since water is incompressible, changes in temperature that don't cause changes in state shouldn't cause changes in volume, and hence shouldn't increase pressure. Am I missing something here? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Brendy Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:49 PM I haven't a clue, Alex. I just drink the stuff, and have the odd bath in it. B. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Scotsbard Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:50 PM Well ... this might not be the most popular view, but I'm gonna air it anyway. The Kyoto Accord was deeply flawed for both conceptual and functional reasons. (And not just because there is common Honda of the same name *L*). ... begin rant ... 1. The first major flaw involves fundamental chemistry. Carbon dioxide is producd when anything is burned. Every fossil fuel except the occasional pocket of trapped hydrogen contains some carbon. Methane (CH4, basically natural gas) contains the lowest proportion of carbon to hydrogen at 25% (by moles). Butane (C2H6) is the next in line at 33%, and the numbers get nothing but worse from there, with gasolines in the 50% range and coals in the 70-90% range. When carbon and hydrogem are efficiently combined with oxygen, the reaction produces heat, hydrogen oxide (water) and carbon dioxide. All of the other products are less efficent, and are generally unstable and rather toxic. Basically, if you burn anything made from fossils you're gonna make some CO2, and the only question is how much. OK, so we convert every powerplant to natural gas. That can help somewhat, but lots of them are already converted for other economic reasons. The only effective long term solution is to use less energy, especially from fossil fuels. Sure, somewhere in the future we might invent some sort of little beastie that eats any organic material, gives off the heat and shits out all the carbon as graphite, but the thermodynamics ain't in it's favor at the monemt. 2. The structure of the treaty allowed "selling" of carbon dioxide credits between countries. Basically, this allows industrialized countries to continue polluting by paying undeveloped countries to "protect" their forests. First of all, the developed countries need to take the lead on this instead of shifting the burden. Second, if history is any indicator of how interruption and corruption of third-world governments, the funds would flow into a few private pockets and the forests would be clear cut anyway. Not only does the general practice seem counter-productive to the long term stability of the environment, but the very people it is supposed to help never see the benefit. People in wealthy countries pay a little more for energy, but not enough to change their consumtion habits, and people in poor countries loose the natural resources without real recompense, Both of groups eventually pay the cost of living in a hotter, more polluted environment. ... end rant ... Sure, Dubya could have found a more graceful way out of this treaty, preferably by intiating a significant energy and pollution program for this country. However, he would rather drill for more oil, because that's where the profits are for his backers. Oh, well. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:52 PM Peg... I'm not picking a fight with you here... but... Hydro electricity is HORRIBLE for the 'environemnt'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: jeffp Date: 03 Apr 01 - 02:04 PM Actually, Alex, the compressability of water has nothing to do with temperature. The density does indeed vary with temperature without requiring a state change. This is why density calculations specify the temperature at which they are taken. For example, specific gravity (another way of measuring density) is measured relative to 58 degrees Fahrenheit. Hydrometers come with tables to correct readings taken at other temperatures, because the density (volume/mass) differs at other temperatures. jeffp (former chem major and practicing pedant) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Apr 01 - 02:12 PM third parties drain away support from the candidate that really has a chance at getting into office
That's assuming a bent electoral system with first past the post.
Fossil fuel is stuff that's been stored up over a long time, so when you burn it you are letting out all the the CO2 that's been saved up all that time, millions of years worth in a few short decades. So, for example, cow shit isn't a fossil fuel, nor is straw. Burn it while it's fresh, you're just recycling what's up there already, it's just an indirect way of using the sun's energy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Troll Date: 03 Apr 01 - 02:14 PM Naemanson, an extremely cheap shot but I guess I left the possibility open. Too bad you couldn't resist. Mastrubation is a perfectly normal activity and is engaged in by all the primates and some other mammals. Mutual mastrubation can be fun with the right person. What I was refering to was the mental exercise of, to use another cliche,"Preaching to the choir". Everyone says the politically correct thing on a subject and everyone feels GOOD because they have STOOD TALL and been COUNTED by God! And for 99.9% that's as far as it ever goes. That's what I'm critical of; all smoke and no fire. I saw it al through the '60's and '70's with the anti-war movement and, so far, I'm seeing it again. BTW, Does anyone think that environmentally aware citizens in Alaska should refuse their yearly stipend as a protest to the Alaska Pipeline and the North Slope oil wells? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: mousethief Date: 03 Apr 01 - 06:52 PM jeffp, I don't think I see how density applies; the real question is volume. Does the volume increase with temperature (assuming no state change)? If this is the case, then my question is withdrawn. But then I ask another one: isn't volume increasing with temperature the same thing as saying "compressible"? If not, why not?
Alex
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: mousethief Date: 03 Apr 01 - 06:52 PM Oh, by the way: wouldn't Louisiana go under before Florida? Much of it is already below sea level. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: dick greenhaus Date: 03 Apr 01 - 07:10 PM Mousethief: Water does expand when heated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: mousethief Date: 03 Apr 01 - 08:30 PM Well I'll be. Knew I shoulda taken Chemistry in college. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Apr 01 - 08:50 PM And water expands when it freezes too - that's why the sea and the lakes don't freeze from the bottom up, and we aren't all dead. Magic stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kyoto: Was US right to ditch the deal? From: Troll Date: 04 Apr 01 - 02:33 AM I heard somewhere- possibly from Skeptic- that in order to supply the worlds current electricity needs using solar power, we would have to cover the entire earths surface (including oceans) with solar panels. Wind power only works in places where the wind blows steadily. I know of farms on the Isle of Man that use wind power for all their electrical needs and sell power back to the grid. This works well for small operations in a rural seting but to supply energy to an urban area using wind power would require an incredible amount of land on which to plant the wind-mills. troll |
|
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 |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:24 PM sensible conservative thinking - kind of an oxymoron that! |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST Date: 06 Apr 01 - 08:11 PM ? |
|
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: 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: 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: GUEST Date: 09 Apr 01 - 10:03 AM Wow....Hi
Bush 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... |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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. (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?
--I personally believe calling someone "passive-aggressive" is itself VERY passive-aggressive.
There is nothing passive about me, jerk.
|
|
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: 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: 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: Skeptic Date: 11 Apr 01 - 01:33 PM Continued |
|
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!
|