BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Kim C
Date: 29 Jun 01 - 05:36 PM

Or Tennessee. Depends on how humid you want it. And I don't have any air conditioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jun 01 - 03:44 PM

You want summer, annamill? Come to Arizona. You'll get LOTS of summer! :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: annamill
Date: 29 Jun 01 - 02:17 PM

About this global warming thing.. I just want it to get just warm enough for me to have summer all year long, like Cali. Then I wouldn't have to move.

**BG**

Love, annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jun 01 - 12:46 PM

Glad you recognized my remark in the way it was intended, RobDale; humor.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Kim C
Date: 29 Jun 01 - 09:48 AM

Sure, you can burn newspaper in a woodstove, but it burns so quickly it doesn't add to the heat, so you'd still end up using the same amount of firewood.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jun 01 - 09:32 AM

I think you are on to something there Doug! There is very little vegitation in Canada's far north particularly in the Arctic Archepelago (sic). If golbal warming were to turn this into a rainforest, An area roughly twice the size of Brazil, then the carbon balance in the atmosphere would be restored and we would not have to worry about global warming!

Take me back to my bamboo shack on beautiful Ellsmere Island

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jun 01 - 01:40 AM

Any gas or oil there, Robdale? **BG**

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From:
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 11:56 PM

Global Warming, th "yes" campaign.

Ya can't wrap fish in Public Radio
Papers would be better made from Hemp
Tax every one you want to make the air cleaner
As long as I am exempt

The world really needs to clean itsself up
But not in my back yard
That would be way too hard

I won't ratify
I won't ratify
Cause it don't satisfy me
You can go clean the rest of the world
But let my country be

The glaciers are gettting smaller
The ice cap is going away
There's gonna be palm trees in Canada
And I can't wait for that day
You may not want it warmer
But you don't speak for me
Canada's winter should be
seventy five degrees

I won't ratify
I won't ratify
Cause it don't satisfy me
You can go clean the rest of the world
But let my country be

Think of all the new real estate on Baffin Island!

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 11:26 PM

Here's some more on the European Union's decision to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

The moderator was Terence Smith.

The panel was...

Terry Anderson - Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, and Executive Director, Political Economy Research Center

Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin - Republican Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Joe Romm - Executive Director, Center for Energy and Climate Solutions

Svend Auken - Denmark's Minister of Environment and Energy

Svend Auken, "It was not quite true what was said that none of us had ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In my country, just two weeks ago, ninety percent... conservatives, social democrats, everybody... ninety percent of all the members of Parliament decided to ratify the Kyoto protocol, but in Europe, we can only ratify it all together, and we will do so when the rules of the game have been set up."

Terence Smith, "So the process is not entirely complete, but it's on the way..."

Svend Auken, "The Parliament has made it's decision. It has assented....Technically, we cannot ratify it before the rules have been written down and that's why we are meeting in Bonn, to write down the rules. After that, then Europe will ratify it. And we are committed to ratifying it before the meeting in Johannesburg, ten years after Rio. So it will happen."

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 10:15 PM

More than one has said that there are no easy answers. I can see the effects of global warming on the glaciers within an hours drive of me, I know that a number of animals and insects are extending their ranges north, and the temperature curves are inclined upward. Are we affecting the climate or is the change the result of changes in our solar system and the wobbling of the earth on its axis? Pollution is a serious problem in many areas, but some of the attempts to improve the situation are poorly thought out. The Kyoto "agreement" is badly flawed because the pollution clouds over areas such as China, not included in the accord, are among the most serious. Our rail system is poor; much of out cross-country transport went to the truckers as a result. Automobile engines are much more efficient today- I remember the cars of my childhood which were exceptional if they got 10-12 miles to the gallon- but we will continue to drive until public transit improves (no one will vote in the changes because they are taxed enough already). And so on and on ...

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 08:50 PM

Some folk would probably say it tasted better too, Carol C. :>)

Rob: I wasn't being serious, just funning you.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 07:08 PM

Public Television's pretty good, too. Although paper would be much more environmentally friendly if it were made from hemp.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: MAV
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 06:47 PM

Just think how much environmental damage, waste, pollution and needless misdirection of human energy is caused by the entire NEWSPAPER cycle:

from clearcutting the Maine woods, to dioxin in the Maine rivers from the papermaking process, to the diesel fueled stinky big trucks, to the disgusting landfills everywhere.

Shame on the politically correct NY Times et al.

Not a clean American industry.

I'll continue to get my news online.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 06:14 PM

DougR I guess it adds to pollution, but not quite as much as if he threw out the paper and used that much firewood. I don't have any hard data.

I don't hold much hope for a political solution. The same thing is happening as killed the fishing industry back home in Newfoundland. Globaly it is better if everyone conserves. But economically, each country which conserves by itsself is at a disadvantage.

Bush has to answer to the voters. I guess the voters need to be persuaded. I think it would have to be a project on the scale of the Apollo moon landings or mobilizing the country to fight a global war.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 06:06 PM

(Hi MAV. How's it going?)

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: MAV
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 05:19 PM

BRIEFLY!

A. Has your nation signed the Kyoto treaty?

B. The US Senate by 95 to 0 rejected it. (dems too)

C. Romania HAS signed it.

D. American industry is among if not THE cleanest.

(Hi Carol)

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 04:57 PM

Ok. Here's the first part. On the subject of the European Union's position on the ratification of the Kyoto treaty, and President Bush's response to it...

On day three of his European tour, Bush was in Gothenburg, Sweden for a meeting with the leaders of the European Union's 15 member nations.

In the streets, thousands demonstrated against the president's rejection of the Kyoto treaty, a 1997 agreement that would commit countries to reduce greenhouse emissions. The president has argued that the treaty was wrong to exempt developing nations like China and India, and would hurt the U.S. economically.

That stance has been criticized by European leaders, and in a press conference Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, the current EU president, said that the two sides had agreed to disagree. (He said,) "The European Union will stick to the Kyoto protocol, and go for a ratification process. The U.S. has chosen another policy. But we have the same targets. And we have to meet the same problems. Climate change is not isolated to Europe, or to America. It's a global (fact?). So never the less, if you are in favor or against the Kyoto protocol, you have to take action. So we agreed to disagree about substance, but agreed to go on with some type of procedure that can lead us back to a position that we can cooperate and try to support each other. We will call for personal representatives to follow up our discussion and that will mean that we send a signal that we (will) go on ahead with the Kyoto protocol, the American government (will) go on ahead with their policy."

President Bush: "As the Prime Minister said, we don't agree on the Kyoto treaty, but we do agree that climate change is a serious issue, and we must work together. We believe that our economies can grow and at the same time come up with climate change solutions."

In fact, no EU country has yet ratified Kyoto although more than thirty smaller nations have done so. EU commission president Romano Prodi was asked 'why not'. "There is no one single country who has declared not to ratify it. The ratification process has started already in some countries and is going on, and there is no one message of refusal or delay of ratification."

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 02:10 PM

Doesn't that add to pollution, RobDale? :>)

I find myself in agreement with Kim C. There is just too much good evidence on both sides to really know which is right.

I referred earlier to the Fox News Network show when they were featuring a debate on global warming. There were to "experts" on the show. One said global warming was a real threat, and the other said it wasn't. Both had good credentials and about all they did for the whole show was disagree with each other.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be environmentally responsible, of course, but maybe for reasons other than the threat of global warming.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 12:59 PM

My father "recycles" his newspaper through his woodstove.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Kim C
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 12:27 PM

I am skeptical about the whole thing. Each side has "facts" which proves they alone are right. I am trying to keep an open mind on the issue. I agree that most people are probably not as environmentally responsible as they should be; however sometimes we are limited as to what we can each do as individuals. Geography and economics may prevent us from doing all we'd like.

I'd like to have solar panels in my house. But they cost money.

I'd like to have an extry little car to drive around town when I don't need the Jeep. But that costs money too and I can only afford one car payment.

I live in a house with no central heat or air. I have a woodstove, and several fans. I compost my food scraps. I recycle my newspapers... but that's another one. There is now no longer a recycling center in my part of town.

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 08:26 PM

I have a segment from a 'News Hour With Jim Leherer' (sp?) on video tape that deals with the issue of global warming. I don't know the date, because I didn't tape the beginning of the show, but it aired some time in the last couple of weeks. The segment addresses some of the issues that have been brought up on this thread and the previous one. I'm going to transcribe the relevant parts and post them. This is going to take me a little while, so I will probably post them later tonight or tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 07:32 PM

Northfolk: I assume you did not intentionally fail to add an "s" to persons in your post, is so?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 03:07 PM

Aye. There's the rub.

I heard a few years ago that the main reason for the boom is SUV's was the Gas guzzler tax in California. Cars were taxed extra based upon gas consumption and truck and SUV's were not. Therefore consmers and manufacturers flocked to trucks and SUV's. A 5,000 pound SUV is still going to consume more fuel in driving and more materials in the construction than a 2,500 pound car. If America were to encourage more people to switch to fuel efficient cars as of today. It would still loose out because foreign companies dominate the low end of the market. Jobs would be exported the economy would suffer. Switch to public transport? Almost impossible to do with the current infrastructure and lifestyles in spread out Cities like LA , in the smaller cities and in the suburbs.

It would take a complete change in outlook for millions of people. Can the government legislate this? Can they commit to it in international treaties?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:36 PM

If they're commercially licensed, fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:34 PM

Exempt full sized pickups used for commercial purposes from the energy tax, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: northfolk/al cholger
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:19 PM

I think that the trade off in jobs versus the environment is an issue that unnecessarily divides us. Ostensibly for every SUV we don't make there will be a commensurate job loss... that could be mitigated by the production of (1) mass transit systems, (2) alternate fuel vehicles, (3) smaller more efficient fossil fuel based vehicles. One other consideration... When the public interest is served by disrupting the economy, a public works program of equivalent scale ought to be considered...model it after the G.I. bill of rights, after world war II, and apply it to workers who lose their jobs due to nuclear plant shutdowns chemical plant shutdowns changes in the tobacco based farm economy shutdown of the monstrous insurance industry, as we experience useful movement toward health care reform.

And, to George Bush and the one other person, who still doesn't accept Global warming as fact, quit being ideological syncophants, quit halting progress and harming people, and get the hell out of the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: MMario
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:18 PM

"should" not "have to"

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:15 PM

If they tax full-size trucks and SUVs they will have to tax every vehicle with an engine larger than 4 cylinders.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:02 PM

I think, Rob Dale, that is one of the aspects President Bush is taking into account when he says the implemention of the Treaty would create economic hardships. I know that will not be a valid argument to many here at the Mudcat, but I can't see how it cannot.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 12:27 PM

An energy tax on full sized pickups and SUV's would make a huge difference in Canada and the US. I don't know how many people come to work everyday in a vehicle with enough Steel and motor to haul 20 or 30 people. The waste is astounding. But then again, they are the most profitable sector of the North American auto market. Think of all the jobs. The solutions are not simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: mooman
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 10:19 AM

Refresh

Subject: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
From: mooman
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 04:42 AM

At CarolC's suggestion, here is a fresh thread (the orginal was over 150 long) for those who would like to continue the discussion.

Here's a blueclickablethingy to the original thread.