Long lives the birds !!

Intresting story LOD. Unfortunatly it is not the situation.

The situation is more like this:

267 guys live in a pond, the pond gets dirty 266 of the guys decide that the other guy will pay for cleaning it because they said so.

The US uses approximately 25% of the energy in the world with 6% of the world's population. That is what I meant by disproportionate.

This isn't a political issue unless politicians make it one, it is a life or death situation that everybody should be concerned about.

I agree with Bush when he says something I agree with, which is very rare.

The Kyoto accord asks for each nation to do its own part in cleaning up the problem, not to clean up other's mess.

China is a rogue nation, much like the US. They do what they want, much like the US. They have a big enough military and nuclear capability to thumb their noses at the rest of the world, just like the US. They need to clean up their industries and so does the US.

i am sorry but the argument that everyone else wants to have the USA pay for everything is the stupidest thing i have heard... whenever i hear or read about this stuff its usually a worldwide kind of effort...for anyone to even say...something like everyone wants the US to pay...come on...thats crazy however like mog says things are disproportionate really.

Last Edited : Thursday, 7 July 2005 - 19:24

UB
admittedly I don't know all there is to know about Kyoto but I did read that the US would be expected to refurbish old power plants due soon to become obsolete at a cost of trillions over a 15 year period while EU countries wouldn't have to do that but instead they could earn credits by investing in new facilities in new member states without having to do anything to their old facilities.

Also I still think that in a few years there will be a natural reversal of the warming trend with continued deep snowfalls until it gets so cold that the air doesn't hold enough moisture to allow more than very fine light dry flurries. That will be about twelve years from now and then the solar cycle will start to go in reverse again but it will be still another ten years to get where we are now (i.e. a total of about 22 years) with the warming trend starting again about 16 years from now. It may be as I said that there may be a definite overall increase in temperature in spite of the fact that we are heading into the more cool half of the cycle but I definitely think that we will be experiencing much longer colder winters naturally for a good 12 to 15 years soon.

TR

"Seems that the right doesn't want to pay attention to any reputable scientists on this issue." - Mog

"The USA decided not to follow the Kyoto protocols, almost alone in the world." - Mog

"...since the Federal government is implacably opposed to ANY environmental concerns." - Mog

These are politically charged statements (especially the first one), the last of which is a paraphrase at least of someone else, but the others are direct from you. Please tell me again how this isn't a political issue more than anything else?

"The people who profit from pollution don't want to have to cut back on the greenhouse gas emissions." - Mog

This also could in many ways be considered politically motivated, in-so-far as the right DOES have its hands a bit to deep in the pockets of the energy business.

Well I spoke too soon except this storm did come through quite low below Cuba and was heading toward Mexico but is now expected to turn north towards Louisiana and Mississippi.
It is quite hot through our mid-west I guess is the reason but we are cool toward the NE coast after a heavy all day rain.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161937,00.html

TR

I said it SHOULDN"T be a political issue, but everything IS a political issue, so there we go. I just wish it WASN'T a political issue! It should be studied and acted on in a bi-partisan way. The party of the rich won't accept anything that might lessen their riches, even if it means they will eventually lose them to disaster, that is shortsighted thinking.

Mog - "The Kyoto accord asks for each nation to do its own part in cleaning up the problem, not to clean up other's mess."

Unfortunately this is NOT true. The Kyoto protocol asks the US to cut back along with the "industrialized" nations. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. (Amazingly, they quickly signed the agreement...go figure)

In the next 4 years, China will become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in absolute terms. More, they produce 65% of their electricity by burning unwashed coal, they have 7 of the top 10 most polluted cities on the planet according to the WHO, and they have no incentive to change this since they are a dictatorship.

Please explain how it makes sense to cut our economic progress which is likely to produce an actual solution to the problem.

Please explain how it makes sense to exempt the soon-to-be largest producer from this highly-regarded plan to fix the problem.

Please explain how it is better to penalize the US because then we will get those evil, greedy rich people to lose some money and give the evil, greedy, communist dictators (who also happen to be rich) a complete pass.

Many of you are old enough to remember all the pollution scares across the US in the 60s and 70s...oddly these all seem to get fixed through investment, invention, and some political action. Our air and water gets cleaner each year. Not in China.

How on earth does it make any sense to penalize the countries where investment, invention, and political action are prized and reward countries that suppress these vital ingredients to true solutions being found and implemented? There is no accountability, lack of protection for intellectual property rights, rampant patent theft, and abolition of all political dissent in China. They will continue to make the problem worse and never be part of the solution...that is one reason Kyoto is fatally flawed.

The efforts of the G-8 are moving in the right direction. Find a concensus and work toward real meaningful solutions that all can agree on and participate in. No arbitrary targets that will be ignored by most countries anyway.
Cheers,
H.

"Many of you are old enough to remember all the pollution scares across the US in the 60s and 70s...oddly these all seem to get fixed through investment, invention, and some political action. Our air and water gets cleaner each year." Exactly right, sir.

The political action's that occurred were called the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

GOVERNMENT actions, not private ones.

Oddly enough, I agree Kyoto was highly flawed as well. China should not be allowed to pollute, makes no sense whatsoever.

sam,
Are you suggesting the government developed the scrubbers that were installed on industrial smokestacks? Or that government found new methods to cut the effluent from many industrial processes?

It was industry, not government that enabled the problems to be solved.

The political acts were prods to force the industries to implement the fixes, but if there was no profitable way to do it, the industries would have just gone out of business. It is the combination of responsive government and profitable private industry that is the key. That combination does not exist in China.

Glad to have your agreement on the Kyoto issue.
Cheers,
H.

That's a chicken and the egg argument that doesn't need to occur here, you answered yourself at any rate.

Given Kyoto is so flawed, what is the answer then? Do nothing? I do not believe private industry will ever do anything on their own as it is not profitable to reduce greenhouse gasses. Do we ignore it? That seems to be the Bush administration stance, in fact they seem to be hell-bent to weaken existing air and water pollution controls as much as possible.

Bush recently admitted global warming is real. Maybe that suggests a shift, though I'm highly pessimistic.

China needs to be held accountable for its pollution, of course. I don't know how to do that except perhaps by boycott of their goods.

Buy Swedish!

Here is a short bit on the agreement made at the G-8 summit:

The G-8 communique, signed by all eight leaders, calls climate change "a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. We know that the increased need and use of energy from fossil fuels, and other human activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of our Earth's surface."

The acknowledgement represents an incremental shift for Bush, who previously has emphasized that the causes behind global warming require further study.

Even so, Bush administration officials moved the other G-8 leaders to accept soft language in the communique that avoids prolonged discussion of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement that calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. Every G-8 nation except the United States has signed that document.

The communique lays out a 10-page "plan of action" that lists pledges to make progress in promoting energy efficiency, conservation and cleaner fuels, but contains no target measures or timetables for progress.

The statement declares that "while uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases."

The G-8 nations will meet again in Canada on Nov. 1 to discuss climate change. Blair said five emerging powers - Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa - had agreed to work together with G-8 to combat global warming.

-----
Agreeing there is a problem...agreeing smart solutions need to be found...building a 10-page plan of action...meeting again in Nov to discuss the issue further along with 5 emerging powers. Seems like good progress to me.

Next, they might even get China to join them?!?
Cheers,
H.

China?? No way. You mean the largets pollution making nation on earth?

How's this idea?
Start a bucket brigade from Tripoli to the center of the Sahara.

cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/07/09/1124351-ap.html

TR

"I just wish it WASN'T a political issue" - Mog

Then please don't bring it up in a political context. This is similar to your frequent stance that you believe we need to remove hate from the world (which I agree with), but then you turn around and make statements like "I hate GWB". Well, ok, why don't you start working on you then?

I agree with you that we have a pollution problem. What I don't agree is that it is an 'imminent threat' that needs our full, complete, immediate attention - it is not a drop all else and solve this NOW problem. It needs to be worked on, and it is being worked on. End of story.

I don't remember saying I hate GWB, I just despise him.
I reserve hate for those I love.

My apologies Mog for misquoting you. 10/4/2004 in topic general chit chat topic of "DEBATE" you stated: "I loathe and despise GW."

I don't see that there is significant difference between hate and 'loathe and despise' though.

Definitions for despise:
To regard with contempt or scorn.
To dislike intensely; loathe.
To regard as unworthy of one's interest or concern.

And for hate:
To feel hostility or animosity toward.
To detest.

I do concede that "hostility towards" is slightly 'stronger' language than the definitions for despise in that it implies a tendancy towards action.

I guess it is in the way I define hate. I have to really care about someone, or have intimate contact with them such that I could feel either a strong emotion such as love or hate. I don't "love" people I don't know personally. To despise is as you said, scornful. I can feel that way toward any number of people I don't know. Like Pro wrestlers or Jerry Springer.

I just got the latest issue of Popular Science magazine and they have 6 ideas on the drawing boards to reduce global warming if it does become a factor that requires immediate attention.

Here they are basicly:

1) pump CO2 out of the air and into oil bearing rock like shale to force out the oil and leave some Co2 entrapped in the rock

2) use filter stations to filter CO2 from the air

3) fertilize the oceans with iron particles to induce huge fields of plankton growth that feed on CO2 and provide food for marine life

4) mix CO2 with other minerals to cause a chemical change to produce limestone like rock

5) huge unmanned floats out on the oceans that generate enough power to release a fine spray of salt water high enough to cause cloud formation that will reflect sunlight

6) last but not least is the ultimate solution if all else fails and is a 600,000 sq. mile orbiting mirror made of very fine aluminum wire to reflect some of the infrared radiation from the sun.

TR