because i couldnt be bothered to look for the old thread. anyways…
news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … imate_dc_3
THe sky is falling Down! the White House has changed its stance. Now Fred Smith must Repent!
Oh my goodness! Oh dear! You are so right!
Now, there is an indication that human activity “may” be responsible for “some” global warming. Did anyone dispute that? BUT is it primarily responsible for global warming? Also, given that under Kyoto, economies will lose billions to stave off said global warming by six years in the next century, is it worth it? Given that global warming also occurred during the 1100s to 1400s, during the absence of such human activity, then what are we to make of this? Finally, the Max Planck institute in Germany has said that increased activity on the sun’s surface is responsible for global warming. So, now given all of this, do you confidently squander billions to satisfy the envirobrigade or do we keep growing and thus improve living standards in nations such as China or India to the point where they become more environmentally responsible and environmentally conscious?
I am with those that wonder why the concerned enviros are not spending more to fight malaria, or build wells for clean drinking water in Africa which would have a far greater impact on these people’s lives. Oh but brown people don’t matter. What matters is living in some esoteric world with sandals and dope and no corporations because they are EVIL and responsible for social inequality in Latin America as well as oppressing Muslim women.
The American way to dealing with problems is to invent something that advances and improves rather than penalizes and restricts. See recent improvements by Americans and Japanese in superconductive wiring that may reduce greenhouse gases and power consumptiion considerably while reducing demand for copper.
[quote=“fred smith”]
I am with those that wonder why the concerned enviros are not spending more to fight malaria, or build wells for clean drinking water in Africa which would have a far greater impact on these people’s lives. [/quote]
Are these mutualy exclusive with Kyoto etc?
And considering how much you are spending in Iraq to prevent a threat that may or may not have existed and may or may not have come to fruition in the future, why is it so silly to think about the possible threat of human actions to the environment. And aren’t you yanks meant to be the most resilient and adabptable people on the plannet. Surely you’ll have solutions to the restrictions created by Kyoto in no time, as long as you have the right incentives. 
BB:
First of all, most people cannot accurately say that humans are responsible for global warming. They believe that carbon dioxide emissions are to blame but then cannot account for the warm spell back in the 1100s to 1500s which is comparable with what is going on right now.
Then, Kyoto will have huge economic costs and for what? It may (if implemented ideally) it MAY postpone global warming by six years in the next 100. May. Doesn’t include all the biggest future polluters like China and India and I believe that it was crafted by the French to specifically punish nations such as the US which are much more widespread and more dependent on oil and gas. Do we get to count our “sinks” in this? why not? Or better yet, what if we stop looking at TOTAL emissions and start looking at per square mile emissions. Then, let’s go back with that proposal and see what our European counterparts have to say? What do you think the answer will be?
Until then, my money is on improved technology which has not even been factored into the Kyoto treaty. Are we supposed to assume that given the great improvements that have made the ozone hole a non-issue (strange how that went away so quickly huh?) and then the acid rain problem (don’t hear much about that these days either) then perhaps we will not have a global warming problem in another 10 years but I guarantee you it will be something else. These environmental and research organizations much like their social welfare counterparts and starvation experts NEED crises or their organizations do not survive. It is that simple. I have worked with many on public relations campaigns and most of this is hyped up to continue generate revenue. Is there a problem? Sure. Is it as serious as it is made out to be? Not even close.
FS
I think that here you are doing the exact opposite of what you advocated doing in Iraq. You seem to want to believe the ‘Scott Ritters’ of the global warming debate. BTW as for the link with reducing poverty, and interesting new report from a number of aid groups http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3756642.stm
And as for technology, that is all well and good, but why not give industry a bit more of an incentive to chase down these new technologies sooner rather than later?
Bush tried to revise the Clean Air Act to do precisely that. Many big polluters were holding off using old equipment because as soon as they upgraded they were going to have to meet very stringent requirements for clean air. Bush figured, heck any improvement is better than none. That is not the way that the “environmentalists” see it.
I believe that there is global warming but I doubt that humans are mostly responsible for it. Given that the ozone hole and other such “scares” have come and gone and given my knowledge of the NGOs that work on these issues (it’s about not getting a real job more often than not) then I have to say I am not very sympathetic.
global warming and typhoon
i wonder if there is a connection
[quote=“fred smith”]Bush tried to revise the Clean Air Act to do precisely that. Many big polluters were holding off using old equipment because as soon as they upgraded they were going to have to meet very stringent requirements for clean air. Bush figured, heck any improvement is better than none. That is not the way that the “environmentalists” see it.
I believe that there is global warming but I doubt that humans are mostly responsible for it. Given that the ozone hole and other such “scares” have come and gone and given my knowledge of the NGOs that work on these issues (it’s about not getting a real job more often than not) then I have to say I am not very sympathetic.[/quote]
Since Bush’s term, the US’ commitment to clean air standards and upgrading of industrial facilities has backpedaled. This hurts not only the health of people living in the US, as well as affecting the air quality of its neighbours ie everyone to varying degree, but ironically, also hurts U.S. economy in the long term. Ironically, because Bush has always defended his environmental policy as protecting the strength of U.S. economy.
Then why the dichotomy? Because Bush is short-sighted. He does not plan for the long term, but only cares about the short-term benefits, which he can also benefit from in the short term.
One only has to look at EU policy. Companies there are upgrading their industrial facilities to be more “green”. What these companies are also finding is, that this retrofitting, though requiring an initial investment costs, results in long-term returns i.e. increased efficiency that results in real dollar benefits. Not only is the company saving money, it also has a better image. This also has far-reaching effects on everyone else. Think less pollution means less respiratory problems, means less health problems. This translates into less sick days, more worker productivity, and less healthcare costs from tax dollars and personal money, ie resources can be diverted to better uses. Overall, this can help create a stronger economy and healthier population. In fact, several multinationals (BP Amoco may be one of them) who, having undergone this change in the EU and recognize its benefits, now do so voluntarily in the U.S., because it saves them money in the long term, and makes them more stronger and competitive.
If Bush has his way, in 10 years or so, we shall see the seeds of his folly. The US economy will not be as strong, because of its aging infrastructure, as cf. to EU (and perhaps China whose new infrastructure can leapfrog old technologies entirely).
JB:
Prove it. Prove that American companies are not upgrading. Prove that Europeans are ahead. Prove that the companies Bush allowed to upgrade without complying with the Clean Air Act standards would have upgraded those facilities (thus improving emissions to some extent) if Bush had not allowed them this allowance. I dare you. Prove it. Get me a link. Get me an article. These factories had 20 years to upgrade and chose not to because it would not have been economical for them. BUT they did choose to make the improvements because Bush allowed them this leniency. Any improvement is better than none surely or are you too bureaucratic to see that?
Also care to update us on just how the French, the Italians, the Dutch oh and say the British are doing on meeting their commitments under the Kyoto Treaty? Say, how they are on target and even exceeding their commitments because of their devotion to clean air and all that. Can you? Would you?
[quote=“fred smith”]JB:
Prove it. Prove that American companies are not upgrading. Prove that Europeans are ahead. Prove that the companies Bush allowed to upgrade without complying with the Clean Air Act standards would have upgraded those facilities (thus improving emissions to some extent) if Bush had not allowed them this allowance. I dare you. Prove it. Get me a link. Get me an article. These factories had 20 years to upgrade and chose not to because it would not have been economical for them. BUT they did choose to make the improvements because Bush allowed them this leniency. Any improvement is better than none surely or are you too bureaucratic to see that?
Also care to update us on just how the French, the Italians, the Dutch oh and say the British are doing on meeting their commitments under the Kyoto Treaty? Say, how they are on target and even exceeding their commitments because of their devotion to clean air and all that. Can you? Would you?[/quote]
nya nya nya, prove me wrong. google it. haha. :bravo:
[quote=“Grateful Dead”]
Please don’t dominate the rap, Jack
If you’ve got nothing new to say
If you please don’t back up the track
This train got to run today[/quote]
Sorry. I’ve just always wanted to respond to one of your posts with this. Your above post seemed as good as any to use this.
So where’s the outrage and the UK ain’t the only one…
[quote]UK ‘failing on greenhouse gases’
UK targets to cut greenhouse gases are now unlikely to be met, the government is set to admit on Wednesday. Friends of the Earth says Tony Blair will reveal they are falling short when a public consultation on the five-year climate change programme is unveiled. The UK is pledged to cut carbon dioxide levels to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 but FoE says UK emissions are currently just 7.5% less than 14 years ago. [/quote]
Any comments regarding these nations which continue to flout international law and sensibilities? After all, the US never agreed to sign Kyoto. These nations did. So how’re they doing? Not very well. Any front page headlines for these failures. Nahhhh.
What makes you think the ozone hole has “gone”? It’s still with us Fred, and it’s huge. All of Antarctica lies under the ozone hole, and it reaches all the way up to the southern tip of South America. And the ozone hole is still increasing in size.
A very nice, well-presented history of the ozone hole can be found here:
I suggest everyone read it. Especially you, Fred.
have a nice day,
DB
Dog’s Breakfast:
Let me clarify. My point about the ozone hole is not that it is gone but it is strangely absent from the media these days. Why? If it was a problem 10 years ago and it was a problem of grave proportions, why isn’t it still front-page news today? Why?
Yes, the ozone hole exists, but was it ever the problem that it was made out to be by environmental groups? If so, why not the coverage that “global warming” is getting?
My main concern is that I have seen how many of these “environmental” groups work. I do not trust their statements or policies. I do not trust what they say or their “facts.”
I have seen several scientific reports on the subject. All have said that the globe is warming but no one to my knowledge has proven that this stems DIRECTLY from man-made gases. There have been several such warmings and coolings in the Earth’s history. Can we even stop global warming if in fact it is caused by humans? AND is global warming necessarily a bad thing?
If in fact the global warming is being caused by humans, why were Greenland, Iceland, Labrador and England et al much warmer during the period from 800 to say 1500 and why did the Earth cool so much from 1500 to 1900? and given that as recently as 1978 to 1982, many scientists were predicting a new Ice Age why is it that we can be so sure that they are right this time? I mean meteorologists cannot even predict the weather for tomorrow but we are supposed to engage in massive economic dislocation just because they say in 100 years things will be thus?
Finally, rather than the economic dislocation, why not allow nations to develop and then generate the wealth needed to better deal with environmental problems. Look at Europe and the US. London for example has never had such a clean environment or at least not since the 1300s when the population was much smaller. The Thames is the cleanest it has been since this period. What if we allow China and India to develop and thus clean themselves up in the process. Look at what happened in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan. Was anyone here 20 years ago? Do you remember how bad things were? Do you see the progress that has been made since then environmentally?
What if in the next 100 years we developed an alternative to fossil fuels. Could anyone have predicted 100 years ago that we would have nuclear power, solar power, wind power, etc.? I believe that human ingenuity will deliver some fascinating and valuable new technology in the next 10 years, who can therefore imagine what we will have in the next 100?
Well we have some wonderful technological advances going on with fusion energy but some political ambitions are keeping the project from going ahead. Anyone want to guess who is to blame? Anyone? Are you sure?
Why does everything always have to go France’s way or get held up? They should have a vote on the project by all the other actors to move this to Japan and then kick the fucking French off the project if they are so insistent that everything has to always go the French way. If it is going to be always “my way or the highway” tell the French to get in their cars. Fuckers!
Greetings Fred. Just can’t resist this debate - global warming is my pet issue:
[quote=“fred smith”]Dog’s Breakfast:
Let me clarify. My point about the ozone hole is not that it is gone but it is strangely absent from the media these days. Why? If it was a problem 10 years ago and it was a problem of grave proportions, why isn’t it still front-page news today? Why?
[/quote]
It might have something to do with the fact that a consensus has been reached and the problem is being firmly dealt with. CFCs (the chemicals responsible for creating the ozone hole) are no longer being manufactured due to international agreement. Most industries have switched to HCFCs which cause just 5% of the damage that CFCs do. And HCFCs are now being phased out too:
epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html
So even though ozone depletion will be with us for another 50 years or so, the problem looks close to being solved. I think it’s fair to say that the Montreal Protocol has been a great success.
Compare that to the Kyoto Protocol, which the USA, China, and many other major polluting countries reject. And Kyoto is, at best, just a small first step - as you’ve already mentioned, it will only put a tiny dent in carbon dioxide emissions. And we can’t even get a consensus that carbon dioxide pollution is a problem - about half the world is still in denial.
Scientists, at least, are not in denial - they seem to be nearly unanimous:
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f … /5702/1686
Here’s another nice short read if you have the time:
ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000 … kt-hgf-t4c
Happy weekend, Fred
Yours truly,
DB
Since Fred thinks the ozone depletion problem is a figment of the left-wing, environmenta soci-nazi libertarian movement, why not have him live in this town for a few years.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4082531.stm
So if it’s caused by humans, let’s just roll over and shove it under the rug. play hot potato with it, and not deal with it head-on? wunderful.
Did not say that the ozone hole was not a problem. I said that it was no longer a media issue and I wanted to know why. Thank you DB for offering a plausible explanation.
Check out this week’s Economist. Studies done by development specialists showed that stopping global warming did not even reach their top 10. The costs of stopping it would be US$150 billion per year for the next 100 years and ONLY AFTER these 100 years would the “benefits” of staving off US$500 billion in costs from global warming kick in. So US$150 billion x 100 and then for each year after this, the US$150 billion must still be paid though there are “predicted” benefits (marginal) of US$500 billion in “possible” savings from an improved environment. The total net benefit of all this: Perhaps, maybe, total global warming will be put off by six years in the next 100. Perhaps the US$500 billion will not be completely delivered as a benefit AND most scientist still cannot predict the weather tomorrow with complete accuracy but they are going to do so for 100 years hence? Right…