Mick, that’s interesting. The PDF I’ve got (only hard copy now - it’s no longer on my PC), the quote I’ve given is amongst some abstracts and summaries. What I quoted above is the entirety of what he says in my copy - nothing before, nothing after.
~note to self - don’t delete PDF links, even if they’re a few years old, they may come in handy~
While it may or may not be the determing factor, at 5.5 gigatons or 11,000,000,000,000 pounds of freaking smog per year (what does a pound of smog look like anyway?) it would seem to be the one variable that we have some control over, unless of course Eienstein there can devise some way to control magnetic flux on the sun.
While it may or may not be the determing factor, at 5.5 gigatons or 11,000,000,000,000 pounds of freaking smog per year it would seem to be the one variable that we have some control over, unless of course Eienstein there can devise some way to control magnetic flux on the sun.[/quote]
Thats a point many are overlooking here. Debating whether or not the planet is actually warming or not and who is to blame takes away from the very real problem that either way, we are breathing in too much shit and it’s not getting better.
Bingo.
The earth “is” getting warmer. Human activity “is” to blame, in part, if not completely, more likley completely, and the economic sacrifices that would be required to fight it sound more like a walk down a lovely tree lined avenue with no looming danger larger than a horse or a bicycle to endanger our lives to many of us. Naturally the evil smegmum contingent chooses to frame the debate in terms other than this but it won’t work.
Bob:
Why if you oh so love those treelined avenues did you move to Taipei? I am assuming that it was mostly for economic reasons. YOU are one of the people contributing to the smog in this city. It is not one person engaging in massive smog-generating activities but a individuals multiplied by millions. Now, economic development is key to providing people with the kinds of lives that they want, the kind that enrich their existence not only in terms of material possessions but in the ability to make the choices that give them the identity that they have. So here you are pontificating about how the evil smegmum (you do have a fascination with parts of the anatomy don’t you?) are out to ruin the world, but you studiously refuse to acknowledge that your very existence here with the very life you have HERE is the problem not some SUV driving housewife who shops at Kmart and refuses to eat granola. You are closer to that housewife than not you know. It is the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world are leading better, more fulfilled lives that has led to increased greenhouse gas emissions BUT this eventually has also led to much cleaner air and water in the developed world. Imagine life in Vancouver 100 years ago. I guarantee you that conditions are much better and the environment is much cleaner NOW. Are there more cars? Yes, but there are fewer horses filling the streets with shit. There are rules about logging companies dumping waste into water, there are fewer farms allowing cattle piss and shit to enter water supplies, and on and on and on. So get off this holier than thou kick that you are not contributing to global warming and that only evil corporations are and that somehow these evil corporations only can be punished and made to foot the tab and that this will not have hugely disproportionately negative effects on quality of life issues for billions of people.
I think the suburban housewife who drives an SUV and refuses to eat granola is a bigger problem than me although it it is true, if I were a “real” environmentalist I would commit suicide. Since I won’t do that I’ll go on consuming very little actually, about enough food to keep me alive, paper for my classes, plastic on the CDs and DVDs I buy ,and four or five bottles of cognac a month. That’s about it aside from the twice or three times yearly jaunts to China, North America or SE Asia. That’s my big ticket item. Anyway, I am willing to pay the tax that I propose (you remember my proposal right?) and sincerely believe it is a fair proposal for eveyone. The evil smegmum contingent, while making my varied and interesting life in smog possible won’t agree to the proposal because they don’t want to. They see that having fewer pollutants flowing into the water “and” improved transit are part of the same process of social development but would rather continue to obfuscate thereby ensuring that the solutions already in existence are never actually used, that oil company and weapons manufacturers profits continue to soar, that our dream of cities being designed around human beings rather than the automobile will never be realized etc. I think that about sums it up really. I am sorry I called you evil smegmum. I don’t really think you are evil smegmum. Dick Cheney though, now that’s one crusty lump o evil smegmum you gotta agree there right? His first name is Dick even, jeeesh…
[quote=“bob”]
I think the suburban housewife who drives an SUV and refuses to eat granola is a bigger problem than me…[/quote]
:boo-hoo:
Don’t let me stop you from saving the planet. If you hurry, I’ve got a big stack of styrofoam and a can of used diesel oil I can provide for your cremation.
:roflmao:
Dr. Evil, you are so …um…er… evil! For your crimes against Mother Earth, you should be strapped into a solar-powered electric chair (a non-lethal one of course) then have your bottom paddled by a windmill spanking machine.
Truant,
In your search for global warming info, have you come across any evidence from NZ? I’ve done some googling, but could only find references to shrinking glaciers. I couldn’t find anything for the real deal, i.e. shifting vegetation patterns.
But not too much bigger Bob since the whole economic system that you benefit from in terms of infrastructure, health care, manufacturing, advertising, consumer goods is predicated on that housewife to the same extent that it is built upon people like you. The differences in the grand scheme of things are very very marginal.
Haha. That’s it? Right… and the toilet paper? house cleaner? air freshener? soap? clothing? packaged food? electricity for your electric tooth brush, the shaving cream, the tooth paste, the air conditioning, the lights. All of that? Forgeting all of that?
Great. Then give me the money and I will stop “consuming” something. The problem is that you don’t understand economics. Taxes and regulations have a deleterious effect on the economy and growth. THAT unfortunately will have far more adverse effects on most people rather than the changes (good and bad) that can be REALISTICALLY expected from global warming. You are being selfish. How? You benefit from development but do not want others to.
Because we are evil and we live to destroy the earth.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The real reason why North American cities are so spread out is because so many people JUST LIKE YOU want to live in the great outdoors. They do not want to have an apartment. They want their own house with a garden and that causes the spread that you so detest. BUT it is not because oil and auto companies designed this world. It is from individual selfish people multiplied by millions JUST LIKE YOU.
gross.
[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“bob”]
I think the suburban housewife who drives an SUV and refuses to eat granola is a bigger problem than me…[/quote]
:boo-hoo:
Don’t let me stop you from saving the planet. If you hurry, I’ve got a big stack of styrofoam and a can of used diesel oil I can provide for your cremation.
:roflmao:[/quote]
No particularly stellar insights behind the stale and hackneyed humor really are there? Somebody points out that mass transit is a more environmentally friendly than an SUV and they are a whiner.
Er…
I point out that it is almost impossible to live without creating some pollution and it is suggested that I commit suicide and cremate myself with styrofoam and diesel fuel… That’s like good ol boy humor I guess. Fix the radiator on the tractor and then sit around in the dust drinking beer and chuckling to each other like real men. Great stuff that. Let’s go chop down some trees, really work up a sweat instead of sitting in front of the computer getting a stiff neck and worrying about spelling n shit. Fuck.
The difference, in the grand scheme of things, between me and the SUV driving housewife might be marginal but the difference between six billion people living like me and six billion people living like the SUV driving housewife is the difference between survival and wholesale destruction of the planet.
Balls. Everything is taxed. I am just saying gas should be taxed higher to discourage it’s use and at the same time encourage the use of alternatives. Everybody would pay the tax.
I am beginning to wonder whether your commitment to this discussion is entirely sincere. 
When did I ever say I wanted to live in the suburbs?
I think a point that is brought up often is that the “greenies” don’t understand the economic consequences. Yesterday cfimages, posted a quote by former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern. In fact it was part of a 700 page study.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm
[quote]“Investment now will pay us back many times in the future, not just environmentally but economically as well.”
"For every £1 invested now we can save £5, or possibly more, by acting now. [/quote]
Ah the World Bank and its “chief” economist. Yes, they are truly the vanguard of successful economic policy.
Anyway, I am all for reducing petro use for strategic reasons as well. Taxes COULD be a part of this. I am all for new technology.
What I am not for is Kyoto and I am never quite sure when people are supporting failed Kyoto policies or coming up with something new because the specifics of how and when and to what extent are never really provided. So again, I am not against reductions in greenhouse gases, I have a problem with how this would be achieved under Kyoto. I am OPEN to other suggestions.
While taxes are not generally thought of as a new technology the change of perspective is certainly welcome. Soon we will be sitting under a tree by a creek enjoying the sweet aroma of gardenias. Dick Cheney will have been beheaded as is only proper all things considered and attractive young women will no longer complain when we tickle their tummies with our buttocks. Yes, it is a glorious future, the one that awaits and rhetorical flourishes notwithstanding at some point today I should do some sort of work I suppose…
While taxes are not generally thought of as a new technology [color=red]the change of perspective is certainly welcome.[/color][/quote]
You’re not fooling anyone here , bob. You’d hate to see Fred change; even if it’s only a change in how you are forced to think of him. Your “Platonic form” version of fred smith gives you way too much fun for you to want to see a change. 
The proof is the lengths to which you will go to pretend that you two disagree. Fred’s been calling for for an increase on petro tax for over two years.
I know for a fact that you are aware of this because we just talked about it a couple weeks ago.
I said:
[quote=“Hobbes”]The only difference I can see between you and Fred when it comes to taxes on oil is in the details of implementation.
You would add a ten percent tax.
Fred would double the tax.
[quote=“fred smith giving his platform in the ‘If I were President’ thread”]
…11. I would raise double the tax on oil and gas.[/quote][/quote]
And then you said
[url]Global warming (the third degree) - #397 by Hobbes
Admit it, bob, you love Platonic Form Fred just the way he is :lovestruck:
I am quite certain that you would find any change in PFF’s perspective to be most unwelcome. 
It is an ontological problem essentially Hobbes.
Anyway, I did some work. I walked to the restaurant and had a xiang gang gan mien and then on to the “everything cheap because it was produced in China using slave labor” store and bought: two thirty minute cassettes, a calculator, a bijiben, and a length of green rope of indeterminate length. I plan to have my class pretend that we are moving and as it is rather troublesome to carry things down the stairs we will instead lower everything on to the street using the rope. Probably use a bowline and a couple of other knots with nautical titles. The calculator will be used to illustrate the concept of multiplication, and the thirty minute tapes will record the entire drama as it unfolds. Later we will scribble the particularly pertinent vocabulary in the bijiben, and the bijenben and tape will together function together for review purposes. Everything was carried home in a green plastic bag manufactured under strict environmental controls and it is for this reason that the air remains so pristine, as you will perhaps notice if you poke your head out the window and take a puff this 17th day of march 2007. Thank you.
With the above posts talking about each person’s environmental impact e.g. the housewife driving the SUV by herself, I’d like to remind Fredbot that no one here is, to my knowledge, suggesting that we go back to a “Stone Age” whatever that means as Fredbot has alluded to setting or that we can realistically have a zero impact footprint. What we’re talking about is excess/moderation ie. proportionality, expanding choices/technology
e.g. offering people access to viable solutions , if they so choose, like
PS this is all being done in cities like Vancouver.
If you build it, they will come.
less waste (ie more efficiency which is often economically sound). e.g. i agree with you on doubling energy tax. with gas prices above 3 dollars (although in CA, that’s old news), many people are switching to buses, this effort needs to be sustained to make mass transit more profitable and thus expandable.
Fredbot still has not responded to the auto industry as a prime example why green policy works and makes money at the same time. hmm. mileage standards, hybrid cars. Down goes the Big Three. I would wish them all bankruptcy if I didn’t care about the job displacement.
[quote=“fred smith”]Ah the World Bank and its “chief” economist. Yes, they are truly the vanguard of successful economic policy.
Anyway, I am all for reducing petro use for strategic reasons as well. Taxes COULD be a part of this. I am all for new technology.
What I am not for is Kyoto and I am never quite sure when people are supporting failed Kyoto policies or coming up with something new because the specifics of how and when and to what extent are never really provided. So again, I am not against reductions in greenhouse gases, I have a problem with how this would be achieved under Kyoto. I am OPEN to other suggestions.[/quote]
Sir Nicholas Stern’s report seems to have a couple of important aspects that would be required to have any chance of success.
The first is target orientated goals. His report is suggesting it is possible to reduce CO2 levels to a level of stabilization that the earth can absorb (5 GtCO2e) , about 80% below current emissions. And further they need to be about 25% below current emissions by 2050.
Second , because this is a global problem, this needs to be addressed on a global scale. Without agreements, like Kyoto, how can the target goals be expected to be reached?
When someone shows me that
Then, hey, let me know, but…
Stern is saying we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent. Please someone tell me how this will be done and at what cost. Second, should the rest of the world NOT be allowed to develop?
Finally, are you aware that the cost of Kyoto has been in the hundreds of billions of dollars and this has reduced GROWTH in global warming by something ridiculously small like 0.003 degrees?
We have to make choices and I choose economic development. This will be better for hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people. These people are dying and suffering now. Let’s address their needs FIRST and who knows? Maybe in 20 years, we will find out that global cooling not warming is once again the problem. Then, we can all work hard to fight that…
I see your points Fred, but I believe fully understanding the impact of small changes on global scale is difficult for anyone to accurately project.
This seems to be your major concern, but I put it to you that if large mainstream populations adopted even a basic mindset of the “Reduce->Reuse->Recycle” concept, we’d be well on the way.
I believe the fear of economic dislocation is rooted in a dependancy for fossil fuel (and resistance to move away from it), however, who is to say that in actual fact that mainstream acceptance of renewable energy might actually open up a whole new era of economic development. If consumers start demanding cleaner burning cars, consider renewable energy solutions such as solar/wind/geo heat exchangers etc, then the manufacturing, distribution, installation and maintenance of these solutions would provide unprecedented economic growth in that industry…for example.
I’m not trying to be simplistic, but I really don’t believe I need to hear from any experts to see with my own eyes the very real effects of pollution.
I believe that while your points may be valid, they instill a mentality that we might as well continue with the status quo of dumping crap into our world.