@ deskdata: I think it's something like a ratio of 186:6, natural co2:manmade co2
@tallredwookie: not to mention all their industries and contamination with chemical spills and all. USA gets hammered on pollution, we probaly try the most to have clean pollution(we can't stop polluting, but we try to make it the cleanest.) for instince, our cars have the strictest pollution rules, we have the cleanest pollution creating cars. if that makes sense.
china on the other hand. they are messing with the weather like crazy. like they shoot some kind of chemical in the air to make clouds drop rain. and now they are messing around with some kind of artifical sun.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Location: Right here in the middle of "Fly-Over Country"
Posts: 383
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deskdata
I am glad to see that there are at least some people out there who don't just blindly believe everything in the media.
Here in the UK there seems to be an acceptance by the media that global warming is, at least being accelerated by Man's activities, or at worst is caused by Man's activities.
This is obvious tommyrot. Three decades ago the British media were reporting on the impending ice age. They got it wrong then and they've got it wrong now.
The Earth's climate naturally cycles between ice age and tropical conditions. The Earth's ecosystem is so huge that any effect that Man can make is probably so small as to be immeasurable.
The Krakatoa eruption threw more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of our cars have ever done.
Think on that before we beat ourselves up over global warming. The Earth is more than capable of screwing up the climate without any help from Man.
I couldn't agree more. I tried to make the point in another thread that Mt St. Helen's blew more pollution in the air the last time she erupted than all the cars put together. I'm afraid it had no effect, however.
The media here in the US is exactly the same. Not only that, but my kids keep coming home after school and telling me how we are destroying the planet, how there's global warming, blah... blah... blah
And, I don't know what Tommyrot is, but I love the sound of it.
Off Topic:
Your Avatar is completely awesome. :approve:
Who can argue with Beaker?
.
__________________
Quote:
"If you [America] become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Location: Right here in the middle of "Fly-Over Country"
Posts: 383
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JMJSelect
...and now they are messing around with some kind of artifical sun...
Wooohoooo!!!
Where's my sandals and swim trunks!!
__________________
Quote:
"If you [America] become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
USA gets hammered on pollution, we probaly try the most to have clean pollution(we can't stop polluting, but we try to make it the cleanest.) for instince, our cars have the strictest pollution rules, we have the cleanest pollution creating cars. if that makes sense.
I think we're missing the point here though. What if global warming is another of the desperate moves of the media to get an attractive headline ? What if we're wrong and the temperature don't raise dangerously ? Shouldn't we still make an effort to try and be more environmental-friendly ? Sure industries are an undeniable factor in pollution, but every citizen has his role to play too.
I'm currently residing in Germany, where you are obliged to sort your garbadge. There are the biological stuff, plastic, paper & metal and finaly glass. All chemical products, or things that don't fall in one of the previous categories have to be specially treated, so cannot be dumped so easily. Anyway, every time I leave the country, and go to a place where you simply throw everything in the same bin, well it makes me think that's a pitty. It's really only a matter of getting used to sort. Might be disturbing the first weeks, but then it becomes automatic.
Anyway, my opinion is that the first thing that we should do, would be to educate people and make them understand that making a small effort wouldn't hurt them, on the contrary.
Folks. let's not miss the point. We directly impact the environment. Cite the article about the British saying an Ice Age was arriving.
The facts:
We pollute too much.
We expend natural resources faster than they can replenished.
We overfarm.
We deforest at a rate that it cannot be replaced.
We manufacture chemicals that are not natural to the ecology of the earth.(Can anyone say DDT?)
Go to Mexico City sometime and tell me that we don't affect the atmosphere and the Earth. They have one of the worst air quality indexes in the world, it's filthy beyond belief and they keep driving and building more factories.
Leave the media out of the equation(especially FoxNews). Go look at academic tomes and the corresponding literature. It's a sad state of affairs when people now think that you can argue over basic scientific fact. Simple elementry grade school science used to teach us what happens to the earth when you add things to the atmospere.
__________________ Co-Pilot of the Millenium Falcon
x50v w/4gb CF, 1gb SD, InnoPocket Mag Case, TO BT Keyboard and Rotring Fountain Pen/Stylus
"RRROoooOORRRRROoooAAARRrrrrRRRRR"
67.65286% Geek God.....32.34714% Wookiee. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The problem with kyoto is it is the usual punish the US, which is already doing as much or more than any other country. I case you live in Germany, Yes I recycle, plastic, paper, glass, metals, etc. We have clean air laws, and regulations on cars, and factories. Could more be done? Of coarse and due to this environmental issue more will probably be done.
Do some travel and you will see what I mean. The air in LA is cleanist in years, can't say that about Mexico City, Beijing, New deli, etc. I was in China last fall and read an article in the Bejing paper that a Catalitic converter agreement with a company in france was just made and in two years the cars in China could be equipped with catalitic converters. Oh gee, polution control for cars in two years, that is great. Yet Kyoto does not include China and India. Yet both of those counties wil be bigger economies and bigger poluters during Kyoto time frames. Why let them polute now and clean later?
I think we're missing the point here though. What if global warming is another of the desperate moves of the media to get an attractive headline ? What if we're wrong and the temperature don't raise dangerously ? Shouldn't we still make an effort to try and be more environmental-friendly ? Sure industries are an undeniable factor in pollution, but every citizen has his role to play too.
I'm currently residing in Germany, where you are obliged to sort your garbadge. There are the biological stuff, plastic, paper & metal and finaly glass. All chemical products, or things that don't fall in one of the previous categories have to be specially treated, so cannot be dumped so easily. Anyway, every time I leave the country, and go to a place where you simply throw everything in the same bin, well it makes me think that's a pitty. It's really only a matter of getting used to sort. Might be disturbing the first weeks, but then it becomes automatic.
Anyway, my opinion is that the first thing that we should do, would be to educate people and make them understand that making a small effort wouldn't hurt them, on the contrary.
not to mention that it was also "OVERWHELMINGLY" rejected under clinton. something like only 2 senators(i think) voted in favor for it.
the kyoto protocol was made to attack US's economy. it's just that simple. no other country would have been touched.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
From what I've read in the wikipedia article, apparently the non-inclusion of India and China in the protocol is the reason US and Australia denied to ratify it. However, if so much effort is done in the US, why not apply it ? I mean, ok, these two countries seem to be a problem, why should we add more to the list ?
I find it fishy if you ask me. If this is really the only reason, I find it really childlish. If you want to make pressure on these countries so that they become part of thr protocol, you don't give them arguments not to...
Quote:
not to mention that it was also "OVERWHELMINGLY" rejected under clinton. something like only 2 senators(i think) voted in favor for it.
the kyoto protocol was made to attack US's economy. it's just that simple. no other country would have been touched.
Wait a moment. That protocol was only to push countries to emit less greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. By saying it would affect deeply US' economy, it means that there is indeed a serious problem with US industries then, doesn't it ?
I think we're missing the point here though. What if global warming is another of the desperate moves of the media to get an attractive headline ? What if we're wrong and the temperature don't raise dangerously ? Shouldn't we still make an effort to try and be more environmental-friendly ? Sure industries are an undeniable factor in pollution, but every citizen has his role to play too.
I'm currently residing in Germany, where you are obliged to sort your garbadge. There are the biological stuff, plastic, paper & metal and finaly glass. All chemical products, or things that don't fall in one of the previous categories have to be specially treated, so cannot be dumped so easily. Anyway, every time I leave the country, and go to a place where you simply throw everything in the same bin, well it makes me think that's a pitty. It's really only a matter of getting used to sort. Might be disturbing the first weeks, but then it becomes automatic.
Anyway, my opinion is that the first thing that we should do, would be to educate people and make them understand that making a small effort wouldn't hurt them, on the contrary.
absoulutely... Its always amazed me that posters here, who claim we should take responsilblity for our own actions, Border security and financial security, somehow seem to think that it's okay if we don't take our responsibilities to the planet seriously.
The more bizare of them believe that the enviroment is some plot to attack america... but there's no arguing with logic like that.
__________________
You'd have thought that someone would have put a sig here To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kyoto is not about forcing Inda and China to agree to its terms, its about trying to make the US pay far more than any other country for what it does anyway. Why should the US agree to paying for everything and then exempt, no reward the biggest problems. Kyoto is completely backwards, the biggest impact would be gained by going after the least regulated. See if you can find the co2 emissions of a trillion smoldering camp fires.
Kyoto is not about forcing Inda and China to agree to its terms, its about trying to make the US pay far more than any other country for what it does anyway. Why should the US agree to paying for everything and then exempt, no reward the biggest problems. Kyoto is completely backwards, the biggest impact would be gained by going after the least regulated. See if you can find the co2 emissions of a trillion smoldering camp fires.
I rest my case...
__________________
You'd have thought that someone would have put a sig here To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"
On July 25, 1997, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, along with 93 other senators (with five senators not voting and none voting in opposition) adopted a resolution stating that ‘the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.’
"
Not really any room for discussion is there. If there were nothing wrong with Kyoto wouldn't the vote have been more along party lines? If Kyoto was the slightest bit resonable wouldn't anybody have voted for it?
I think that pollution is everyone problem from big to small countries. If you pollute, you pollute period. It doesn't matter the size of the pollution you are doing it is everyone's problem in the end. I went to Domincan Republic a while back and driving there is just awful as the exhaust fumes from the cars and bikes can be smelled everywhere. We are in a society of quick profit and to achieve this we create less durable products which end up in a dump site. The packaging is oversize due to competition. We are creating more dumps to hold all this stuff and nothing is done to fix this. My goal it to leave with as little impact as possible.
__________________
If you get dead silence after breaking the speed of sound, would you be in the darkness after passing the speed of light?
Thinking that just because America uses 25 percent of the worlds gasoline does not make it the biggest poluter. Especialy if the other 75 percent does not have polution controls on their cars.
Btw, I have been in China, just because they like to drive VWs does not mean those VWs meet German emmision standards. uh, cause they don't.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98)[3], which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations CNN. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue Corn, David (2001). Furthermore, he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Whitehouse.gov President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change
oh i'm sorry, it was rejected 95-0. this is including the liberalist of liberals who hug the trees of the world. they said no to this.
china the second largest emitter of green house gas's is suprisingly exempt from the protocol.
india is a top emitter of green house gas's, suprisingly is also exempt.
the cost of implimenting the protocol would cost america 60% of it's economy.
europeans polled said overwhelmingly that they don't want the US to have power.
now who is the 4 countries that can be the next superpower of the world?
USA, RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA.
destroy the US's economy while letting china's and india's economy grow. hmm..... was this designed?
clinton was liked by euro's, why did he reject it? why does tree hugger's reject this?
put it all together, you have to look at the big picture
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
