Page 16 of 111 FirstFirst ... 611121314151617181920212666 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 2209
  1. #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sorry, but I start getting the impression that you are following Bush's example in looking for excuses. Factories produce goods for individuals, they are run by individuals who get their individual salary from working there, just like in the US.

    The fact remains that it is highly unfair by somebody to ask a Chinese to reduce the CO2 emissions if that somebody emits 10 times more than the Chinese. The per capita approach makes PERFECT sense in this comparison.

    Besides, I am not saying China (and India, etc.) should not do anything about their greenhouse gas emissions. I am just saying we have no right to ask the developing countries to reduce them as long as ours are far greater than their's.

    The Kyoto Protocol plans to stop exemption of China and India and other countries when they start reaching our levels.
    Now this to me is silliness. So, basically as long as China, India, Mexico remain at, oh 80% of our current levels, they're fine? If this is indeed the greatest, most horrific thing facing mankind, does that make sense? What good is reducing US levels of pollution if in five or ten years China comes along and replaces us?? To me it seems all we've done then, is just a flip-flop.

    It's no wonder people view this as anti-American.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  2. #302  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Now this to me is silliness. So, basically as long as China, India, Mexico remain at, oh 80% of our current levels, they're fine?
    You can find the answer to this in the post you quoted:
    I am not saying China (and India, etc.) should not do anything about their greenhouse gas emissions. I am just saying we have no right to ask the developing countries to reduce them as long as our's are far greater than their's.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #303  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You can find the answer to this in the post you quoted:
    I'm sorry that's really not an answer. Once again, it would seem all we're doing is flip-flopping. US goes down, but China takes our place. So we are to wait, and then kindly ask them? Afterall, you're trying to save the environment. What if they turn around and say "Screw you!"?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  4.    #304  
    Sorry, but I start getting the impression that you are following a typical liberal in looking for excuses.

    Much of the Chinese population lives in poverty and emits little CO2. They have over 1 billion people. They are getting technologically rich and coming out of this poverty. I think it's safe to say they are using CO2 at a much greater rate than anyone in the world.

    Look, it appears your sole goal is to portray the United States as evil. Close your eyes for a minute and think what this world would be like if their were not United States. Whew, we'd be in a world of trouble. You'd be wearing a swatiska around your neck.


    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sorry, but I start getting the impression that you are following Bush's example in looking for excuses.
  5. #305  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    US goes down, but China takes our place. So we are to wait, and then kindly ask them? Afterall, you're trying to save the environment. What if they turn around and say "Screw you!"?
    Isn't that more or less what the US do presently, when it comes to CO2 reduction? Who could possibly blame the Chinese for doing the same?

    As mentioned before, in the Kyoto Protocoll China is exempt only until it develops further (a decade or so?). I hardly think they will reach US or even European levels by then...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #306  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Much of the Chinese population lives in poverty and emits little CO2. They have over 1 billion people. They are getting technologically rich and coming out of this poverty. I think it's safe to say they are using CO2 at a much greater rate than anyone in the world.
    Acually no, they are using CO2 at a much lower level than the US or even Europe, both on a per capita basis and in absolute terms.

    It's an undisputed fact that China emits far less CO2 than Europe and Europe emits far less CO2 than the US, in absolute terms, and even more so on a per capita basis. You may or may not like those facts, but that doesn't change them.

    You can either say "who cares" and face the potential consequences (that seems to be the predominant view so far) or start changing something.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7. #307  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Isn't that more or less what the US do presently, when it comes to CO2 reduction? Who could possibly blame the Chinese for doing the same?
    Ahhh...I get it. US is bad...but we'll look the other way for China. Come on, who could blame the Chinese? Obviously you wouldn't. So if US emmisions fall, and China eventually passes us, will you then say, "Who can blame the Americans, since the Chinese are doing it? After all, what right do we have to make the US cap their emissions when China is pumping out more?" I doubt it very much.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    As mentioned before, in the Kyoto Protocoll China is exempt only until it develops further (a decade or so?). I hardly think they will reach US or even European levels by then...
    Yes, but their rate will continue to rise. So again, it seems as long as the US reduces emmisions, that's fine. And we'll look the other way when it comes to others.

    China, as I'm sure you know is very "capitalistic" for a Communist nation. They want to be a power, and they're well on their way. I can easily see them reaching US levels, certainly in Industrial wastes.
    Last edited by Insertion; 02/25/2005 at 08:36 AM.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  8.    #308  
    If I could scream I would. You are not reading my posts. I think the Chinese are increasing at an incredible rate per capita, probably increasing at a rate faster than anyone in the world. I'm not saying they have surpassed the US yet.

    [QUOTE=clulup]Acually no, they are using CO2 at a much lower level than the US or even Europe, both on a per capita basis and in absolute terms.[QUOTE]
  9. #309  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Ahhh...I get it. US is bad...but we'll look the other way for China. Come on, who could blame the Chinese?
    China is a developing country with only 10 % of CO2 emissions per capita when compared to the US. I think it would be great if we could somehow persuade China to try and develop with rising their CO2 emissions as little as possible. Of course this would be much easier if the US would be willing to support this, instead of pretending CO2-levels don't matter, global warming is natural, and that there is no problem anyway.

    The more the Chinese have developed and reached a lifestyle comparable to ours, the more I will hold them accountable for their CO2 emissions, just as the Kyoto protocol states it...

    However, even IF they reach a similar level of CO2 emission per year, the fact would remain that the great majority of the rise in CO2 levels was due to us, and not to them. That's an undisputed fact, too. So the problem would still be mostly our fault and not theirs.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #310  
    Still Clulup, if the desired goal is to lower emissions, shouldn't ALL countries do their part? Why wait for someone to catch up, only to turn them back around? How is that helping the cause?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  11.    #311  
    Kyoto is worthless without the United States.
  12. #312  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Still Clulup, if the desired goal is to lower emissions, shouldn't ALL countries do their part? Why wait for someone to catch up, only to turn them back around? How is that helping the cause?
    Needless to say it would be great if ALL countries do their part. I just think China has a far better excuse for not doing anything: They want to become rich, too, so why should they START REDUCING now that they are at one tenth of your level? How would you explain that to them.

    The Kyoto Protocol is about reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 % below the levels of 1990. For China, that would more or less mean reducing to the level of the Stone Age, while for developed countries, it would not make THAT big a difference (after all, we were already quite rich and happy in 1990, too, or were we not?). I can understand perfectly well that China is NOT willing to go back to 5.2 % below its 1990 levels, and I guess you can, too. It would be equivalent to going back to e.g. the 1930 levels (or so) for us...

    So PLEASE note that it does NOT mean the same for China to reduce CO2 emission to 5.2 % below the 1990 level, as the Kyoto Protocol asks for.

    Maybe one day we will beg China (and India) on our knees NOT to reach our levels of CO2 emission, because that would essentially double the total CO2 emission we have now. But based on what arguments will you do that, coming from a country who didn't care at all, but preferred to think it was all natural and even if not, who cares?
    Last edited by clulup; 02/25/2005 at 09:24 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #313  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Kyoto is worthless without the United States.
    It is not quite that bad:
    "Status of the agreement
    At the treaty's implementation in February 2005, the agreement had been ratified by 141 countries, representing over 61% of emissions".

    After all, most developed nations, even e.g. Russia, have ratified the protocol by now, so it is really more or less just the US and Australia who are missing.

    Of course the pressure on China and others would be greater if the 25 % of the US, and also Australia, would be included, too.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #314  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Isn't that more or less what the US do presently, when it comes to CO2 reduction?
    No. There is a huge difference between doing nothing and ratifying Kyoto. Not ratifying Kyoto is pretty much in your face, but it does not mean we are doing nothing. For example, our per capita production of CO2 is down over the last quarter century.

    The growth has been primarily from growth in population. Population controls are a solution but not very popular, even in China. The Chinese solution to population control seems to start with girl babies.

    That said, the US energy policy is somewhere between laissez faire and "let California do it." However, we seem to be at a political impasse. The same people who oppose CO2 emissions also oppose wind (it kills birds, makes noise, and spoils the view), nuclear (it produces radiological waste, and is "dangerous"), hydro (it is bad for the salmon, aboriginal people, and causes floods). They seem to be OK with solar but when they find out that it will take a greater percentage of surface area than roadways in California, they will oppose that too. Everyone wants a solution but not in their backyard.

    Let's face it guys; there are no villains here and more than enough blame to go around. This is what we call a "hard problem." I see a lot of finger pointing here but few volunteers. It is fun to take an ideological position and then whine that no one else will do the hard things.

    If you think that social security is the thrid rail of American politics, you are simply naive. Energy policy is the real third rail, so lethal that we have reduced it to a code word, ANWAR, and no one, but no one, will touch it.

    The originator of this thread should realize by now that the question is so cast as to invite ideological and acrimonious responses but resist any progress toward consensus. It is time to recast the question.
  15. #315  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    No. There is a huge difference between doing nothing and ratifying Kyoto. Not ratifying Kyoto is pretty much in your face, but it does not mean we are doing nothing. For example, our per capita production of CO2 is down over the last quarter century.

    The growth has been primarily from growth in population. Population controls are a solution but not very popular, even in China. The Chinese solution to population control seems to start with girl babies.

    That said, the US energy policy is somewhere between laissez faire and "let California do it." However, we seem to be at a political impasse. The same people who oppose CO2 emissions also oppose wind (it kills birds, makes noise, and spoils the view), nuclear (it produces radiological waste, and is "dangerous"), hydro (it is bad for the salmon, aboriginal people, and causes floods). They seem to be OK with solar but when they find out that it will take a greater percentage of surface area than roadways in California, they will oppose that too. Everyone wants a solution but not in their backyard.

    Let's face it guys; there are no villains here and more than enough blame to go around. This is what we call a "hard problem." I see a lot of finger pointing here but few volunteers. It is fun to take an ideological position and then whine that no one else will do the hard things.

    If you think that social security is the thrid rail of American politics, you are simply naive. Energy policy is the real third rail, so lethal that we have reduced it to a code word, ANWAR, and no one, but no one, will touch it.

    The originator of this thread should realize by now that the question is so cast as to invite ideological and acrimonious responses but resist any progress toward consensus. It is time to recast the question.
    You have done an outstanding job in summing things up. Case closed
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  16. #316  
    I think we have dispelled the myth here that global warming is just natural and we can burn all of the oil, and burn all the coal we like without consequence (all except Advance the man I believe, who is entitled to his opinion).

    I am afraid that the Bush administration wants to ignore this problem as a way to do little or nothing about it, but it is something that should not be swept under the rug. But if we don't do something about it, I think we all will regret it.

    Anyway, that is my summary.
  17. #317  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I think we have dispelled the myth here that global warming is just natural and we can burn all of the oil, and burn all the coal we like without consequence (all except Advance the man I believe, who is entitled to his opinion).

    I am afraid that the Bush administration wants to ignore this problem as a way to do little or nothing about it, but it is something that should not be swept under the rug. But if we don't do something about it, I think we all will regret it.

    Anyway, that is my summary.
    Since we have dispelled the myth that gw is natural.......

    So how do we explain all the natural warming and cooling that has gone on since the planet formed? Who caused that? Are you now suggesting man has been around for several billion years?

    My feeling is that man as a race is arrogant. A large portion of us think we are so powerful that we can affect everything. Silly. This planet will warm and cool again and again whether we are here or not. Did so long before we arrived and will do so long after. Our contribution is immaterial IMO.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  18. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #318  
    "I think we have dispelled the myth here that global warming is just natural and we can burn all of the oil, and burn all the coal we like without consequence"

    cellmatrix

    I don't think anyone believes we should burn all the coal we like without consequence. I think that is taking things to the other extreme.
    what I do think we should do is to attempt to minimize as realistically as possible our production of industrial byproducts without undermining our economy.
    we can make progress in reducing these emissions by engineering more fuel efficient automobiles and hybrid vehicles which produce dramatically less pollutants.
    if we do this, will we STILL have cynical critics chastizing us? we are in the early stages of producing and popularizing hybrid automobiles which is a positive example, I think, of america beginning to make changes toward how our lifestyles influence the condition of global warming. wouldn't you take that to be a good start?!
    I don't think anyone thinks we should simply burn away all our resources and ask questions later, I believe the point was to be careful to consider ALL the variables. yes, man SEEMS to be playing an increasingly larger role which gives us reason to take a different direction toward alternative energy sources and cleaner burning transportation vehicles, but I think we should simply balance our contributions with those of naturally-occurring phenomena.. THATS ALL.
    we are taking steps with hybrid cars. that is a start. there will be many more intelligent technological advances to come which will build upon this. global warming is a situation which is always changing. mankind and our potential to produce innovative technology, is likewise, always changing - progressing towards the positive. we should look on that brighter note as well, rather than constantly emphasizing the negative.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  19. #319  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    "I think we have dispelled the myth here that global warming is just natural and we can burn all of the oil, and burn all the coal we like without consequence"

    cellmatrix

    I don't think anyone believes we should burn all the coal we like without consequence. I think that is taking things to the other extreme.
    what I do think we should do is to attempt to minimize as realistically as possible our production of industrial byproducts without undermining our economy.
    we can make progress in reducing these emissions by engineering more fuel efficient automobiles and hybrid vehicles which produce dramatically less pollutants.
    if we do this, will we STILL have cynical critics chastizing us? we are in the early stages of producing and popularizing hybrid automobiles which is a positive example, I think, of america beginning to make changes toward how our lifestyles influence the condition of global warming. wouldn't you take that to be a good start?!
    I don't think anyone thinks we should simply burn away all our resources and ask questions later, I believe the point was to be careful to consider ALL the variables. yes, man SEEMS to be playing an increasingly larger role which gives us reason to take a different direction toward alternative energy sources and cleaner burning transportation vehicles, but I think we should simply balance our contributions with those of naturally-occurring phenomena.. THATS ALL.
    we are taking steps with hybrid cars. that is a start. there will be many more intelligent technological advances to come which will build upon this. global warming is a situation which is always changing. mankind and our potential to produce innovative technology, is likewise, always changing - progressing towards the positive. we should look on that brighter note as well, rather than constantly emphasizing the negative.
    I agree with what you say.
  20. #320  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Since we have dispelled the myth that gw is natural.......

    So how do we explain all the natural warming and cooling that has gone on since the planet formed? Who caused that? Are you now suggesting man has been around for several billion years?

    My feeling is that man as a race is arrogant. A large portion of us think we are so powerful that we can affect everything. Silly. This planet will warm and cool again and again whether we are here or not. Did so long before we arrived and will do so long after. Our contribution is immaterial IMO.
    I respectfully disagree that our contribution is immaterial based on the science. I won't bring up arrogance, but I do believe it is against our best interests to ignore this problem. Anyway, its not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 02/26/2005 at 10:32 PM.

Posting Permissions