anarchywrksbest
Deity
Becasue the former Soviet Nations can't afford to anything about it but the States can........
Honestly, folks...
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
Becasue the former Soviet Nations can't afford to anything about it but the States can........
Furry Spatula
...
Ok first of all, i believe that "Global Warming" is a load of Bull. I have heard some scientists say that the world undergoes a natural cycle when it gets warmer for a while. But i think to put the blame on global warming right away is a load of crap. We need to investigate it more.
Secondly. It isn't the US's fault, or the North Americans fault. It isn't anybody's fault for green house gasses, its just ignorance or apathy around the industrialized world. If you have the most recent National Geographic, it has a supplement map about the worlds environment. THey have a bar graph showing the polution from cities around the world. Cities such as Berlin, and Toronto etc are rather low on this graph while cities such as Mexico City, Bejing, and Chongquing. In Chongquing, just the dust particles and air quality modifiers, were about if not more than the total polution from LA.
Note: the polution that was shown was particulates, Sulpher Dioxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide.
So if you want to blame someone blame Mexico and Asia.
Secondly. It isn't the US's fault, or the North Americans fault. It isn't anybody's fault for green house gasses, its just ignorance or apathy around the industrialized world. If you have the most recent National Geographic, it has a supplement map about the worlds environment. THey have a bar graph showing the polution from cities around the world. Cities such as Berlin, and Toronto etc are rather low on this graph while cities such as Mexico City, Bejing, and Chongquing. In Chongquing, just the dust particles and air quality modifiers, were about if not more than the total polution from LA.
Note: the polution that was shown was particulates, Sulpher Dioxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide.
So if you want to blame someone blame Mexico and Asia.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
This is true. However when the earth does get warmer it is preceded by a rise in Co2 and Methane in the atomsphere. During the last ice age the level of Co2 was about 180 parts per million and in subsequent warm periods it ranged from 280-300 ppm. The current level of Co2 is 360ppm. A further piece of evidence was discovered from this ice. The ice suggested that temperatures rose in step with rising C02 levels rather than the previous belief that there was a 500 to 1,000 year lag time.
Why? Because they act like the developed world did a 100 years ago in a vain attempt to achieve economic development. If you blame Mexico and Asia then you have to blame the developed world for not providing the necessary clean technology.
The US can not be blamed for these floods. What they can be blamed for is not cutting their Co2 emissions.
I would agree with these if we were talking about a domestic matter but this is not a domestic matter. It is a global matter. The rest of the world is greatly effected by what America does and so deserve to have a say. And also I don't think America has any right to complain about international interference.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
CO2 emissions most likely add up to the cause of the problem. (Now at least the probability is too high to take the risk)
So when a country supports what destroys your country, why shouldn't you blame them for it and act against it? America doesn't have problems with it about other subjects...
So when a country supports what destroys your country, why shouldn't you blame them for it and act against it? America doesn't have problems with it about other subjects...
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
So, you're blaming the U.S. for floods in Europe?
I suppose it's also the U.S.' fault for AIDS and famine
I suppose it's also the U.S.' fault for AIDS and famine
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
I see the possibility in man-made climate change being responsible for it. That possibility is too high to be ignored. So everyone who doesn't do anything about it is to blame (of course just partially).
In Bush's language: Your either with ecologic policies or your with natural disasters.
Everything has its cause. And in every case there has to be looked for it seperatly.I suppose it's also the U.S.' fault for AIDS and famine
EdwardTking
Deity
And the Europeans don't blame the Canadians either.
I suspect it is because the Western europeans regard
Canada and Russia as very cold places where they have
just had to burn wood and fossil fuels, or freeze to death.
Honestly there is no need to be sarcastic. I stated in a previous post that the blame lies with all of the world so try not to over-react to what I type next. America like other countries have a part to play. America has no excuse for not cutting its emmisions in view of the Kyoto conference. Whever or not you believe that it did any good is up to you but any step towards a less polluted enviroment is a good one. What excludes America from cutting down on pollutive emmsions is beyond me. America is the single most industrial country in the world. I don't have exact figures to hand right now but you can be certain that they are not small. I find it offensive that the American government did nothing after the Kyoto conference. Maybe it is a mentality thing as America has no trouble forcing its way onto other countries. The world does not belong to America so I believe that they truely have no right to not cut down. America certainly has the resources.
Xiahou-Dun
Retired Super Hero
Just like in the middle east, blame must be put somewhere.
Until Europe stands up and tells the US..."We will not trade with you or support you" the blame will lie with both.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Don't give me that tired line.
We are all to blame in some way for screwing the planet up.
A large part of the global warming is due to the acts of a nation that churns out 25% of the planet's pollution,
but accounts for 5% of the planet's population.
I'll let you boys guess the name that nation...
AVN
Deity
In first instance our governments have to try to solve this issue by negotiating. If that gives no satisfactory results than IMO the European trade with the USA should be stopped, regardless of the economic effects.
The environmental issue is important enough for such excessive actions.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I agree.
The only difference is that the hot air in the U.S. isn't coming from the left-wing politicians.
So what happened at and after the Kyoto conference? I guess I'll fill you all in as you seem to be so unaware to the facts.
The US proposed to just stabilize emissions and not cut them at all, while the Europe called for a 15% cut. In the end, there was a trade off, and an overall reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels for the period 2008 - 2012.
Hardly enough as the IPC said in a report that a 60% reduction in emissions was needed.
However, there were many political factors involved during the conference and many industries such as oil and coal had a huge campaign to discredit the conference. Leading up to the conference, during it, and since, big corporations with financial interests at stake have had a lot of influence in the outcome and on the media. A lot of primarily industry arguments against the Kyoto conference and Global Warming in general, claim that it will hurt the global (or USA's) economy and affect people's jobs. Some of the well-respected scientists claiming that Global Warming is a myth have been sponsored in some way by various commercial interests as well.
At the end of March 2001, Bush (a former failed oil business man!) said that he "opposed the Kyoto Protocol." One of the reasons he cited was because India and China would not be subject to Kyoto measures and would increase their emissions. Yet he ignored that on a per capita basis, India and China's emissions are far less than the United States, which is the worst.
Furthermore, the U.S. for over 20 to 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, for just 4 to 5 percent of the world's population. Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment provide quite an explosive critique of Bush's claims:
In fact, these "population centres" which Bush refers to make an insignificant contribution of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, since they have extremely low per capita emissions. The US, on the other hand, contributes to one-fourth of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions.
So in a way you could say that the flooding is 1/4 Americas fault.
The total carbon dioxide emissions from one US citizen in 1996 were 19 times the emissions of one Indian. US emissions in total are still more than double those from China. At a time when a large part of India's population does not even have access to electricity, Bush would like this country to stem its 'survival emissions', so that industrialised countries like the US can continue to have high 'luxury emissions'. This amounts to demanding a freeze on global inequity, where rich countries stay rich, and poor countries stay poor.
-- The leader of the most polluting country in the world claims global warming treaty is "unfair" because it excludes India and China, Centre for Science and Environment, March 16, 2001.
The US proposed to just stabilize emissions and not cut them at all, while the Europe called for a 15% cut. In the end, there was a trade off, and an overall reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels for the period 2008 - 2012.
Hardly enough as the IPC said in a report that a 60% reduction in emissions was needed.
However, there were many political factors involved during the conference and many industries such as oil and coal had a huge campaign to discredit the conference. Leading up to the conference, during it, and since, big corporations with financial interests at stake have had a lot of influence in the outcome and on the media. A lot of primarily industry arguments against the Kyoto conference and Global Warming in general, claim that it will hurt the global (or USA's) economy and affect people's jobs. Some of the well-respected scientists claiming that Global Warming is a myth have been sponsored in some way by various commercial interests as well.
At the end of March 2001, Bush (a former failed oil business man!) said that he "opposed the Kyoto Protocol." One of the reasons he cited was because India and China would not be subject to Kyoto measures and would increase their emissions. Yet he ignored that on a per capita basis, India and China's emissions are far less than the United States, which is the worst.
Furthermore, the U.S. for over 20 to 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, for just 4 to 5 percent of the world's population. Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment provide quite an explosive critique of Bush's claims:
In fact, these "population centres" which Bush refers to make an insignificant contribution of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, since they have extremely low per capita emissions. The US, on the other hand, contributes to one-fourth of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions.
So in a way you could say that the flooding is 1/4 Americas fault.
The total carbon dioxide emissions from one US citizen in 1996 were 19 times the emissions of one Indian. US emissions in total are still more than double those from China. At a time when a large part of India's population does not even have access to electricity, Bush would like this country to stem its 'survival emissions', so that industrialised countries like the US can continue to have high 'luxury emissions'. This amounts to demanding a freeze on global inequity, where rich countries stay rich, and poor countries stay poor.
-- The leader of the most polluting country in the world claims global warming treaty is "unfair" because it excludes India and China, Centre for Science and Environment, March 16, 2001.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
I concur.
As I have said before. The USA will only realise the folly of unchecked industrial
pollution when scuba diving becomes the only way to travel in the East Coast...
As I have said before. The USA will only realise the folly of unchecked industrial
pollution when scuba diving becomes the only way to travel in the East Coast...
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Not even then. They'll blame it on Communists or Terrorists then. Or, if those are no longer avaible, you can always blame it on a diety of your choice.
ozscott75
Groper of Sand
Okay, you'd all better sit down for this one....................
The blame does not lay squarely with the US, not even obliquely. The blame lies with all industialised or semi-industrialised nations. A lot of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at this moment are as a direct result of the industrial revolution, which mostly occurred in the UK and Europe.
Without the highly productive, highly polluting US during the 50's, all of you, now swimming, Europeans would still be living in a bombed out wasteland. Don't forget that it was the US production abilities that rebuilt most of your countries.
The major reasons for the damage caused by the floods is that people have a penchant for building cities on flood-plains, and they are called flood plains for a reason, and then diverting major rivers for irrigation and the like.
One of the major problems that the US and some other 'western' nations have with the Kyoto Protocol is that emerging nations are able to increase their emissions. If the emissions are a problem now, shouldn't everyone decrease them?
All countries and all people are responsible for the well being of the earth.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The blame does not lay squarely with the US, not even obliquely. The blame lies with all industialised or semi-industrialised nations. A lot of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at this moment are as a direct result of the industrial revolution, which mostly occurred in the UK and Europe.
Without the highly productive, highly polluting US during the 50's, all of you, now swimming, Europeans would still be living in a bombed out wasteland. Don't forget that it was the US production abilities that rebuilt most of your countries.
The major reasons for the damage caused by the floods is that people have a penchant for building cities on flood-plains, and they are called flood plains for a reason, and then diverting major rivers for irrigation and the like.
One of the major problems that the US and some other 'western' nations have with the Kyoto Protocol is that emerging nations are able to increase their emissions. If the emissions are a problem now, shouldn't everyone decrease them?
All countries and all people are responsible for the well being of the earth.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Greadius
:yeah:
Based on what? flooding has been occuring since the dawn of time.
By what standard can you determine that the current floods are the result of man made pollution?
Total BS...
From this article:
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860
"The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on the climate would be minuscule, even if it were implemented in full. A model by Tom Wigley, one of the main authors of the reports of the UN Climate Change Panel, shows how an expected temperature increase of 2.1°C in 2100 would be diminished by the treaty to an increase of 1.9°C instead. Or, to put it another way, the temperature increase that the planet would have experienced in 2094 would be postponed to 2100.
So the Kyoto agreement does not prevent global warming, but merely buys the world six years. Yet, the cost of Kyoto, for the United States alone, will be higher than the cost of solving the world's single most pressing health problem: providing universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation. Such measures would avoid 2m deaths every year, and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill.
And that is the best case. If the treaty were implemented inefficiently, the cost of Kyoto could approach $1 trillion, or more than five times the cost of worldwide water and sanitation coverage. For comparison, the total global-aid budget today is about $50 billion a year."
The author isn't even some right wing, oil funded quack:
"Bjorn Lomborg is a statistician at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, who once held what he calls left-wing Greenpeace views. In 1997, he set out to challenge Julian Simon, an economist who doubted environmentalist claimsand found that the data generally supported Simon. His book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, will be published in English by Cambridge University Press in a month's time."
That aside, I feel that Greadius and ozscott make a couple of great points
gr8ful wes
Deity
In the words of my ever eloquent wife "BOLLOCKS"
The US can not be blamed for flooding halfway across the world. But we will probably send a ton of financial aid over to help.
Friends, floods are natural occurances. They have been made worse because of people removing wetlands (which act as a natural sponge to help absorb high water) and people channelizing waterways. The second to last sentance touches on this.
As a staunch environmentalist I take offence to this accusation, this is simply wrong. There are many people working hard to change the US policy on Global Warming, and I applaud them. But this flood is a local problem made worse by poor land use in The Czec republic and Germany, as it is in all other industrialized nations.
By the way, I hope our brothers and sisters over there are handleing the situation ok.
All the best,
WES
The US can not be blamed for flooding halfway across the world. But we will probably send a ton of financial aid over to help.
Friends, floods are natural occurances. They have been made worse because of people removing wetlands (which act as a natural sponge to help absorb high water) and people channelizing waterways. The second to last sentance touches on this.
As a staunch environmentalist I take offence to this accusation, this is simply wrong. There are many people working hard to change the US policy on Global Warming, and I applaud them. But this flood is a local problem made worse by poor land use in The Czec republic and Germany, as it is in all other industrialized nations.
By the way, I hope our brothers and sisters over there are handleing the situation ok.
All the best,
WES
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Wrong question.
By what standard can you determine that the current floods are not the result of man made pollution?
This is not an "innocent until proven guilty" case as "proven guilty" would mean it's too late.
We see a change in the climate. Floodings and other "natural" catastrophes are occuring more frequent and more severe than usual. Now "usual" is of course not too long, for simple reasons of civilization. That leaves the possibility of natural causes that we can't influence.
The possibility of mankind being responsible for a climate change that gets worse and worse is there. If we want to ensure a livable world for future generations we have to rule out that possibility. If the ecologists are wrong, well then it is bad luck. But if those who don't believe them are wrong, then it is our fault.
The funny thing is that some people will never believe it. If you rule out human influence now, you can rule it out everytime, no matter what happens. In the 80s they were predicting all kinds of weird and sometimes widely overexaggerated horror scenarios about the climate. Some were nonsense, some sounded more reasonable. And some sounded reasonable and included that people won't see it when it happens. They were right
I feel personally much more threatened by this than by "global terrorism" or Saddam Hussein. They may get me, this will get me.
But as always, I will have a good laugh and keep on watching. Or not...
By the way, note that I never mentioned the US or any other country. It is mankinds problem, however, I don't expect Burundi to lead it. Some politician said today on TV that we now also need a "global coalition to preserve the environment", and it wasn't a Green politician. Well, the hype will subside and in a few weeks, at election day, most people will think about the evil foreigners and fuel prices when they make their decision. So nothing will change, neither here, nor anywhere.
