Honestly, folks...

[insurgent]

It's basically the nature of these kinds of forums to discuss stuff...

... or so I thought...

... oh sh!t, I hate when I'm wrong...

 

[nixon]

One is referring to the increasing temperatures, where not even the professors, are able to answer why this happens. This might just be another ice age lurking around the corner, who knows.

Must be a hidden solar gun in the Australian wilderness.

 

[Akka]

Oh, you're welcome...

No, seriously there's no point in acting like he does.

IMHO any action must be taken by the governments and they must be led to taking that decision through the democratic process. If the politicians sense that it matters to the people, they will act on the matter.

A democratic proces ? That's not very fascist of you, I'm disappointed

Seriously, now.
On the principle I partly agree with you.
Now pollution does not stop at the borders. Hence the countries that refuse to act against pollution effectively harm the others. In person to person, that would be considered an agression, or at least an agressive behavior (think about the guy who is smoking in the elevator and just don't care when you ask him to light off his cigarette).
Pollution is not a purely INTERNAL business of the country. It affects the others, it affects everyone. You can't set a building on fire because you own a flat in it.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Akka


Sure.
Acting cynical looks good, it gives the superficial impression that the person is mature and have come past her illusions through experience.
Until you become aware that cynism never produce anything beside the "I'm acting cool" and that ridiculizing the person allow to avoid to deal with what this person is saying.

Thanks for the show.

You're just mad because I never called YOU cool.

Besides, I usually disregaurd your posts anyhow when you become condescending. Maybe you should take insurgent's advice.

 

[Biologic]

Whether or not emailing the minister has any effect at least I can say I tried. That I have made an effort to do something is better than criticising the action itself. If you think thats foolish then I cannot persuade you otherwise. I don't think I can further explain myself or my reasons for attempting to make changes. As a species we are a cancer whole. Im sure however that we can all agree on one thing we are affecting the planet in many ways. Im sure we can all also agree that a time will come when our hand will be forced into action.

 

[Biologic]

Originally posted by Akka


Pollution is not a purely INTERNAL business of the country. It affects the others, it affects everyone. You can't set a building on fire because you own a flat in it.

Love the anology.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by nixon
You don't know for sure, who's fault it really is, it might as well just be a natural reaction, a reaction which has repeated itself many times during the lifetime of this planet.

Yes, and planes fly because Merlin the Enchanter casts a spell on them.
Oh, BTW : a REaction is a cause of a direct action.
That's exactly what happens : a reaction of the weather to the human action.
Thanks for helping me to prove my point.

You can't make it a global responsibility, before you come up with some really devastating evidence.

Of course, the smoke of my cigarette stops at the limits of my body. I'm not responsible at all if you smell it. You have to prove it comes from the fact I'm smoking.

Another reason I hate you, is that you're just like the ATTAC and Greenpeace guys who resort to violence when you fail to reach your goals.

Those sick inflamers, including the anti-globalists, ought to be shot for their brutish acts

No comment

That's why I don't hold any respect, whatsoever, for you and your cause because it's filled with anti-globalist propaganda.

Consider that we are equally disgusted by your own kind of self-righteous brainwashed little greedy pigs that would prefer to trash the world and the people on it rather than having to gain a little bit less money.

But do present your conclusive evidence if you believe that you stand better than we do. Do stop your blatant denouncements of our viewpoint, then you'll get a lot further.

The evidences has been shown. The only problem is the amount of people that just prefer to believe more in the pseudo-analysis of some so-called scientists paid by the same corporations that pollute rather than the analysis of the massive majority of scientists and the plain obvious facts.

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Akka
A democratic proces ? That's not very fascist of you, I'm disappointed

I know, I know, it must be your bad influence.

Seriously, now.
On the principle I partly agree with you.
Now pollution does not stop at the borders. Hence the countries that refuse to act against pollution effectively harm the others. In person to person, that would be considered an agression, or at least an agressive behavior (think about the guy who is smoking in the elevator and just don't care when you ask him to light off his cigarette).
Pollution is not a purely INTERNAL business of the country. It affects the others, it affects everyone. You can't set a building on fire because you own a flat in it.

That's an interesting angle, I must admit. But with the globalisation the borders of information, influence and opinion are also being erased. What matters to one people matters to the other.

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Akka
... The evidences has been shown...

I don't think they have. I don't know of any evidence that we are causing Global Warming. I believe it is happening, and that we can do something to prevent it, and that it's worth doing it, but I don't know of any conclusive evidence.

 

[insurgent]

Hate to leave you folks, but I have to go now...

 

[nixon]

1) Caca...eh....Akka, your palpable abuse of one's comment there, illustratres once again, your magnificent intelligence.

2) You are seemingly trashing the notion that the world constantly undergoes natural changes without any human provocation, whatsoever.

3) It's pure evil communist propaganda when ye say that we want to trash the world. Silly. Then the world wouldn't be worth conquering and making money out of if we trashed it, right.

Have a look at the ATTAC intro ( http://www.attac.org ) , it's just amusing and it lives fully up to one's expectations about you and your fellows reds and greens.

 

[Hitro]

Whoever thinks cynicism was cool never really got the point of it...

And considering violence, it's the only language certain people understand. Talk to them - no reaction. Bomb their houses - panic. Might not archieve anything but can probably be quite fulfilling.

IceBlaZe, are you suggesting to shut down OT?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by nixon
1) Caca...eh....Akka, your palpable abuse of one's comment there, illustratres once again, your magnificent intelligence.

Thanks for self-destructing your own comment. In fact, you show in it an astounding amount of intelligence.

2) You are seemingly trashing the notion that the world constantly undergoes natural changes without any human provocation, whatsoever.

Let's say I am not brainwashed enough to think that acid rains are naturals (outside huge series of volcanic eruptions), nor that worldwide climate warming of 1°C can naturally happen in less than twenty years.

3) It's pure evil communist propaganda when ye say that we want to trash the world. Silly. Then the world wouldn't be worth conquering and making money out of if we trashed it, right.

Well, open your eyes and see what's happening to the world. Stop considering any alarm as a green plot to overthrow the world and imagine that, perhaps, some of them are true. Just see the obvious.

Have a look at the ATTAC intro ( http://www.attac.org ) , it's just amusing and it lives fully up to one's expectations about you and your fellows reds and greens. [/B]

Guess what ? I saw it a warning against the tendancies of putting a price on everything and thinking that everything can be bought.
Guess what ? I'm not thinking it's ridiculous.
I'll spare you my opinion about your fellows free greeders. Just imagine what you think about the anti-globalization people and revert it to you.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Akka
Now pollution does not stop at the borders. Hence the countries that refuse to act against pollution effectively harm the others. In person to person, that would be considered an agression, or at least an agressive behavior (think about the guy who is smoking in the elevator and just don't care when you ask him to light off his cigarette).
Pollution is not a purely INTERNAL business of the country. It affects the others, it affects everyone. You can't set a building on fire because you own a flat in it.

I agree. Now the problem becomes what to do with it. Global environmental extremists want to set the agenda without any questions asked. Compromise is not an interest. When you're asking to gain control over part of another nation's soverignity, a beligerent, absolutist attitude doesn't work. Trust me, we have first hand experience with this.

So on a global problem, creating global concensus is a problem. The first, obvious, problem with this is that the majority of the world's population lives under some sort of autocratic government. Additionally, the difficulty of reaching concsensus on what is a sollution (Are 1990 levels of CO2 production acceptable; why?) and then enforcing it (when China doesn't abide by the Kyoto protocol, what are you going to do about it) becomes even more difficult.
Yes, its not a local problem, but solutions aren't necessarily global either. I think pollution, as a problem, will be solved by moving forward, not backwards. Factories today in the U.S. are many times as environmentally friendly as they were a few decades ago. Just one look into industrial areas in the former Soviet Union will show you how far we've come. Just the other day I saw hybrid cars on the road for the first time. You really think that the Kyoto protocol or its like will make a bigger impact on saving the environment in proportion to its economic damages than technology will?
The sky isn't falling today. Therefore, desperate measures aren't necessary today.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
So on a global problem, creating global concensus is a problem. The first, obvious, problem with this is that the majority of the world's population lives under some sort of autocratic government. Additionally, the difficulty of reaching concsensus on what is a sollution (Are 1990 levels of CO2 production acceptable; why?) and then enforcing it (when China doesn't abide by the Kyoto protocol, what are you going to do about it) becomes even more difficult.

Agreed, but the thing is that the US as the most powerful and influencial country should lead such a movement. The economic power of the US and EU combined would be enough to pressure the rest of the world into obeying the demands. What do you think will China do if we all suddenly freeze our economic relations with them? Or India? Not to speak of Africa and Latin America.
This way they all have the excuse of "the US doesn't do it, so why should we?"

You really think that the Kyoto protocol or its like will make a bigger impact on saving the environment in proportion to its economic damages than technology will?

The Kyoto protocol is insufficient (it is already the compromise), but better than nothing. Doing nothing certainly won't archieve anything.
Technology could make the decisive impact, but as long as conventional technology is cheaper than innovative, more environment-friendly technology, it won't be done.
There is no economic sense in buying a filter for your factory as long as there's no financial disadvantage for those who pollute.

The sky isn't falling today. Therefore, desperate measures aren't necessary today.

Hmm, if the sky is falling it's too late to do anything, so are you implying nothing should ever be done? And what exactly tells you that it isn't anyway? And how is the Kyoto protocol a "desperate measure"? Desperate measures would be prohibiting private use of cars, energy limitations, etc..

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by nixon
I bet you would gladly have participated in the vicious ravaging terror protests which have left cities in ruins. Those sick inflamers, including the anti-globalists, ought to be shot for their brutish acts which must be sharply condemned as acts which impedes the whole dialog. That's why I don't hold any respect, whatsoever, for you and your cause because it's filled with anti-globalist propaganda.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
Agreed, but the thing is that the US as the most powerful and influencial country should lead such a movement. The economic power of the US and EU combined would be enough to pressure the rest of the world into obeying the demands. What do you think will China do if we all suddenly freeze our economic relations with them? Or India? Not to speak of Africa and Latin America.

There is not enough political concensus within the United States to mobilize on the issue strongly enough to impart economic sanctions on non-compliant nations. Additionally, the environmental movement in the United States has much less of a 'global vision' than in Europe; most environmentally conscience people are more concerned about their backyard, not Russia nuclear waste.
If you're looking for the global solution and the United States to lead it, you're going to be let down.

Originally posted by Hitro
The Kyoto protocol is insufficient (it is already the compromise), but better than nothing. Doing nothing certainly won't archieve anything.

Nobody is suggesting doing nothing. But if the Kyoto protocol was a comprimise it would have been inacted. The truth is it was a compromise BETWEEN environmentalists, not everyone.

Originally posted by Hitro
Technology could make the decisive impact, but as long as conventional technology is cheaper than innovative, more environment-friendly technology, it won't be done.
There is no economic sense in buying a filter for your factory as long as there's no financial disadvantage for those who pollute.

Its not always that way. Every bit of waste a plant produces is an economic loss, a social stigma, and an additional tax. Additionally, technology would be pointless if it weren't cheaper or more efficient. Environmentally friendly technology that is a perfect or improved substitute is constantly the case. That is why today's smokestacks release less than 10% of the harmful toxins that smokestacks did 50 years ago. That wasn't government, that wasn't global eco-police, that was economic efficiency and technology.

Originally posted by Hitro
And how is the Kyoto protocol a "desperate measure"? Desperate measures would be prohibiting private use of cars, energy limitations, etc..

For the United States that is precisely what it means.
Whose SUVs do we take away?

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Biologic
You seem to be missing the point. Where as every other nation attending made an effort America just could not be bothered.

More BS. America chose not to sign a flawed treaty, that is not the same as not making an effort. The government subsidizes clean energy programs. Power companies have started rebate programs to compensate customers who install solar panels on their homes. Just because we didn't want to sign a treaty that ignored the vast majority of the world's polluters does not mean that we haven't made efforts to invest in the envorinment.

Originally posted by Biologic
Don't lecture me about the costs and where they could be better spent. Does this mean that when lower emmisions in America will be cheaper than providing aid to other countries it will be considered? That will take along time.

I will mention the costs of this treaty and where that money could be better spent because it helps to put the issue into perspective for those people who haven't already been "convinced" by the Green propaganda. And clean energy is being developed in the U.S., just not as quickly as you would like.

Originally posted by Biologic
I know the Kyoto conference did not set a standard to lower emmisions enough (as a point of fact a 60% reduction in world-wide emmisions was required at the time). But it is a step in the right direction. At step America refused to take.

Why should America sacrifice 2-4% of its GDP in exchange for a six year delay in temperature increases? It doesn't make any sense for us and it doesn't really make any sense for the Euros. 6 years is nothing in the course of humanity, and not even a significant period of time for an individual. If you want to talk about reducing emissions, at least be honest with people and tell them you want that 60% reduction. Also try to be upfront about the economic impact and loss of life due to those emissions cuts.

Furthermore, one of the reasons we have refused to sign the treaty is because we feel it needs to be studied in more depth. Delaying action until 2020 will have about a 0.2 degree (C) impact by 2100. Why should we act in haste?

Originally posted by Biologic
What is not "total bull****" (as you like to say) is that America IS responsible for 1/4 of the worlds pollution. Some of the excuses are just pathetic. That if America has to cut down so should China and India. But a)they cannot afford to do so like the US CAN b) on a per capita basis, India and China's emissions are far less than the United States.

Yes, we pollute more than other countries, and on a per capita basis we even pollute more than China and India. We also produce a lot more $ per capita than those countries. We are more efficient than many other countries with those emissions. If you divide total emissions by GDP for the top ten polluters, the US is third best after Japan and Germany. I know how you greens love to throw around the 25% of the world's pollution with only 5% of the world's population, but that's a very misleading way to look at things. The economic efficiency of that pollution is a much better way to look at things as I will try to explain below.

Originally posted by Biologic
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, since carbon dioxide emissions are closely linked to GDP growth.

I'm sure the Indian reporter/scientist who first wrote that line thought he was being clever. The problem with his analysis is that if hundreds and hundreds of millions in India lack even basic electricity and other "survival emissions", what are we going to do when they even mildly approach Western levels of consumption? In a few years they will approach about one half the per capita level of pollution that we have in the U.S. Both of those countries have something close to 4 times the population of the U.S., so the total pollution of each will be about twice that of the U.S.

As you said, CO2 emissions are closely linked with GDP growth, so you accept that India and China will most likely be polluting more and more over the coming years as their enonomies grow. There is an added problem here in that those two countries are much less efficient on a pollution/economic basis than even the U.S. So, as they approach our level of GDP/capita, their pollution will get even worse.

Perhaps a better solution here would be for India and China to not undergo the same types of pollution causing industrialization in which the West took part, but to be forced through a treaty to take a cleaner path. Not anything that would substantially reduce growth, but something that would help the overall problem. At the very least, some measure must be put in place to force those countries to increase their pollution/GDP efficiency. Otherwise, Kyoto will be more irrelevant than it already is.

Originally posted by Biologic
PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!

naw, I quit smoking a couple of months ago

Originally posted by Biologic
Does it seem right to you that the single most polluting country does not cut down its emmisions for the sake of the whole planet.

Of course we should and will take action when it becomes a reasonable proposition. This means accepting a treaty that will have a substanstial impact (more than a six year delay) at reasonable costs (something less than the $150-200 BN/year in the U.S.), a reasonable timeline that enables science/technology to catch up to our goals, and that applies to the developing world as well.

Originally posted by Biologic
I've had to repeat some of the things mentioned in an early post because it would seem it went in one ear and out the other.

I'm still waiting for you to refute one point made in the article I posted...

Originally posted by Biologic
On a side note I am not having a 'America bash' here as the other 75% has to come from somewhere. I know it is not just Americas fault. Humans as a whole are to blame for what we are doing to the planet.

Glad to hear it And America's contribution is a lot closer to 20% than 25%.


I'm not against environmental issues, and we all want to live in a cleaner world. Still, I won't support what I view as an ineffective, expensive treaty, particularly when the case for man-made global warming is far from certain.

 

[Vengeance]

Enviromentalists just piss me off. Always stopping me in the street and asking me to sign forms and petitions. [punch]

 

[amadeus]

Just sign it with the good old "Darth Vader"