If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
Looks like the treaty designed to bring down American industry with the bogus
concept that we can actually do something about global warming not only failed when we didn't agree to commit economic suicide by signing it, but also confounds its signer's governments to actually meet it themselves: http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle335198.ece Short of having the entirity of humanity commit suicide, or try to do without modern transportation which would mostly kill everybody anyway, the damn greenhouse gases are going to increase. If we kill everyone in a nuclear war, then maybe... when houses don't have to be heated with fossil fuels, people don't have to grow and transport food with fossil fuels, we don't have to drive to work and back with fossil fuels, then _maybe_ global warming would reverse (but probably not - there's a natural component to it, too.) Dave Head |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
Dave Head wrote: > Looks like the treaty designed to bring down American industry with the bogus > concept that we can actually do something about global warming not only failed > when we didn't agree to commit economic suicide by signing it, but also > confounds its signer's governments to actually meet it themselves: > > http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle335198.ece > > Short of having the entirity of humanity commit suicide, or try to do without > modern transportation which would mostly kill everybody anyway, the damn > greenhouse gases are going to increase. If we kill everyone in a nuclear war, > then maybe... when houses don't have to be heated with fossil fuels, people > don't have to grow and transport food with fossil fuels, we don't have to drive > to work and back with fossil fuels, then _maybe_ global warming would reverse > (but probably not - there's a natural component to it, too.) > > Dave Head The thing about the Kyoto protocole is that committing economic suicide is exactly what the nutjob environmentalists that pushed that treaty through wanted to happen. Thank god the United States didn't sign off on it, and hopefully by the time of the next presidential election, this agreement will be shown for what it truly is. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow
introduction of hybrids). OK, the US can pass Kyoto only when the third world manufacturing centres (China, India, Malayasia, Indonesia, and so on) sign on, and enforce it too. Until then... (heh, wouldn't it be cool if the widespread adoption of diesel hybrids (low green house gas producing, but, alas, right now high particulates) brought down the US emission levels...) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
On 27 Dec 2005 19:18:26 -0800, "Sir Ray" > wrote:
>Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow >introduction of hybrids). Driving produces the major volume of greenhouse gases and is most likely to be attacked by the environmental extremists in an effort to "do something" about global warming. > >OK, the US can pass Kyoto only when the third world manufacturing >centres (China, India, Malayasia, Indonesia, and so on) sign on, and >enforce it too. Until then... Right. Just 'cuz its India or China doesn't make the emissions any less relevant to the global warming problem (if you accept that there is a problem and/or that we actually have the power to do something about it.) >(heh, wouldn't it be cool if the widespread adoption of diesel hybrids >(low green house gas producing, but, alas, right now high particulates) >brought down the US emission levels...) Yep. It'd be great, and I think it'll happen, as the diesels, in the high-30's of mpgs, are likely to be sold like hotcakes, off and on, as the price of gas goes over $3.00 a gallon again and again. Dave HEad |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
Dave Head wrote: > On 27 Dec 2005 19:18:26 -0800, "Sir Ray" > wrote: > > >Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow > >introduction of hybrids). > > Driving produces the major volume of greenhouse gases and is most likely to be > attacked by the environmental extremists in an effort to "do something" about > global warming. That's bull ****. Driving makes up a very small percentage of greenhouse gasses. What makes up the vast majority of greenhouse gasses? Emissions from Volcanoes and yes, animals. > > > >OK, the US can pass Kyoto only when the third world manufacturing > >centres (China, India, Malayasia, Indonesia, and so on) sign on, and > >enforce it too. Until then... > > Right. Just 'cuz its India or China doesn't make the emissions any less > relevant to the global warming problem (if you accept that there is a problem > and/or that we actually have the power to do something about it.) Those third world manufacturing centers are growing at a fast pace. If the United States and other industrialized, non-third world countries have to cut emissions, doesn't it only make sense to expect developing countries to stop the problem in their countries BEFORE the problems in those countries are greatly multiplied? If Kyoto is so correct about the dangers of global warming, that treaty should pressure EVERY country to reduce emissions, not just the ones where heavy industry has been around the longest. To do otherwise, is hypocritical. > > >(heh, wouldn't it be cool if the widespread adoption of diesel hybrids > >(low green house gas producing, but, alas, right now high particulates) > >brought down the US emission levels...) > > Yep. It'd be great, and I think it'll happen, as the diesels, in the high-30's > of mpgs, are likely to be sold like hotcakes, off and on, as the price of gas > goes over $3.00 a gallon again and again. > > Dave HEad |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
On 28 Dec 2005 06:56:07 -0800, "Allen Seth Dunn" > wrote:
> >Dave Head wrote: >> On 27 Dec 2005 19:18:26 -0800, "Sir Ray" > wrote: >> >> >Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow >> >introduction of hybrids). >> >> Driving produces the major volume of greenhouse gases and is most likely to be >> attacked by the environmental extremists in an effort to "do something" about >> global warming. > >That's bull ****. Driving makes up a very small percentage of >greenhouse gasses. What makes up the vast majority of greenhouse >gasses? Emissions from Volcanoes and yes, animals. Yeah, OK, I can see that - I meant man-made emissions. Volconoes are not subject to pinheaded attempts at legislation to curb their emissions and so therefore aren't worth mentioning. As for animals, they contribute no new carbon to the atmosphere because the carbon the produce was already taken from the atmosphere when the vegetation they ate processed it into plant matter. >> >OK, the US can pass Kyoto only when the third world manufacturing >> >centres (China, India, Malayasia, Indonesia, and so on) sign on, and >> >enforce it too. Until then... >> >> Right. Just 'cuz its India or China doesn't make the emissions any less >> relevant to the global warming problem (if you accept that there is a problem >> and/or that we actually have the power to do something about it.) > >Those third world manufacturing centers are growing at a fast pace. If >the United States and other industrialized, non-third world countries >have to cut emissions, doesn't it only make sense to expect developing >countries to stop the problem in their countries BEFORE the problems in >those countries are greatly multiplied? Yep. >If Kyoto is so correct about >the dangers of global warming, that treaty should pressure EVERY >country to reduce emissions, not just the ones where heavy industry has >been around the longest. To do otherwise, is hypocritical. Yep. But the objective of the Kyoto treaty was to damage the US industrial base even further, and hamper our transportation. Other countries are jealous of our natural resources, capability to use them, etc., and figure that they can use the red herring of attempting to stop a natural process to weaken the US economically. Dave Head >> >(heh, wouldn't it be cool if the widespread adoption of diesel hybrids >> >(low green house gas producing, but, alas, right now high particulates) >> >brought down the US emission levels...) >> >> Yep. It'd be great, and I think it'll happen, as the diesels, in the high-30's >> of mpgs, are likely to be sold like hotcakes, off and on, as the price of gas >> goes over $3.00 a gallon again and again. >> >> Dave HEad |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
Dave Head wrote: > Looks like the treaty designed to bring down American industry with the bogus > concept that we can actually do something about global warming not only failed > when we didn't agree to commit economic suicide by signing it, but also > confounds its signer's governments to actually meet it themselves: > > http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle335198.ece > > Short of having the entirity of humanity commit suicide, or try to do without > modern transportation which would mostly kill everybody anyway, the damn > greenhouse gases are going to increase. If we kill everyone in a nuclear war, > then maybe... when houses don't have to be heated with fossil fuels, people > don't have to grow and transport food with fossil fuels, we don't have to drive > to work and back with fossil fuels, then _maybe_ global warming would reverse > (but probably not - there's a natural component to it, too.) > > Dave Head No offense, but aside from the economic impacts which I agree with, this is pure conjecture and speculation. I prefer to let scientific research determine what will really happen. >From another layman's viewpoint it seems obvious that one car, one house, and one factory running on fossil fuels is not going to melt the polar ice caps or anything like that and the environment would cope with it without any significant global effects. That's just a gut reaction, not based on physical research at all, and could therefore be wrong. I'll believe the general scientific community's research on this topic over my own gut reaction every time. But if that gut reaction is right, perhaps the atmosphere could even deal with two cars, or maybe three. I.e., I think the reality is that there is probably a certain rate of greenhouse gas emissions the environment could cope with just fine. Let's let good science tell us if that is correct, and if it is, what that limit is and then try to meet it rather than make decisions of this sort by taking polls on the street from non-scientists about what their opinions are on the matter. I value scientific opinion very highly, and I would hope most other people do too. I tend to think the global warming issue is not a purely economic one. Obviously as we burn more of it the supply drops and it becomes more expensive, therefore is used less and the rate of pollution decreases. If the supply is large enough, however, we could very well burn ourselves right into some serious trouble. I'm a firm believer in market forces and economics as you may be. However, in this case it may be dangerous to simply allow market forces to dictate what happens. I think on this topic it's absolutely essential to pay attention to the scientists researching global warming as well as consider the economic impacts, then make a decision considering all factors. Our survival and the survival of future generations should be priority number one in my opinion, however. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
In article .com>, Allen Seth Dunn wrote:
> Those third world manufacturing centers are growing at a fast pace. If > the United States and other industrialized, non-third world countries > have to cut emissions, doesn't it only make sense to expect developing > countries to stop the problem in their countries BEFORE the problems in > those countries are greatly multiplied? If Kyoto is so correct about > the dangers of global warming, that treaty should pressure EVERY > country to reduce emissions, not just the ones where heavy industry has > been around the longest. To do otherwise, is hypocritical. Furthermore, if the desire is to protect the environment, why make a policy that only further encourages manufacturing to locate to nations where the straightforward 'you may not poison the river' environmental protections do not exist? If the desire was to protect the environment, the desire should be to locate manufacturing in the USA, Europe, Japan, and any other nation with strong environmental protections. After all, for gobal warming (should the premise be correct), it doesn't matter where the CO2 comes from on the globe. However, for more typical environmental damage such as dumping sludge in rivers and spewing toxic gases, it matters a lot. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
On 28 Dec 2005 06:56:07 -0800, "Allen Seth Dunn" >
wrote: > >Dave Head wrote: >> On 27 Dec 2005 19:18:26 -0800, "Sir Ray" > wrote: >> >> >Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow >> >introduction of hybrids). >> >> Driving produces the major volume of greenhouse gases and is most likely to be >> attacked by the environmental extremists in an effort to "do something" about >> global warming. > >That's bull ****. Driving makes up a very small percentage of >greenhouse gasses. What makes up the vast majority of greenhouse >gasses? Emissions from Volcanoes and yes, animals. No, no no. Don't you see - by including everything that emits these "greenhouse" gasses, you are skewing the data to make it look like man made gasses are a very small part of the total. Oh wait, that isn't skewing, it is stating the facts. Oh well, with all the environuts spewing their own hot air about alleged "greenhouse" gasses, and the pseudo science it is based on, I sometimes forget that true science means looking at actual data. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:46:08 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>Yeah, OK, I can see that - I meant man-made emissions. Volconoes are not >subject to pinheaded attempts at legislation to curb their emissions and so >therefore aren't worth mentioning. As for animals, they contribute no new So, the portion that releases 95% can be ignored so we can concentrate on your .005%. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|