Pocket Plane Group
Miscellany, Inc. => Ensign First Class Blather => Topic started by: balduran on September 24, 2005, 08:52:03 AM
-
I couldn't find the news in the original, so I am translating it here. It is from a news agency Makfax:
A Macedonian from New Jersey claims, that he discovered a way to "stop forever" haracanes in USA. In a letter, sent to the weekly newspaper of the Macedonian immigrants in the USA, "Macedonian Voice", Vlado Fille points, that his discovery will save humanity from the sufferings, brought by the forces of nature.
The agricultural engineer has informed the American authorities, from whom, he awaits an answer to certain demands he made.
For his discovery, Fille demads "the unification of Macedonia in its ethnic borders", the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and 3 billion dollars.
And I thought I was crazy...
-
A druid perhaps?
-
I would be sceptical.
-
It's only 3 billion dollars. I imagine they could go as low as 1 and skip the withdrawal from Iraq. I say go for it.
-
They could cough up the 3 billion withdraw and still get out ahead moneywise. That is at least what another 2 years will cost them anyway.
-
I like his priorities. The billion dollars is last on the list - like it's an add on. Maybe it's a subtle protest against the war.
There's a certain grandness about this: "I will tell you the secrets of the universe if you do the impossible for me, oh and give me 3 billion dollars." I would love to know his Secret Huricane Stopper. It's probably "Stop emitting greenhouse gases".
-
(the secret is to poke their eye out)
-
Crack addicts
-
His advice will probably simply be "Sign the Kyoto accords." There are reports recently that many people appear to believe hurricanes would stop happening if the accords were signed by the US.
-
You know what they say - the pen is mightier than the wrath of mother earth. No, wait...
-
His advice will probably simply be "Sign the Kyoto accords." There are reports recently that many people appear to believe hurricanes would stop happening if the accords were signed by the US.
I doubt that the Bush administration would ratify the Kyoto treaty. Afterall, it was signed by Clinton and Bush is known to be close to the industrial conglomerats in the USA, which would heavily object if it happened.
-
The point of the Kyoto agreement is putting the survival of the earth and human beings in the future ahead of the immediate financial interests of oil etc companies.
We know that Bushie and his Little Mate Johnny won't sign because their priorities are keeping the big power guys happy - it would be nice if they were a little less short-sighted and gutless. I'm just hoping they will be alive to look their grandchildren in the eye and explain why they didn't.
I think we should all follow in the footsteps of this Macedonian man and make our own impossible demands.
I will provide the solution to world hunger if I can choose the next Pope, have a penthouse apartment overlooking the Grand Canal in Venice and 10 million dollars.
-
I know how to stop those hurricanes.
We just need to kill all butterflies ;D !
-
I think we should all follow in the footsteps of this Macedonian man and make our own impossible demands.
I will provide the solution to world hunger if I can choose the next Pope, have a penthouse apartment overlooking the Grand Canal in Venice and 10 million dollars.
Why the hell do you need to choose the new pope?
-
I'm Catholic.
-
I wanted to be a pope when I was a kid.
-
Me, too.
-
Cool.
And now I'm an antichrist.
Isn't it ironic?
-
His advice will probably simply be "Sign the Kyoto accords." There are reports recently that many people appear to believe hurricanes would stop happening if the accords were signed by the US.
I doubt that the Bush administration would ratify the Kyoto treaty. Afterall, it was signed by Clinton and Bush is known to be close to the industrial conglomerats in the USA, which would heavily object if it happened.
Bush is in favor of the overall goal of the Kyoto accords, but the fact is that the Accords are based on bad science and poor economics. Let us not speak of that again.
For the record, the president does not ratify treaties, the Senate does.
The Macedonian guy is clearly an idiot with his own screwy agenda to pursue. There were hurricanes long before global warming, the war in Iraq, or any of that stuff.
-
By bad science do you mean, its not sponsered by the oil companies, and backed by republicans.
While Bush was govenor of texas he changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. He also cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
He also bankrupted his texas oil company but not before selling all his stock.
Its safe to say we can't trust Bush's economical or enviormental choices, givin his history.
In his first 3 years bush took 250 vaction days, or around 27% of his time.
-
Rastor, the Macedonian guy may have a unique perspective on reality that would respond well to psychotropic drugs. Or he may just be very, very funny. Either way, I admire his largeness of gesture and chutzpah.
Sustainable/renewable energy sources are more expensive at the moment: cutting down emissions from factories will be costly. If our governments put more money into developing the technology it wouldn't be so expensive or difficult. Instead they use terms like 'bad science' to make us believe that global warming is not a problem, and 'poor economics' because "My friends in the oil business wouldn't like it if I caused a drop in their profits " doesn't sound nearly as good. It's a question of initial pain/future gain - funnily enough they never have a problem with this when they have to cut services.
-
In his first 3 years bush took 250 vaction days, or around 27% of his time.
He also went AWOL for an entire year during his time in the National Guard
-
Global warming is NOT a Scientific fact. Current global trends in climatechange. The health risks and environmental damage from pollution however...
-
http://www.science.org.au/events/rowland/
It's long, but important.
-
You know Vel, I think it is. Even before Cliffette posted her large bunch of facts.(Uh-huh! See! I love telemetry.) Ice is melting in the Arctic, Antarctic and the northern hemisphere. Hurricanes are occuring in the South Atlantic ocean which is supposed to be too cold for that. Weird things are happening weatherwise everywhere. i know that Melbourne is consistently experiencing mild winters - where the temperature seldom drops below 16 and it rarely rains. We have sunny days in June. What has the weather been like in Tassie? Better? While Queensland experiences stronger monsoons and flooding. Is this the natural order of things? It took a long time for governments to recognise the health risks and environmental damage from pollution - this stalling over greenhouse gases is more of the same.
-
Bush is in favor of the overall goal of the Kyoto accords, but the fact is that the Accords are based on bad science and poor economics. Let us not speak of that again.
Global warming is a fact. And whether you like it or not, Rastor, you cannot explain it with "bad science". Too much thing have happened lately that cannot just be blamed to poor luck or whatever. And its not just on TV (that last thing was a joke, if you didn't get it), it happens for real. Take my country for example - Bulgaria has very calm weather, but not for the last three months - almost half of the country was sweapt by floods, which hasn't happened in hundreds of years and the damages were for more than a quarter of the National GDP. Then comes that hurracane, Kathrine, or whatever its name was. Just how often does such storms occur in the Northern Atlantic? You can blame it on fortune, but not when it happened again with Rita.
-
Global warming is NOT a Scientific fact.
Well it would certainly not be very intelligent design. :P
-
Ice is melting in the Arctic, Antarctic and the northern hemisphere.
Quick question. If Antartica (approximately 213 Kelvin or -60 Centigrade) raises in temperature by a few degrees, how much ice melts? Answer: None. In order for ice to melt, the temperature must be above 273 Kelvin or 0 Celsius. That would be an incredible increase in temperature, one which would be clearly noticed the world over. It has not been.
The oceans are indeed rising, by about the height of a nickel per year. Five thousand years ago, the oceans were rising five times as fast. Temperatures in the most populated areas of the world have been rising much faster than in rural areas. Asphalt traps heat and thus the temperature will always be higher in those areas. Meticulous records kept on ocean-going vessels for the last hundred years show absolutely no increase in temperature over those years. Satellites that have been monitoring the weather for the past nineteen years show not an increase in average temperatures, but a decrease.
Throughout the earth's history, temperatures have always showed a cycle of increases and decreases (Ice Ages, anyone?) In addition, Katrina and Rita could both be explained by this, as could the floods in Bulgaria. It could be a coincidence that it is happening now.
Bottom line: Global warming may or may not exist and there is no way to prove that it is being caused by increased energy consumption.
Now, onto the Kyoto Accords:
Part of the treaty involves "trading of emissions, in the words of American negotiator Stuart Eizenstat. The US will be "allowed" to produce carbon dioxide (that is, to burn fuels), but so will Chad, Lybia, Angola, Bosnia, and Ethiopia, to name a few. Of course, they don't stand a chance to do so, because they have pretty primitive technology. So they will sell their rights to burn fuel to whoever needs them (guess who?). In other words, US citizens will be paying, through taxes, dictators in third-world countries for the privilege of heating their homes and putting gasoline into their family cars.
Furthering the oppression of dictatorships? Does this sound like a cause worth supporting?
The Kyoto Accords would require that the United States reduce its energy consumption 7% below 1990 levels. Let's put this in perspective, shall we? A nineteen year old is required to reduce his food consumption 7%. We're going to borrow from the Kyoto Accords, though, so he must now consume 7% less food at 19 than he did at age 7.
To close, a quote from Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics at the University of Connecticut:
Their agenda is social, not scientific. This is not a battle between Good Green Scientists and scientists who can't quite understand the issues. Nor is it a battle between public- spirited environmentalists and money-grubbing corporations, as it is frequently depicted on the evening news. To some extent a fight for control of US dollars is, this battle is ultimately between civilized society and misanthropes who think man is nothing but protein for mosquitoes and tigers.
-
The main problem with blaming global climate change primarily on artificial pollution is that the average volcanic erruption does so much damage to the atmosphere, it would take human industry several decades to replicate the effects.
-
Take my country for example - Bulgaria has very calm weather, but not for the last three months - almost half of the country was sweapt by floods, which hasn't happened in hundreds of years and the damages were for more than a quarter of the National GDP. Then comes that hurracane, Kathrine, or whatever its name was. Just how often does such storms occur in the Northern Atlantic? You can blame it on fortune, but not when it happened again with Rita.
I cannot comment on Bulgaria and its travails but yes, these killer storms actually have occurred before and are not terribly unusual. Here is a link to a wonderful cartoon that succinctly depicts the New Orleans situation.
http://hogan.ohio.com/ohio/bok/album/show.php3?id=1910
Here's two more links for deadliest hurricanes and their strengths to hit the US since 1900 the second link is to an updated list that includes Katrina
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125319199498_110
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_050914_worst_disasters.html
To attribute a specific hurricane to global warming, at this point, is fallacious reasoning and would be "bad science." To imply that if Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords then hurricane Katirna would not have existed is not only a specious statement but silly.
To address the question, does man affect his environment negatively? Of course. Is global warming an established fact? Maybe.
Finally, here's two more links to a lists of the world's worst natural disasters.
http://www.nbc10.com/news/4030540/detail.html
http://mnw.eas.slu.edu/hazards.html
We may trade anecdotes all day long, but anecdotal evidence is not established evidence and is not acceptable science.
Nightmare - Volcanic ash eruption can have the positive effect of blocking holes in the ozone too.
Modified to apologize for technical inability.
Sorry :-[, the first links need to be cut/paste for some reason.
-
I like the New Orleans link and as the Daily Show rightly pointed out it wasn't divine intervention either as the Franch Quarter is still standing. :D
I agree that natural disasters and global warming may be cyclical phenomena, but we may or may not outlive these cycles.
To point at the natural occurance of ice ages is quite funny, but might not really help the survival of mankind as we know it. I know that the Club ofRome has already predicted that we would be well beyond f**ked by now back in the 70s, but although some predictions may be wrong, the general scope and direction of our worries isn't.
Once I find the comparison chart I am searching for comparing American energy consumption to the rest of the world I will post it here and you will see what I mean.
Family cars/Heating their homes vs Dictators!! Ras you are an outstanding demagogue. I like that. ;)
-
Global warming is NOT a Scientific fact.
Well it would certainly not be very intelligent design. :P
Intelligent design isnt even scientific :P
Or intelligent for that matter.
-
global warming aside, The pollution out put, IS linked to rising health problems destroying the environment. burning holes in the ozone layer.
Bush don't give a •••• about any environmental laws he just pretends to. If he gave a shit, Texas wouldn't have become the most polluted state in the union and Houston wouldn't have become the most smog ridden state.
Rastor, you know nothing of the south pole.
Antarctica IS MELTING. Fact is large portions of the ice sheet melt and refreeze EVERYYEAR!. Shackleton's ship got stuck in the refreezing ice sheets.
Now the problem s the Ice sheets aren't refreezing out as far or as deep each year. Same thing is happening with Glaicers who are having parts exposed that have been covered for over five thousand years.
-
I know that the Club ofRome has already predicted that we would be well beyond f**ked by now back in the 70s, but although some predictions may be wrong, the general scope and direction of our worries isn't.
Humans have been predicting the end is nigh for centuries, one of these days their bound to be correct.
Once I find the comparison chart I am searching for comparing American energy consumption to the rest of the world I will post it here and you will see what I mean.
The stats you are looking for are 25% of world's energy consumption and 4% of world's population. You want statistics, I got your statistics right here:
Canada - pop. 32.8 m. Total energy consumption translated into million oil tons, 307.5. Canada has a population that is eight times smaller than the US. If you increased Canada's pop. to match the US's pop then Canada would use more energy than the US.
Let's add some details.
The UK (pop. 57.8 m) uses 226.9 m. oil tons. Increase the pop. to match the US's and it energy consumption would rise to 50% of the US's. Ah ha! you say. Well, let's contrast the two and see why one country, even with comparable populations, would use 50% more energy than another.
The US is a bigger area, it has more extremes in climate, I believe, owns more vehicles, and has cheaper fuel.
Japan and the Russian Federation have a combined population of 270.7 m. and consume 1183.2 m. oil tons compared to the US's consumption of 2,331.6 motns. The two countries consume just under 50% of US consumption.
What factors, if any, might contribute to the disparity?
Link: http://www.geohive.com/
-
Aha! :P '... and has cheaper fuel' is the watch word here
Thanks for the link. It seems very interesting, but not the one I am looking for. I am searching for a source that compares overall energy input into food production.
You also laid your finger precisely on the sore points:
Thank yer Gods that..
Canadians don't breed well.
Russians and Japanese are so backward or few.
Britons like to crowd in their pubs and shun aircondition in favour or woolen sweaters.
Most importantly that India and China did not join in yet at their full capacity.
-
Aha! :P '... and has cheaper fuel' is the watch word here
More factors than that...There is also free market, if the price of fuel becomes too great than people will demand other alternatives, and adjust their lifestyles. If your soy latte becomes too expensive then you turn to chai. :)
You also laid your finger precisely on the sore points:
Thank yer Gods that..
Canadians don't breed well.
Russians and Japanese are so backward or few.
Britons like to crowd in their pubs and shun aircondition in favour or woolen sweaters.
Most importantly that India and China did not join in yet at their full capacity.
Why? Are we talking about the environmental effects or life won't be so fun in the US when this happens? Competition for resources is hardly new, in fact, its kinda evolutionary.
However, humans are very innovative and adaptable, who's to say that if China and India suck up all the oil in the next hundred years, others may perfect geo, hydro, wind, solar, etc., energy? There is no particular reason for either India nor China to necessarily follow 19th and 20th century industrialized nations' patterns. Due to geography, population, culture and needs, it is hardly likely that they would be even able to emulate France, Austria or the US. With good leadership and study there also no reason that these countries could not have excellent urban planning, infrastructure and city development on scale never before possible. Technologically speaking, it could be amazing, and relatively environmentally kind.
-
burning holes in the ozone layer.
The holes in the ozone layer have been repairing themselves for the past several years.
Rastor, you know nothing of the south pole.
Antarctica IS MELTING. Fact is large portions of the ice sheet melt and refreeze EVERYYEAR!
I know enough about physics to know that ice does not melt if the temperature is below the freezing point of water. If it's refreezing, I don't see what the problem is, anyway.
The US is a bigger area, it has more extremes in climate, I believe, owns more vehicles, and has cheaper fuel.
Correct on all counts. In terms of land, the U.S. is what, bigger than the E.U.? It's pretty close either way.
There still is not enough evidence to declare global warming as science fact. The Kyoto Accords are seriously flawed as written and the pollution goals need to be changed. The U.S. already has the cleanest manufacturing techniques and automobiles in the world. I want unchallengable proof that Texas is the most polluted state. Last I heard, it was California. We can pull Bush out of it as it was proven that some of the provisions in the Kyoto Accords are just plain stupid.
-
If you bothered to READ my post, you'll notice I said its not refreezing as much as it melts! Which means a net loss in ice each year. The average depth and extent of the Ice is going down. They've been messuring and keeping records of ice coverage for decades. Some records of the extent the ice goes out each year goes back over 100 years.
Global warming isn't heating the ice to cause it to melt, if it got that warm we'd all be dead. But it doesn't take as much to heat the water the ice floats on. Now when the average water tempture goes up, the ice melts quicker and won't refreeze as quickly
Rastor, California WAS the most polluted state. However during Bush's tenture as govener of texas he repealed various pollution laws. And Texas then became the most polluted state.
All and all lets just lock this topic, the earth will become a dead rock and people will still say its not our fault.
-
So far the discussion seems pretty civil. If you're angry, just take a deep breath and take a break, and let people who actually want to argue about this sort of stuff go ahead.
-
Yeah, just say to yourself, "Obviously, he has a lot of shares in an oil company."
To attribute a specific hurricane to global warming, at this point, is fallacious reasoning and would be "bad science."
...We may trade anecdotes all day long, but anecdotal evidence is not established evidence and is not acceptable science.
A theory is posited, then examples/ evidence supporting the theory are put forward. The empirical evidence of warmer temperatures, melting ice, holes in the ozone, rising sea water levels etc is supported by anecdotal evidence of hurricanes of increased force and in cold waters, unseasonable storms, etc.
Because this is science it is difficult to prove indisputably. I do find it a compelling and convincing argument.
There is also free market, if the price of fuel becomes too great than people will demand other alternatives, and adjust their lifestyles. If your soy latte becomes too expensive then you turn to chai. :)
True. But you can only do that if chai is available. If the only way you could get chai was to go to Sri Lanka yourself it wouldn't be a feasible option, would it? How long will you have to wait for your government to say, OK, we'll start producing chai here so that it is cheap and accessible? Until they think they'll lose votes if they don't.
... who's to say that if China and India suck up all the oil in the next hundred years, others may perfect geo, hydro, wind, solar, etc., energy?
China and India will suck up all the oil over the next hundred years. So it would be good if governments could get busy, rather than waiting 99 years from now.
With good leadership and study there also no reason that these countries could not have excellent urban planning, infrastructure and city development on scale never before possible.
This could be a very persuasive argument - unfortunately it's dead in the water because the first phrase is "with good leadership." Yeah, right. It's SO going to happen.
(I love it when you're funny, Regull.)
As for the Kyoto Accord - whether or you believe its goals are achievable, the basic premise is that wealthy, industrialised, resourced nations take a step towards reducing pollution. It causes me great concern that my government is taking a "I'm not going to because they're not going to" stance, instead of saying, "yes, we are well placed to begin investing in this area."
We are having a fun discussion at the moment over ethanol. One of Little Johnny's mates is Mr. Ethanol. He would like more ethanol in petrol. The trouble is, car manufacturers don't make cars that like ethanol. A few years ago there was a little scandal caused by a petrol company which was putting ethanol in its petrol (the dilutions ranged between 10 and 50%) and selling it more cheaply. And people who bought this petrol found that after a while their cars were going pop! bang! to various degrees. (At the risk of being anecdotal, I can vouch for the allergy of cars to ethanol.) Now, is Little Johnny announcing a new investment in ethanol-friendly car engines? No. He's legislating that ethanol can be put into petrol, and leaving it up to the car manufacturers to work it out. Eventually. There are some days I just want to slap him.
-
Because this is science it is difficult to prove indisputably. I do find it a compelling and convincing argument.
It's not hard to prove because it's science. It's hard to prove because it's hard to prove. Science is just the method with which one tries to prove it.
And yes, everyone go buy a bicycle. Or a fuel-efficient car, at the very least.
Oh, and hey, has anyone heard anything interesting about hydrogen fuel? One of my friends was talking about them making Hummers that used it, although he's known to talk out of his ass now and then, so I'm not sure what it's worth, and I don't want to go googling at the moment.
-
I think the operative word is "indisputably." If all explanations are theories. There's a ton of evidence supporting global warming. The question is, do you find it convincing?
Someone mentioned hydrogen fuel here not long ago. The discussion sank into obscurity because of the expense. Since this is a country where we still can't get our heads around ethanol, only one electric/petrol hybrid car is on the market, and wind farms are viewed with deep suspicion, it might be a while before we pay serious attention to hydrogen.
-
Important point: The Ozone hole is patching itself up because we did something about it (ie stopped using CFCs).
I don't think writing off global warming as a 'possible freak occurence' or a 'possible upward surge in the temperature cycle' or even hoping that temperatures will somehow go down by themselves is wise when there is even the possibility that human activity has somehow upset the cycle. Maybe the Kyoto agreement is not the answer, but I would dearly love a country to propose an alternative solution.
The U.S. already has the cleanest manufacturing techniques and automobiles in the world.
It's not just cars. It's industry, airconditioners, washing machines, driers and it all adds up when you have enough people using them. I'm not saying that the US is responsible for the world's evils, etc etc, but there is always more that everybody can do. Particularly when the country has the brains, infrastructure and money to be able to do more.
It's also true that temperatures have risen and fallen cyclically over thousands of years. This temperature cycle is attributed to the rising and falling levels of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane). CO2 maxes out at around 280 ppm, then drops down to 180 ppm before rising back to 280 ppm, etc etc. Methane swings between 700 ppm and 320 ppm.
But here is Sherwood Rowland's quotation for what is happening now.
At the present time we are not at 280 ppm with carbon dioxide; we are at 380. We are not at 700 ppv, which is what was happening with methane; we are at 1700. So whatever this controlling process was that was acting here is not applicable any more, because we have overwhelmed it with the greenhouse gases.
There is a very good scientific explanation for why greenhouse gases equate to increases in temperature. They act as a blanket for infra-red radiation and have been doing so for the past I don't know how many millions of years. Their role is necessary and protective to maintain warmth on the planet. The problem is that they are now at extremely high levels, higher than they've ever been. That means that the planet will become warmer because we've thickened the blanket.
As for the melting ice in the Antarctic, that article states that it's just the start of the slippery slope. Ice is better at reflecting heat than water is. Melt more ice and you are slowly reducing the Earth's ability to reflect that heat.
Edit: Upwarge? What kind of a word is upwarge? :P
-
Re: Hydrogen fuel cells:
I watched something recently (Nova, probably, since cable eludes me) that explained how it takes almost as much energy to produce hydrogen cells as it does to currently power a car. The electricity needed to split water (hydrolysis?) is pretty high, and how are we going to produce that electricity?
I'm all for alternative fuels, though. I'd buy a hybrid car if I wasn't hopelessly upside-down on my current car loan.
-
We are having a fun discussion at the moment over ethanol. One of Little Johnny's mates is Mr. Ethanol. He would like more ethanol in petrol. The trouble is, car manufacturers don't make cars that like ethanol. A few years ago there was a little scandal caused by a petrol company which was putting ethanol in its petrol (the dilutions ranged between 10 and 50%) and selling it more cheaply. And people who bought this petrol found that after a while their cars were going pop! bang! to various degrees. (At the risk of being anecdotal, I can vouch for the allergy of cars to ethanol.) Now, is Little Johnny announcing a new investment in ethanol-friendly car engines? No. He's legislating that ethanol can be put into petrol, and leaving it up to the car manufacturers to work it out. Eventually. There are some days I just want to slap him.
Yeah. The twit. I recall a couple of years back a petrol station up in Brisbane trialed putting Ethanol in their fuel (about 10% if I remember rightly). Their sales dropped, no-one wanted it, so they went back to Ethanol free fuel.
I really want to stab everyone who voted Liberal last election >:( Stupid Senile old git.
As for Hydrogen Fuel. Production is a big problem, it does take a hideous amount of energy to split hydrogen off from water. I did a project on Hydrogen Fuel Cells, the other two problems they had were storage to match the range of fuel cars, and getting them to survive sub-zero temperatures. The Cells require water to operate, but freezing can damage the delicate components that operate them.
-
I do find it a compelling and convincing argument.
Never said there wasn't compelling argument. I did however say that it was 'silly' to attribute a specific hurricane to global warming or to give another type of example, to point to a day that is either unusually hot or unusually cold and then say the reason is global warming or the return of the ice age. To point to Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans (and others) as a phenomena is incorrect, to have the Nile flood, and then attribute the known propensity for floodng to global warming is silly.
True. But you can only do that if chai is available. If the only way you could get chai was to go to Sri Lanka yourself it wouldn't be a feasible option, would it? How long will you have to wait for your government to say, OK, we'll start producing chai here so that it is cheap and accessible? Until they think they'll lose votes if they don't.
The price of fuel increases to a point where I am burdened by the cost, what do I do?
I would search out alternative sources of heat and alternative methods of transportation. Because I live in a free market, I have these alternative choices.
So what happens? The automobile manufacturers notices an increased desire for fuel efficient and alternative fuel cars and finds that the poor mileage gas guzzler sales have decreased sharply. The manufacturers scramble to retain and increase their share of the market and to meet demands.
Politically? I vote my dissatisfaction, and if enough people feel the same way I do then public policy changes follows.
If the market wishes my money or the politician my vote, and again, enough people feel the same way that I do, then they will respond.
In the US, there are increasing choices in fuel efficient and fuel alternative cars. The suv (gas guzzling variety) and those lovely 300 hp+ sports cars market shares is decreasing.
China and India will suck up all the oil over the next hundred years. So it would be good if governments could get busy, rather than waiting 99 years from now.
Some people would argue that the market will change the government not the government the market.
I actually believe that there may be a partnership between a government and its people but I would dispute that the government necessarily will take the leadership role. You forget I am of the Libertarian bent.
This could be a very persuasive argument - unfortunately it's dead in the water because the first phrase is "with good leadership." Yeah, right. It's SO going to happen.
(I love it when you're funny, Regull.)
At last! Someone has actually cottoned to my humor. ;D Sadly true, as it stands, China is one of the most polluted countries in the world, there is little reason to suppose that there will be a radical change in leadership or freedoms in the near future. On the bright side, after all, I do have a little one, and I would like to be optimistic instead of continously reaching for a glass of Pinot, there was Tiannanmen Square, and the Chinese people are very resourceful.
As for the Kyoto Accord - whether or you believe its goals are achievable, the basic premise is that wealthy, industrialised, resourced nations take a step towards reducing pollution.
Again, I never said the basic premise was incorrect. Honestly there have been some strides in the reduction of pollution in industrialized nations, obviously there could be more done. I will give you my state, New Hampshire, as an example:
At the end of the 19th c. my state was 95% deforested, today, it is 95% forested. My state is in better condition today, in spite of having a larger and more prosperous population, than it was a 100 yrs ago. I might add that one of the reasons for the change, was markets.
-
The more fuel consuming cars have already started to drop in price due to the high fuel prices, and most of the Car ads are moving towards the "Look how fuel efficient our vehicles are" bent as opposed to "look how POWERFUL our cars are".
Hopefully the fuel price will drop some more too. Seeing as Oil prices have practically returned to their pre-Katrina levels. Milk has just gone up now too >:(
-
It would be silly to say the actual hurricane or other specific weather effects are caused by global warming. But it is not unreasonable to say we can see the effects of global warming in the increased number of storms of unusual intensity and other changes in weather.
Is it The Market that has improved life over the last hundred years, or the system of capitalism? Improved health, education, and work opportunities have enabled people to become more articulate and aware. But it hasn't been The Market that has done that. If The Market had its way, we'd all still be working in factories with no light, heating, cooling or ventilation for sixteen hours a day for three cents a day.
I agree, manufacturers will eventually respond and we will eventually get small hybrid cars and solar heating panels, etc. My point is waiting until they decide their profits are at risk and start to invest in research and development is going to take a while. My government could kick-start the process by giving tax breaks now and encouraging the alternative energy industry - but no, we'll have to wait until all the oil runs out and all the Mr.Oils decide to become Mr. Solar Energys and make their money that way.
I am over having The Market make the decisions in the world. There's nothing terribly free about it. How about my government acts, making decisions that are good for my community and society and environment, like it's supposed to?
There's only a thin line dividing angry liberals from Marxists.
I'm looking forward to seeing the new ads for the big Holdens and Subarus and 4WD's. Somewhere a bunch of advertising executives are having to develop a whole new advertising pitch. Perhaps, "You're so rich, you don't care how much it costs to fill up your car. Commodore."
-
Thought this was an interesting link:
http://japantoday.com/e/?content=comment&id=845
-
quoted from the link above: Steven Martinovich is a freelance writer in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. WT heck??
He does not cite any sources in his essay, which makes me wonder where he got his numbers from. Estimated growth on what basis? What about the industries that benefit from waste and pollution reduction? What about technological breakthroughs? If you think unchallenged status-quo is what brings about innovation and technological change then he might be mistaken. Only challenged by their environment can a species evolve. Everybody who has ever heard the ceteris paribus assumption economists work under needs more than a pinch of salt with most estimates. Especially growth is something I findvery amusing in long time projections.
-
Ah, just the way he said the agreement was meant to stop growth not greenhouse gas emissions suggests he might do a bit of his freelance work for Amoco et al.
I don't mind seeing bias in persuasive opinion pieces - because after all, that's the point of them - but it is sad to see persuasive opinion pieces pretending to be objective reporting of facts.
I felt less indignant after reading the posts in response to him. Funny how their discussion is a lot like ours.
-
"I fault the Bush administration for not offering more alternatives from the time it took office, regardless of its opinion on the science involved. They could have won a lot more brownie points around the world by just pretending to care, as Japan has.
The Japanese government has been "disingenous" from day one and deserves no credit for anything, because nothing has been accomplished, other than to convince the average Japanese that they cared simply by signing the agreement,when they never had any intention of adhering to any of its requirements." To steal from fark "SomeGuy."
"That aside, I still contend that the Kyoto Protocol was little more than an attempt to institute global socialism - handicap the financially established countries while giving a free pass to "developing" countries which are (or would be) bigger polluters."
"After the Katrina disaster has stirred up the controversy over the perils faced by mankind from global warming, you would think TB was even more committed to the KP, than before. But it is clear that his failed attempt to persuade GWB to return to KP has perversely caused TB to give up on the battle to stop global warming. What a schmuck."
"Per capita Aussies are the world's number one polluters."
This of course is untrue. When it comes to municipal waste per capita, first it is the US, than Australia followed by Iceland. :) Now Australia is #1 in nitrogen oxide pollution per capita.
Loved the responses.
Jester - I too was wtf? A Canadian! Then I read a riveting piece about Canada's environmental failures. At the lack of citations, frequently opinion pieces do lack citations. This is not the first time I have heard that Kyoto will not be renewed 2012, nor the first time I have heard that (most) signatories will fail to implement or meet any requirements.
Eral - The responses did remind me of here too. I also read an article about the ethanol proposals and was going to link it but I figured you had probably already read it.
-
I'm looking forward to seeing the new ads for the big Holdens and Subarus and 4WD's.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but Subarus are quite fuel efficient.
We are having a fun discussion at the moment over ethanol. One of Little Johnny's mates is Mr. Ethanol. He would like more ethanol in petrol. The trouble is, car manufacturers don't make cars that like ethanol. A few years ago there was a little scandal caused by a petrol company which was putting ethanol in its petrol (the dilutions ranged between 10 and 50%) and selling it more cheaply. And people who bought this petrol found that after a while their cars were going pop! bang! to various degrees. (At the risk of being anecdotal, I can vouch for the allergy of cars to ethanol.) Now, is Little Johnny announcing a new investment in ethanol-friendly car engines? No. He's legislating that ethanol can be put into petrol, and leaving it up to the car manufacturers to work it out. Eventually. There are some days I just want to slap him.
Funny. Both of my cars are designed to run on ethanol as well as petrol. All DaimlerChrysler vehicles made since the mid '90's also are.
-
Translation for Rastor: we call cars by their manufacturers names, rather than their brand names. Some brands are famous and are recognised without their company name, but usually if someone asks what you drive, you reply Holden/Ford/Honda/Mitsubishi etc. The big cars made by Holden are the Commodore and Calais. Subarus here may be fuel efficient - but they have large, powerful engines and are often the favoured car of young men who like to do burnouts at traffic lights and drive very very fast - hence my inclusion of them in the group whose advertisers are scratching for a new sales pitch.
Funny. Both of my cars are designed to run on ethanol as well as petrol. All DaimlerChrysler vehicles made since the mid '90's also are.
Yes, well since the idea of of ethanol has been around for a long time that makes sense, doesn't it. Which leads to the question, why is it taking so long to introduce such cars here??? The big innovation here in the early nineties was cars that run on unleaded petrol.