Slashdot Mirror

Bah!
"Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants."

There may be individuals in Greenpeace that don't fear the technology, but the organization's official stance is summarized above. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/ nuclear

• PROOF that Roughly Drafted is SPAMMING/Gaming Digg with multiple accounts
  Photographic evidence of AlexaW and RoughlyDrafted gaming Digg just to get moron Daniel Eran's articles to the front page. (Where they promptly get buried for being inaccurate.) Several users who ONLY digg AlexaW's submissions, all of whom signed up in the last 3 weeks. Coincidence? Not a chance. This needs to be stopped immediately.
• RoughlyDraftedBUSTED
• RDMBusted2
• Greenpeace response to Roughlydrafted

http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php ?p=2549&sid=534d45a1ba800922e2ef73dc5382fd8a

yummyguitars Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 1
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:59 am
Post subject: The Sun Heating Up??

I was recently having a discussion about global warming with my diving coach and while he agrees
that it exists and is a major problem, he denies that we have/had anything to do with it. According
to him, the earth is heating up because the sun is heating up. I tried showing him scientific proof
that greenhouse gas levels and global warming levels match almost perfectly, but he continued to deny it.

Does anyone have any data representing the sun's temperature trend vs. the earth's?

3 Cat

weneedrain Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 4
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: The Sun Heating Up??

Nope but keep buggin him/her about it. it could work after a while.

On the other hand, leftist papers have been in a sort of "we're doomed" sort of mode.

I think that this is because the senarios used in the report (even the 2000 level stable senario) have been strongly influenced by the US political interference in the report. You can see the discomfort in the way the report goes out of its way to say that the Kyoto senario has not been included.

The base level economic/population projections are potentially unrealistic given the rapidly falling cost of renewable energy as the scale advantage comes into play. Solar is approaching $1.50 per peak W and advances in wind are also very encouraging. From a competative point of view, especially for solar which avoids long haul transmission costs, things are looking very positive. This study outlines the scale advantage http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/renewables/r eports/kpmg8.pdf which solar is taking and which fossil fuel energy sources cannot. So, renewable energy gets cheaper while fossil fuel energy can only get more expensive.

So, the gloominess is really a result of the consensus process being manipulated by groups that are not able to act in good faith, rather than a reflection of the full range of possible senarios.

Save money with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I really think we're at the point of arguing about which method of suicide is best, and that is not my point. There is still a little breathing space before this link hits the slashdot front page http://www.ipcc.ch/. So, I'll just say right now, read http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/ for a bit.

From a technical call two nights ago I can say that cost per peak W for solar has hit $1.53 (fabrication not installation) and the time to pay back the energy to produce the panels is now about 1 year. This is cheap! Worrying about clean up for solar strikes me as a little silly. A defunct solar panel is defunct owing to lattice disorder caused by cosmic rays. It still has many more useful cycles after recrystalization. I would even guess that it does not have to be fully remelted, but this is a problem that we have not faced yet owing to our rather clueless addiction to fossil fuels and nuclear power. This report http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/renewables/r eports/kpmg8.pdf explains the basic economics of large scale solar power production.

If you want to help, go to http://www.powur.com/mdsolar and click on "Become an Ecopenure."

So now it's Windows fault because people are too stupid or lazy to out figure the difference? That's quite a stretch. Nevermind the fact that people like me leave their PC running constantly because it takes too long to startup. With this new scheme I might actually consider putting it into standby and thereby save power. Only until you count both sides will you actually know the impact it has. But don't let that stop everyone from making outrageous claims though. No, clearly XP ruined the planet and Vista is lined up to do the same. EVERYBODY PANIC. Meanwhile, Apple, one of the least green computer companies gets a free pass...

Let's assume the technical problems of switchgrass-to-ethanol are solved, and we can actually get the 10,000 litres/ha yield (which is actually a net yield of something more like 7,500 if you take into account EROI). The USA uses roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day - that's 3,200 million litres per day (just for simplicity, we'll assume a litre of ethanol is equivalent to a litre of crude). So you need 320,000 hectares - 800,000 acres - just for one day's crude demand. To produce a year's demand, you'd need 292 million acres of switchgrass. That is a equivalent to a square 675 miles to a side, and nearly four times the area on which corn is currently grown.

With regards to stream-bed hydro, my point is simply that the energy extracted from it - worldwide - will be lost in the noise. It is such an irrelevancy to global energy demand as to not be worth more than a moment's consideration for anybody other than the vanishingly small number of people who can benefit from it.

While there may be plenty of individual environmentalists who are comfortable with nuclear power (indeed, I would count myself as such a person), every single one of the major environmental organizations have opposition to nuclear power as a policy and as an active campaign. As a semi-random sample, we have:

• Greenpeace
• The Sierra Club
• World Wide Fund For Nature
• The Green Party of the USA - indeed, pretty much every party thus titled around the world.
• To give an international perspective for you, in Australia, the premier environmental NGO is the Australian Conservation Foundation, who are strongly opposed

Maybe there are internal debates about the topic currently going on in these organizations, but if so it hasn't resulted in any actual changes in policy yet.

Greenpeace

... are just financed by the big oil business. It is not a scientific debate, but a massive campaign of distortion financed by corporate America. And the climate-septics are no scientists, but paid whores, who spell the lies of Exxon and co. Just take a look: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/busti ng-exxon-climate-crimina

The climate-skeptics are just a bunch of hired criminals.

Oh yeah, because when it comes to anything nuclear only evil right-wing loons EVER scare monger in any way.

As far as pollution and e-waste is concerned Mac=PC?

As far as I know, the Chinese are not as interest in dolphin huntings as Japanese

If you have been following the news, you would know that Japanese are joining hands with other countries like Norway to lift up the whale and dolphin-killing prohibition.

Here are a few references for you:
Activists video bloody dolphin kill
Japanese Whaling: the truth behind the Fisheries Agency of Japan's public relations campaign.
Save Taiji Dolphins
Futo Harbor Dolphin Slaughter

What you don't see is that those products get sent to China for recycling. There they are dismantled by hand by children. Part of the contents get burned. This is where the chemicals really get nasty.

I assume you didn't mean to say it's irrelevant just because it affects Chinese children instead of your own children.

Go look at the dirty stuff:
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/itox.html

What you don't see is that those products get sent to China for recycling. There they are dismantled by hand by children. Part of the contents get burned. This is where the chemicals really get nasty.

I assume you didn't mean to say it's irrelevant just because it affects Chinese children instead of your own children.

Go look at the dirty stuff:
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/itox.html

Seems like a third-hand account of the Greenpeace campaign I love my Mac. I just wish it came green. I like the fact that Greenpeace ripped of all the Apple style elements for this campaign, calaculating that Apple would not dare to sue them over this - would be more much attention to a campaign Apple would like to ignore.

The Greenpeace article is of dubious quality. Apparently, they even ignored their own lab testing, deciding instead to slam Apple. They even made a nifty little site to trash Apple, not only ripping off the apple.com design, but apparently a script as well (Apple's version).

To me, Greenpeace seems about as trustworthy as PETA at the moment.

The Greenpeace article is of dubious quality. Apparently, they even ignored their own lab testing, deciding instead to slam Apple. They even made a nifty little site to trash Apple, not only ripping off the apple.com design, but apparently a script as well (Apple's version).

To me, Greenpeace seems about as trustworthy as PETA at the moment.

ok, you don't like that site... how about this one; http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/ ?

Found an original Greenpeace article that probably triggered this; Apple scored very lowly in their "green electronics" ranking...

"The real reason is Greenpeace! They came out with a report on how environment friendly consumer electronics manufacturers actually are. And guess what? Apple is close to the last! :( [More:] Reproaches against Apple mostly include: * Overuse of toxic chemicals (brominated flame retardants, polyvinyl chloride) which make recylcing hazardous. * No timeline to phase these chemicals out. * Recylcing program limited to the US or where Apple is legally compelled to. * Products designed to have a short life span. Of course, Apple prefers to focus on packaging size, energy efficiency (which the all the competition does equally), the fact that flat panels weight less than CRTs (hello!?) and other environment friendly side effects to their marketing strategy. Ironically, there's this other computer maker Apple likes to make fun of. That company with the computers where the Intel processor is limited to "dull and repetitive tasks". That company called Dell. Well, ironically, Dell is ranking very well: number 2 on the environment scale! (#1 being Nokia) "It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation." --Greenpeace Don't get me wrong: I love my Mac, I love my iPod, I love the way Steve amazes us all the time. But I'd really really like him to amaze us in a "greener" way... ;)

http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/

And yet the Greenpeace car that has such a milage that even hybrids cannot outperform it sits in storage for 8 years now. The automotive industry: "yes, but people want comfort as well". Dunno, but for a car that uses half the gas needed for a normal car, I and a lot of other people are quite willing to sacrifice a bit of comfort and/or features. Especially in Europe where gas is very expensive.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/smile/tech/t able.html

That's certainly a matter of opinion. Could you point out a specific Greenpeace study, which is based on hyperbole, bent statistics and lies? I thought not.

this study is a measure of how much money the companies on the list put into "green PR"

You quite obviously didn't read through the studys criteria (you can download the criteria as a pdf via a link on the page). Granted, I'm not a scientist, and the fact how important it is to the environment that PVC and BFRs are phased out of the production process better yesterday then today can't be judged by me. But giving Greenpeace' visibility and the fact that a lot of smart people will look at this and disect it mercylessly gives it some credibility; at least in my book.

Just because a random Chinese company decided to slap a page on their English website about how they comply with RoHS and have an "environmental roadmap" and another one has nothing but spec sheets on their homepage says nothing about their environmental impact.

As a matter of fact the study (again, pdf link) contains tons of links to the pr fluff of the companies in question. From my understanding the study is either based on data released, or in the case of rodamps and commitments not released by the companies.

You may hate Greenpeace as an organization, but your arguments to debunk the study sound rather hollow.

That's certainly a matter of opinion. Could you point out a specific Greenpeace study, which is based on hyperbole, bent statistics and lies? I thought not.

this study is a measure of how much money the companies on the list put into "green PR"

You quite obviously didn't read through the studys criteria (you can download the criteria as a pdf via a link on the page). Granted, I'm not a scientist, and the fact how important it is to the environment that PVC and BFRs are phased out of the production process better yesterday then today can't be judged by me. But giving Greenpeace' visibility and the fact that a lot of smart people will look at this and disect it mercylessly gives it some credibility; at least in my book.

Just because a random Chinese company decided to slap a page on their English website about how they comply with RoHS and have an "environmental roadmap" and another one has nothing but spec sheets on their homepage says nothing about their environmental impact.

As a matter of fact the study (again, pdf link) contains tons of links to the pr fluff of the companies in question. From my understanding the study is either based on data released, or in the case of rodamps and commitments not released by the companies.

You may hate Greenpeace as an organization, but your arguments to debunk the study sound rather hollow.

But Lenovos abyssimal behavior regarding their ecological responsibilty renders them a company which just wound up on my eternal shitlist of companies from which I never ever buy anything.

Lenovo, say hi to the likes of Sony and Air France.

Slashdot covered this recently.

Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

Just ask anyone who has had to repair monitors from the 90-es and AT Computer cases. If the switch is purely mechanical, turning it off will cause a discharge from the capacitive/inductive charge in the device. This discharge will slowly eat into the switch contacts until they break.

Your advice is a decade out of date, doesn't apply to todays computers, as well as being just plain wrong even back in the 80's, never mind the '90s.

Televisions from the old days had higher capacitive/inductive charges, and the on-off button didn't "get eaten" (there were no remotes in those days).

I've been using the same power bar for over a decade - that switch hasn't "been eaten" either.

Come to think of it, neither have any of the light switches here (and the're all several decades old).

The simple fact is that the switches you claim were "eaten" were cheap. There's no reason for an on/off switch not to last for 10,000 to 10,00,000 cycles... heck, even todays hard drives are made to power on/off 10,000 - 20,000 times. Studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (quoted below) prove today's computers last longer if you turn them off when not in use.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/ climate-change/take_action/12_steps

Switching off a computer extends its lifetime, contrary to some misconceptions. Leaving a computer running the whole year will cost you more than 1,000 kWh/y, or almost as much a the total electricity consumption of a high-efficiency household.

Use one large power strip for your computer, broadband modem, scanner, printer, monitor, and speakers. Switch it off when equipment is not in use. This is a practical way to cut 200 kWh/y or more of standby losses (see standby).

Minimise printing. Laser printers use more electricity than inkjet printers.

For more information see Greencampus Harvard and the Rocky Mountains Institute.

9. Cut off standby losses ("The vicious energy-suckers")

Most modern electric appliances consume electricity even when turned off. For TVs, VCRs, faxes, HiFis, computer screens, cable boxes, and broadband modems this is on average some 40 - 120 kWh/y. In total, household losses can reach several hundreds kWhs/y, all for doing nothing useful.

The best solution is to buy appliances that have a very low standby energy consumption. Standby power consumption is mentioned in the product manual and can be checked before buying. Or you can look for it on specialised websites (see links). For most appliances, it should be around 0.5 - 1 watts/hour or 4-8 kWh/year. Keep in mind that the cost of wasted standby energy over a model's lifetime can be higher than the cost of buying it!

A power strip is also the most practical way to switch of VCR, TV and DVD-player stand-by losses (you can cut off all three devices at once).

The multi socket power strip: a practical way to combat stand-by losses. This model costs only 1.8 euro and can save you more than 100kWh/y!

In the 15 countries of the EU in 2000, the total energy lost to standby in households was estimated at 94 billion kWh, or the equivalent of 12 large nuclear or coal power plants.

url:httpwwwrecyclingadvocatesorgnewslettermay2002h tm

Frequent on-off cycles vs. health of the computer hardware: Studies on computer equipment sold after 1998 indicate that there is no appreciable 'wear and tear' from shutting computers off once or twice daily. Most experts state that if a computer is to be left unused for four or more hours, it can be shut down without affecting its lifespan.

The information EZConserve has reviewed indicates that the risk of reducing a computer's useful life by turning it off at night is not the issue that

Yes, some glaciers are growing. However, the combined net change is a loss of glacial mass.

A similar effect is true of global temperature. Despite global warming, there are areas of the earth that are coolear. However, the global average is up. Note that temperatures at the poles can be affected very dramatically, the average at the north pole by as much as 8 degrees. This obviously has a greater impact on the polar ice than a 1 degree rise would have had.

I'm not sleuth of disasters, but how about these:

Italian dam causes tidal wave

Chernobyl

Space shuttle disasters (pretty worthless program, costing 145 Billion dollars)

Columbia
Challenger

Chemical explosion in India

Galloping Gertie

That's not true.

China is still producing, using, and venting vast amounts of CFCs today.

http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/node/371

other producers may also exist, see the somewhat out of date list at greenpeace.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/chlorine/5chlo r.html

First rule is, there is always someone opposed. There will be some doom and gloom environmental group that comes out opposed to fusion.

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archiv e/2006/05/slideshow_images_from_the.html

"Terrorist" is harsher then what Greenpeace deservers. That said, at the very least they vandalize equipment, trespass, and have performed more then one dangerous asinine stunt at sea. Greenpeace is by no stretch of the imagination the Sierra Club. These are people that happily violate the law and use terrorist like tactics. Running your snowmobile through an oil drilling site is dangerous for all involved. Having activist storm a laboratory Hell, just look at Greenpeace's own press releases. They read like ransom demands.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/rele ases/massive-police-presence-as-act

"We are putting Monsanto on notice, along with each and every Biotech firm that is contaminating our fields and our food supply now - or has future plans to introduce GE seeds - this is the beginning, we will not stop until France is
declared a GE free zone." Said Olivier Keller, national secretary of the Confederation Paysanne.

Is this a terrorist act? No, not really. Do people immediately pick up on the similarities between how these minority groups are trying to use corrosion to bring about some sort of social change? Hell yes. So yes, I'll agree that Greenpeace is not a terrorist organization. That said, they only way that they are different from your average run of the mill terrorist organization is that they make a reasonable effort to avoid harming people. Outside of the "not killing people" part (which admittedly is a big part), they operate in much the same way as any other crazy terrorist group does.

Links please, which ships did they ram where, when, why? (They had their ships rammed, they have been stormed, they have had been blown up). Why is you think that every time a ship of Greenpeace is seized by the authorities they get it back? Also about the trees, links please ... and please let them show that there were jacks being put into trees to kill people. I know about Greenpeace blowing up numbers and being really loud in the media. A famous Greeenpeace fuck-up (that they admitted to) is their estimate of the amount of poisoness waste in the Brent Spar. They overestimated that by a huge margin. In this post 9/11 world we have laws against terrorism. Don't you think Greenpeace would have been on our terrorist organisations list by now if what you're saying isn't merely a play on words? There are animal welfare organisations that are into arson and atacks on people (i.e. they are terrorists) --- they have been outlawed and rightly so!

I know of Sea Shepherd sinking ships and doing stuff like that --- not Greenpeace though. Greenpeace is mostly a lobbying organisation by now. They do put on the occasional show or protest but that is no longer all they do. They are also too politically aware and media savvy to go round and kill people. (Just to spell it out to you in terms that you are likely to understand: bad publicity for Greenpeace -> less revenue for Greenpeace!)

My point about your misuse of the term terrorist remains standing.

ramming incident: http://dontgointothelight.com/2006/01/a_greenpeace _member_responds.php

Greenpeace fleet: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/ship s

Ironically, they broke it yesterday by unexpectedly banging it against some coral.

Around lunchtime, just as I was on a Defending Our Oceans project leaders conference call, and being cautiously optimistic about how well things are going out here so far - disaster struck the underwater video and stills research camera, affectionately known as the 'Drop-Cam'. While surveying a coral ridge it had crashed into a rocky outcrop and been broken into pieces.

This article seems to take a different viewpoint than the recent greenpeace report.

Greenpeace just issued a report made in collaboration with 40 ukranian, russian and white russian scientists where they claim that the estimated death toll from the Chernobyl accident has been extremely underestimated by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA estimated the total death toll to 4000 people. Greenpeace and the east european scientists estimated that 93,000 people died from Chernobyl related cancer cases. Added to that is the immense social costs from the forced relocation of 300,000 people from the local area.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chern obyl-deaths-180406

Now, I have a few questions.

Why doesn't /. bring news from the anti-nuclear lobby and only news planted by the pro-nuclear lobby?

How long are the /. crowd going to accept being tricked by the pro-nuclear power plant lobby? That industry have more money than M$. The last two years increased interest is a classic case of an industry manipulating the public opinion. Do the friendly Linux crowd accept to be manipulated by big business and slick spin doctors? Does anybody?

And regarding the article: How do we remove the CO2 emissions from the mining, transport and processing of the nuclear fuel? In reality those emissions are so big that nuclear power plants only emits 30% as much CO2 as a traditional coal powered plant.

Nuclear Power is a non-renewable power source. Why not just skip directly to investments in renewable power sources instead of relying on costly, risky, centralized Nuclear Power plants?

"Glaciers and ice shelfs are melting. Everywhere. Now."

Nope.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/htm l/content/factsheets/oldreports/glaciers2.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID =3504064&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1678.h tml

I appreciate how attached you are to your opinions. Now, stop making up facts to support them, like ALL glaciers are melting NOW, and we can talk.

But you won't. You're too attached to what you think to bother with what the facts are.

And that first link? It's from Greenpeace. Question their bias, please. I could use a good laugh.

They're not ALL melting. Educate yourself.

I work with geologists, glaciologists, climatologists, and meteorologists all days, and there are several signs that warming is occuring- the most convincing being the melt of tropical glaciers, of which all of them are melting."

No, they're not. And yours is a perfect example of why this subject is so divisive. If you genuinely are a grad student in atmospheric sciences, then you'd know that not all glaciers are melting.

So, either you're lying or you're a poor student. Either way, you're wrong.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id= 26&objectid=3504064

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1678.h tml

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/htm l/content/factsheets/oldreports/glaciers2.html

There are solutions - these can easily be implemented by huge electronics multinationals making millions from consumer electronics sales, encapsulated in a short phrase - clean it up and take it back:

1. Take out the toxic chemicals - if manufactures take out the worst toxic chemicals from their products then it is easier and safer to reuse and recycle them. This doesn't stop them being dumped in Asia but it at least makes products easier to recycle and less dangerous for those handling them. Some companies like Nokia, Sony and HP have already committed to do this. Others like Dell and Apple haven't.

2. Take it back. The companies who made the products should be responsible for them at the end of their lives. If manufactures had to do this there would quickly be design changes made by the companies - consumers would get products that last longer, products would be designed to contain less dangerous chemicals and be easier to recycle because the company that makes them has to deal with the waste. After pressure from Computertakeback companies like Dell and HP support the principle of producer responsibility. In contrast Apple clearly doesn't think its their problem.

If any industry can change it's the innovative, fast moving consumer electronics industry. They are promoting fast turn over of consumer items so they should be tackling the consequences.

Tom

There are solutions - these can easily be implemented by huge electronics multinationals making millions from consumer electronics sales, encapsulated in a short phrase - clean it up and take it back:

1. Take out the toxic chemicals - if manufactures take out the worst toxic chemicals from their products then it is easier and safer to reuse and recycle them. This doesn't stop them being dumped in Asia but it at least makes products easier to recycle and less dangerous for those handling them. Some companies like Nokia, Sony and HP have already committed to do this. Others like Dell and Apple haven't.

2. Take it back. The companies who made the products should be responsible for them at the end of their lives. If manufactures had to do this there would quickly be design changes made by the companies - consumers would get products that last longer, products would be designed to contain less dangerous chemicals and be easier to recycle because the company that makes them has to deal with the waste. After pressure from Computertakeback companies like Dell and HP support the principle of producer responsibility. In contrast Apple clearly doesn't think its their problem.

If any industry can change it's the innovative, fast moving consumer electronics industry. They are promoting fast turn over of consumer items so they should be tackling the consequences.

Tom

There are solutions - these can easily be implemented by huge electronics multinationals making millions from consumer electronics sales, encapsulated in a short phrase - clean it up and take it back:

1. Take out the toxic chemicals - if manufactures take out the worst toxic chemicals from their products then it is easier and safer to reuse and recycle them. This doesn't stop them being dumped in Asia but it at least makes products easier to recycle and less dangerous for those handling them. Some companies like Nokia, Sony and HP have already committed to do this. Others like Dell and Apple haven't.

2. Take it back. The companies who made the products should be responsible for them at the end of their lives. If manufactures had to do this there would quickly be design changes made by the companies - consumers would get products that last longer, products would be designed to contain less dangerous chemicals and be easier to recycle because the company that makes them has to deal with the waste. After pressure from Computertakeback companies like Dell and HP support the principle of producer responsibility. In contrast Apple clearly doesn't think its their problem.

If any industry can change it's the innovative, fast moving consumer electronics industry. They are promoting fast turn over of consumer items so they should be tackling the consequences.

Tom

Bugger, misspelled the URL http://www.greenpeace.org/.

Damn...

How about caring about someone who actually exists right now and is starving and dying, RIGHT THIS MINUTE? Shall I give you examples or are you all up on the world's issues?

How about trying to prevent droughts in Africa?
What about preventing the wars predicted by the Pentagon as a result of global climate change?
What about trying to prevent a predicted increase in hurricane frequency and strength as a result of raised ocean temperatures?

Now it's your turn. Name me ways in which doing something about global warming would result in a loss of life, and I'll show you a matching number of ways in which not doing something about it will result in loss of life.

Also, no one in this world is starving and dying for any reason other than geopolitics. Drought in Africa kills people because the abundence of the rest of the world is not brought to those in need. No one is starving because of efforts to prevent global warming. No one.

Spanish? The worlds third largest language, widely spoken even in the U.S.A.?

It's spelt that way, because that's the closest translation possible from the original Japanese sound to Spanish letter sounds.

You are aware that Kyoto is a Japanese city? As such, the name is spelt in the Japanese alphabet.

When transliterating a word, it's common practise for every european language to choose the transliteration that works best with the pronounciation rules of that language.

Reads like one too. I belive it was Chalk River (Ontario) that had the incident(s). I figure if anyone would list a "Quebec's Chernobyl" incident it would be listed here. Yet no mention of a meltdown at Charlemagne.

And even in the Chalk River incident in the 1950's, nobody was killed. hardly rising the the level of the big one: Chernobyl. How many people die per year due to coal mining and coal plant operations? How many people have died as a result of working in or living near a nuclear power plant since they were first built? Go ahead, do some research on that one.

Oh no, it's already been done

Let me say that first I am not convinced ethanol is the answer but the subsidy issue is not the reason.
Check this one out. http://pangea.stanford.edu/ESYS/Energy%20seminars/ patzek_ethanol.pdf
Subsidies are a whole different animal.
First we pay at the pump less than half of the cost of a gallon of gas. Our tax dollars pay the rest. Second we pay in many other ways like: subsidies for exploration, subsidies for new fuel mixes, studies on future supply, tax breaks, etc..
Agribusiness is not the only pig at the trough. From a quick look it seems agribiz is sucking about 19 billion a year out of us and oil totals are a little more elusive but look to be a close contender. The links I provided were found with a quick google on subsidies for the industries in question.

This one is pretty informative.
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy. html

A report developed by Greenpeace.
The Executive Summary of the report "Fueling Global Warming:
Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United States" is available at
the address: http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsub.html

The full report is available in Adobe Acrobat format at the
address: http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsuboil.pd f

(appendixes available in Adobe Acrobat format at the address:
http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsubapp.pd f)

Note--the full report plus appendixes is appox 180 pages.

This one states (fairly closely) the real cost of a gallon of gas.
http://www.distributiondrive.com/Article4.html

Now I haven't looked closely at this situation in 15 years or so but it seems the arguement hasn't changed much. Subsidies are a bad idea and so is nitrate fertilizer.

Let me say that first I am not convinced ethanol is the answer but the subsidy issue is not the reason.
Check this one out. http://pangea.stanford.edu/ESYS/Energy%20seminars/ patzek_ethanol.pdf
Subsidies are a whole different animal.
First we pay at the pump less than half of the cost of a gallon of gas. Our tax dollars pay the rest. Second we pay in many other ways like: subsidies for exploration, subsidies for new fuel mixes, studies on future supply, tax breaks, etc..
Agribusiness is not the only pig at the trough. From a quick look it seems agribiz is sucking about 19 billion a year out of us and oil totals are a little more elusive but look to be a close contender. The links I provided were found with a quick google on subsidies for the industries in question.

This one is pretty informative.
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy. html

A report developed by Greenpeace.
The Executive Summary of the report "Fueling Global Warming:
Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United States" is available at
the address: http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsub.html

The full report is available in Adobe Acrobat format at the
address: http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsuboil.pd f

(appendixes available in Adobe Acrobat format at the address:
http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsubapp.pd f)

Note--the full report plus appendixes is appox 180 pages.

This one states (fairly closely) the real cost of a gallon of gas.
http://www.distributiondrive.com/Article4.html

Now I haven't looked closely at this situation in 15 years or so but it seems the arguement hasn't changed much. Subsidies are a bad idea and so is nitrate fertilizer.

Let me say that first I am not convinced ethanol is the answer but the subsidy issue is not the reason.
Check this one out. http://pangea.stanford.edu/ESYS/Energy%20seminars/ patzek_ethanol.pdf
Subsidies are a whole different animal.
First we pay at the pump less than half of the cost of a gallon of gas. Our tax dollars pay the rest. Second we pay in many other ways like: subsidies for exploration, subsidies for new fuel mixes, studies on future supply, tax breaks, etc..
Agribusiness is not the only pig at the trough. From a quick look it seems agribiz is sucking about 19 billion a year out of us and oil totals are a little more elusive but look to be a close contender. The links I provided were found with a quick google on subsidies for the industries in question.

This one is pretty informative.
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy. html

A report developed by Greenpeace.
The Executive Summary of the report "Fueling Global Warming:
Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United States" is available at
the address: http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsub.html

The full report is available in Adobe Acrobat format at the
address: http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsuboil.pd f

(appendixes available in Adobe Acrobat format at the address:
http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsubapp.pd f)

Note--the full report plus appendixes is appox 180 pages.

This one states (fairly closely) the real cost of a gallon of gas.
http://www.distributiondrive.com/Article4.html

Now I haven't looked closely at this situation in 15 years or so but it seems the arguement hasn't changed much. Subsidies are a bad idea and so is nitrate fertilizer.