Slashdot Mirror
Melting Arctic Ice Has Consequences
OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post. First there is an article about a study indicating that melting Arctic ice is threatening polar bears with extinction. The article quotes an environmentalist: "This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one." And the polar melting is opening new shipping lanes. The second article details a trip late in October through the Northwest Passage by a Canadian icebreaker. Never before in history could this trip have been accomplished so late in the year; ice would have choked off the passage. Estimates of when the passage might be navigable by commercial shipping range from 2020 to the end of the century. The indigeneous people are not looking forward to this development.
Wal-Mart greeters are more dangerous than a hungry polar bear.
"Baked Alaska" a whole new meaning.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
"Wal-Mart greeters are more dangerous than a hungry polar bear."
I know they are usually huge and white, but other than that....?
Where were you when the voynix came?
On both sides.
This has been presented before, and debunked before. This study shows that while ice is thinning in some parts of the arctic, it is thickening in others and the temperature change isn't uniform.
It also shows that the majority of polar bear populations are steady, with an equal number on the increase and decrease.
That shipping lane has been there before, and guess what -- there were polar bears around back then. Amazingly enough, polar bears aren't the hot-house flowers these people are making them out to be.
The climate is changing, that is for certain. The only thing more certain is that politicos and people who want gov't grants are going to exaggerate and hype every little anomaly beyond belief in order to garner attention and eventually money. What they hell ever happened to science for the sake of actual knowledge?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
So .. less man-killing polar bears... and more new trade routes.
Hell, I might go set a few gallons of crude oil on fire just to help out the cause!
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Ok, seriously, what made it so hot back in 1936? Was it just a natural occurrence, or was it man made way back then?
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
The poor practices of landowners led the way to the dust bowl, and to the local increases in temperatures here in the US.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Simple.
The US has entrenched technology that will take decades if not centuries to phase out; coal and oil fired power plants, internal combustion engines for automobiles, oil, natural gas, and coal heat for homes, and so forth.
China has a great opportunity to go electric across the board from the get-go, using nuclear power and solar power. Their infrastructure is still immature, and as such there is no huge investment in existing power to speak of. I'm sure that the folks working in agriculture are still using wood, peat, or coal for heat, and have not spent thousands on oil-fired central heating systems for their homes; why not go electric from the beginning? Then emissions controls can be centralized, and their choice for petrol-vs.-nuke-vs.-wind can be made now. What's more, if so-called environmentalists who really are all about "NIMBY" can't block this development like they can here with their bleeding heart "think of the children" whining. (sorry about that last comment, I'm just really bitter about so-called environmentalist dropping the cape wind project in Nantucket Sound, especially that drunkard Ted Kennedy who claims to be an environmentalist)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Because while the US may have higher emissions per-capita, their ratio of emissions vs energy produced is a lot LOWER than a country like China. Now, while there is a bit of room for decreasing energy consumption in the western world through things like more efficient fridges and light bulbs, the fact of the matter is that any modern society is going to require massive amounts of energy. The US or any other modern country could never bring their emissions as low as China simply because much of China doesn't even have electricity yet. As China continues to grow and modernize itself, we'll all be VERY lucky if they manage to keep their per-capita emissions below US levels. And the most likely way to make that happen isn't by taxing the shit out of western business to pay for "emission control", but by putting more funding into researching alternative energy generation and storage methods. That way, by the time China's industry goes into full swing, we'll have alternatives to offer them instead of having them rely on coal and oil. Kyoto's pretty much useless. You want to reduce global emissions? Set realistic standards for countries to meet, and then impose penalty fees if they don't meet them. Then take those penalty fees and funnel them into alternate fuels research. Fund everything from solar cells and more efficient batteries to hydrogen engines, to nuclear plants and fusion research. Hell, since the UN is pretty good at administration (if nothing else) get them to set up a research facility and extend invitations to the leading scientists in those fields. With all western nations participating you could have nearly unlimited funding. The modern (and more productive) version of the Manhattan project. Kyoto right now is nothing more than a wealth-redistribution campaign to move funds from western nations to the third world, and help us feel like we're "doing something". If we really want to reduce emissions, let's get serious.
I find it funny that a story like this with the typical bash bush mantra has come out and the conslusion is the "Bush cannot run away from this one".
The fact is that bush hasn't run away from environmental issues at all. What he has done is not fall for every quick fix and explanation and adopted some "we need to get rid of the internal combustion engine by tomorrow" attitude. As others have or will point out, the current solutions are more of a economic redistribution of wealth and weakening of national stature then a fix for global warming.
Bush has created or secured wetlands habitat, has increased the fuel econemy rating for a good portion of vehicles on the road. Some SUVs are no longer exempt from the cafe standards and are required to get better mialage now. He has invested millions into alternative and green energy on several different initiatives plus reauthorized initiatives started under previous administrations.
I know this stuff doesn't count because Bush is evil and it doesn't fit our bashing campaign right now. Especially when we need him to look bad so close to an election cycle so the opposition can take a department of the government over to them. But what this really says is that all the "opponents to global warming" are seemingly more correct when they claim ulterior motives from the "the world is going to end" global warming crowd. I can understand some people just not being informed. But statements like yours show and agenda that can be placed into a number of conspiracies that will retard the development of any future works to help curve global warming. Do we really need something like that? We have a whole group pf people against Kyoto because it places what some people claim to be unrealistic expectations on developed countries while the solution if it cannot be met is to "pollute in a less developed country" or "pay less developed countries not to develop in a way that pollutes".
People take that to mean "forced redistribution of wealth" and point to people like you ignoring what little the president has done for the environment then look at their friends and say "see what i mean, they are trying to buffalo you for a one world order, socialist world order, or something worse"(worse being the trying to move all America's industry across seas so to make an economic blockade effective and force legislation on us in the way we do other countries).
Keep giving them ammunition and watch how little gets done.
Environmentalists don't have much room to complain about starving children dying of malaria. They are the ones who completely banned DDT thus removing the most effective anti malaria efforts. Do you have any solutions that won't destroy the economy and create more poor starving people to die from the malaria?
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
So speaking of Cape Wind... I couldnt quite make up my mind on which side to back. The economics of the project really did sound questionable without the massive government subsidies, although you cant really trust any numbers from either side. On the other hand, I giggle every time I think of plopping an eyesore onto the Kennedy mansion's horizon. I can believe wind power can provide some percentage of our power needs cost-effectively, but I dont think Nantucket Sound is a cost-effective place. Being only 4 miles offshore, Teddy could still hit one while driving.
*snickerfits* Well this certainly clears up the objections he has toward the project.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
A bear from the Smokey Mountains and a bear from the Arctic are dropped into the water. Which one dissolves first? The one in the arctic, because it is POLAR
Why not raise it across the board? Googling for "CAFE mpg 2000" and "CAFE mpg 2006" is revealing.
>The fact is that bush hasn't run away from environmental issues at all.
Correct. The "Healthy Forests Initiative" is hardly running away from an issue. Neither is the "Clear Skies Act", which if Wikipedia has their facts straight
The endless attempts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge are not "running away", either.
November 2004, changed the standard for allowing sewage to be dumped without complete treatment from "emergency" to any time it rains.
May 2002, tore up existing standards to allow Appalachian coal miners to bury mountain streams in waste.
Bush is not running away from the environment, he's making a frontal attack on it.