Slashdot Mirror
US Opposes G8 Climate Proposals
elrond writes "The US appears to have summarily rejected draft proposals for G8 members that would have agreed to tougher measures for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The BBC reports that leaked documents have indicated the positions of the various world powers, from the timetable-setting of Germany to the US's intractable stance. Red ink comments on the documents hint at the US's irritation: 'The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement. The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to ... We have tried to tread lightly but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position.'"
This world is fragile in our hands.
surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods? Otherwise they are basically subsidising US industry, operating with far looser environmental standards. I'm sure the US will complain and 'retaliate', but I don't see any other option in the long term.
The overall position of the US at this time is that people and dinosaurs lived together in harmony and that soon George the idiot and all his money-grubbing pals will fly into the sky up to heaven. Global warming and the changing environment is a problem for those of us LEFT BEHIND to deal with. So as dubya says "What me worry?"
Hey, you think your house is cool?
A large population of our country is simply unable to comprehend american life without their SUVs/cheap gas/walmart lifestyles.
this news is sadly unsurprising.
when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
There is yet hope, a combined European / Asian military force could liberate the US from it's fanatical leader and restore democracy.
the world is more like a single civilization these days, any sanctions brought by europe would have far reaching consequences for the world economy. while I do think that the only way to get the top C02 producers' attention is to hit their wallet, I dont think sanctions are it. mainly because sanctions interrupt the global economy not just america's. but hey if there is a way, I hope they do it- I am sick of politicians and industry putting their own monetary goals ahead of life on Earth- something must be done.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Big apologies for this- all of our regnegging on agreements and such. PLEASE give us two years to fix this shit. K? Thx!! BFF
The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement.
Correction: The US Government.
Here's a related bit of news that may make you feel better.
An investigation at the Department of the Interior (Manages US wildlands) has resulted in numerous resignations and may result in real domestic reform.
Accusations from leading scientists include:
Elimination of data regarding imperiled species in resource rich areas
Rubber stamping of logging permits on public lands without due process
Improper contact between dept administrators and corporate interests including the allowance of corporate influence on impact assessments
All of the allegations center around administrators who were placed by the Bush administration. Several highly placed scientists have left for the private sector and there may be an expose published. The elimination of data was egregious. Apparently data was not only removed from official reports, but other data was *actually* changed and whistleblowers were railroaded out.
Bet you five bucks this becomes a campaign issue if Gore decides to run.
Washington DC
Climate Change denial ends
under rising sea.
Has anyone got a continent-sized roll of newspaper? This puppy needs punishment, it shat on the carpet again.
I so wish this could be done, and that it was useful in any way...
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
We don't suppose you can spare some rice and some oil, by any chance? Only the desert now stretches from the West Coast to Chicago and we have a bit of a food problem. And the Canadians have built a big fence along the border and won't let us in as none of us want to mow their lawns or harvest their oranges.
We can offer plenty of stuff in exchange. How about some strategic nuclear missiles? Or some fighter aircraft? We've got plenty of them. Unfortunately, turns out they don't work too well if you want to invade another country and make people grow food for you.
Pining for the fjords
That's exactly right. I read a Gore Vidal essay explaining how Regan was absolutely convinced that the biblical end of times would be within his lifetime. It's scary to think how such beliefs influence national policy. Vidal also proposed that no president should be elected who holds a literal view of the bible. I wonder how much the Christian Right influences Bush's environmental policy.
Why bother looking out for future generations if the leader of the free world believes we'll all be getting beamed up in a few years?
i remember the last g8 thing demanded major reform from usa while ignoring third world countries. if this is still the case, i could understand not wanting anything to do with it.
I miss the Karma Whores.
People are talking about Europe being upset at the US because they have it easier but what about China and India? Both countries are growing up fast and China is especially lose about its restrictions. How would you as the US feel if were asked by a region which is economically inferior to yours to hamper your economy, but yet they ignore your strongest competitor. From a pure monetary standpoint that doesn't make much sense if you want stay successful as a country.
The thing is not inly if "greenhouse gasses" affect the climate. It's also about outrageous and irresponsible use of resources. It's about pollution.
You don't pollute your own house, so stop polluting this world.
Although I don't live in your house and couldn't care less about what you do there, I and about 6 billion people live in this world so let's keep it clean.
Privacy is terrorism.
I recently got a Costco membership and one of the things that they sell a little cheaper (less than $0.10 a gallon) than your corner gas station is gas. There's always a huge line at the gas pumps and for me, with my 4 cylinder, $0.10 a gallon isn't worth waiting 20 minutes. But, you guessed it, most of the line is SUVs, pickup trucks, and large cars. (The Mercedes folks got me scratching my head. I guess they're in hock up the ass to buy their car so they have to scrimp everywhere else.)
Anyway, as China and the rest of the world's industry expands, oil will greatly increase in price, and we Americans will finally be driving smaller cars. It will happen. Unfortunately, our pollution decreases will be matched maybe overshadowed by increases in those countries I've mentioned.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Twenty months to go, twenty months to go
Hi-ho the dairy oh, twenty months to go
Global population is the cause of global warming and the looting of expensive and needed natural resources. There is just far to many poor, destitute, criminal, insane, illiterate, retarded primitives wastefully absorbing vital resources needed for the future of the more valuable members of our "New World Order."
...). Global warming will conserve valuable natural resources, drastically reduce the global population problem that is acceleratingly global warming.
... means take drastic manage measures and permanently fix the problem. Environmental Polution problems are far to expensive to ever be acceptable, and population reduction by sterilization does not eliminate the cause of the problems, population decimation is the only affordable and practical method under totalitarian corporatism and/or religious (Christian, Islam, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu...) ethics.
EU, US, and a few others will need far more lebensraum in the future for our posterity.
Global environment conditions are problems for the more primitive humans with marginal or failing living conditions.
Global warming will provide a far more humane method of extermination for the burdensome marginal cultural groups globally (including the US, EU, China
This is just Gods' spiritual and Mother Nature's natural way of putting everything back in balance for the chosen among the world population. Eventually we will not need to expand prisons into concentration camps, cause pestilence, famine, diseases, or start wars to control populations at the lower economic levels.
In the near future, robot technology will give us a cheaper and better living standards, and require little or no exploitable labor pool, which will allow US, EU, and others to reduce the global population further, and eventually (after population decimation) there will be an environmental turn around that saves the world for the irreplaceable members of the US, EU, and a few other important people.
Think of it a wonderful world with a great environment, no welfare or food stamps for the poor, social security payments and medical expenses for the elderly a thing of the past, and human populations so damn low that lebensraum will be cheap for everyone to develop as they deem best without any further government restrictions.
WHAT DO YOU WANT IN YOUR FUTURE? ENDIT/BEIT, US dogmatist, plutocrats, corporatist, and religious leaders have spoken/answered for all! So, find another way
REMEMBER: Patriotism and Religion can serve the few or the many; Also, Patriotism and Religion will never get you through times of no honor, food, family, friends, and education.
!HAVEFUN! It is all about Reality-Spin, I wounder what will happen [NOT!]?
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Pennsylvania isn't particularly deep in the South. Yahoos enjoy significant populations just about everywhere you go.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Seems to me that the people afraid of change are the environmentalists. For evolution to take place, species have to be stressed, and climate change is (and historically has been) one of the major stressors. Based on what's been coming from the environmental camp, I gather that no climate change is acceptable, and neither are species extinctions. I can only infer that they believe that the environment should be in stasis from now until the end of time, although I suspect that if the human race were to die off, that would be an exception they'd be willing to make.
Now if only there was a way to show how caring about the climate would MAKE money... what you mean it can? Hmmm 25 years down the road we wouldn't have the problems that are looming now? BAH Corporate america would rather spend $2 less per year and just cover up anything they can, after all it will save 2 WHOLE dollars, not to mention the instant gratification factors. Many of us americans want instant gratifications and to hell with waiting or what anyone else wants. Yeah not the greatest view, but hey, we can all just go out and vote to change that right??? Nope sorry, the electoral college holds the reigns and it doesn't matter what the majority wants.
Personally I would love to see the U.S. embrace something like this, or at least make a pledge to LESSEN the greenhouse emissions, then STICK TO IT. Yes it might make my life a little more difficult in the short run, but will make my later life easier as well as my childrens life ( if i decide to have any that is). And no, this is not a bleeding heart " think of the children" outlook, anyone who is not concerned with their descendants well being needs to rethink their position a little bit i think ( like most of corporate america where money is everything and to hell with everything not a profit) Personally i try to buy from "greener" companies if possible, but this is not always possible. The best way to pressure companies into being cleaner / greener would be everyone who does agree to the G8 aggreement to buy from the greenest companies as possible, that is the only way to hurt the dirtier companies... through the profit margin...
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
The problem with IP is that it isn't scarce. The reason for property rights is to allocate scarce resources, so IP cannot be a property right in a real free market.
I'm convinced, due to knowledge about human nature, that the climate change problem will only be solved with market-driven solutions.
I don't think the government, or governments, can solve it without the private industry. Private industry is the only organizer of the masses and it must be utilized in every way on every level.
It must be cheaper to run a business in an environmentally friendly manner. It also must be cheapter to start a business that is dedicated to solving climate change.
I propose that we allow people to start small businesses, tax free, for 5 years, as long as that business is dedicated to the principles outlined, of reducing environmental harm. This is what worked for the internet, so many businesses moved to the net because theres no internet taxes. One way to bring business support is to simply remove taxes.
Are you telling me that Democrats and Republicans can't agree to cut taxes for this issue? If we want environment-conscious businesses, we need to cut taxes for environmentally conscious businesses. I think Tarrifs are another one of those old ideas from the last century. We are globalized now, and the elements of our system which are globalized, are tax laws, and business laws.
We need to update business laws so people can start corporations who's main goal is not simply profit in money, but also to advance social goals. If a business is started by law with the social agenda of being environment conscious and of preserving the environment, then it will be illegal for that business to go against the social agenda set forth through law.
So lawyers, who understand business law, need to team up with environmentalists, who need to team up with social activists, who need to term up with business and economics majors, and together they can come up with something similar to the GPL, or creative commons, only this would be a legal document and script for starting eco-corporations.
This eco-corp document should redefine corporation, into eco-corporation, and being eco-friendly should come before all else.
At the same time, by redefining what a corporation is and how it functions, it will give people the freedom to organize the market to solve climate change. I see this is a legal/technical problem of business law. The way it can be solved is through new corporate models, new classifications, new laws to manage corporations on the local level.
If anyone here is a lawyer and capable of understanding exactly the impact the GPL had on the open source movement, could something similar to the GPL be invented to assist the climate change movement? And is anyone interested in starting a project to do it?
Respond with your comments, this post is designed to advance discussion and promote new idea generation. New ideas are needed. Old ideas like tarrifs, and taxes, only make the government bigger but don't create the fundamental changes anymore than having the government build an OS would create the open source movement. So think bigger.
"... why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on..."
Who says it would wreck the economy? Automakers cried wolf in the same fashion in the 70's and 80's when rasied MPG requirements and imposed the environmental standards that required catalytic converters and cleaner fuels. "Oh," said they, "it will cause the collapse of the industry as we know it and cause irreparable harm to the US economy."
Didn't happen.
At worst cleaning up our act and imposing higher CAFE standards "might" impact corporate profits for a quarter or two. But in return we get a cleaner environment, less polution, and less dependence on foreign oil imports. Not to mention spawning new industries to provide those solutions and technologies.
And that's a bad thing... how?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Oh, but they WILL fertilize the oceans. As the sea level rises, most US coastal cities will be under water.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Ok, so Greenpeace leaked that the US is against this "communique" but they don't specify anything in the communique except that it requires reducing emissions. What are the specifics? Does it single the US out in any way? Does it put broader or more strenuous penalties on the US? Neither of these things would surprise me coming from Germany. There are a million things that the US could be objecting to. Not including third world countries in the agreement, singling out coal power production for special penalties, maybe it specifies per capita caps (the US uses more energy per capita than anyone else). My point is, without seeing the actual communique, this is just Greenpeace making headlines. It is more of the same from the environmentalists: "Here's something scary and bad, but we won't give you the actual facts, just take our word for it, the US sucks".
Further, if the G8 did reduce emissions by 50% by 2050 (below 1990 levels... um... ok, so we reduce our energy consumption by 50% and don't completely destroy our economy how?). Even if we come up with a huge breakthrough on the energy production front, and we manage to reduce emissions by that much, China and India will both be producing 5-10 times more emissions than they are today, and today China and India are producing almost as much as the US. They aren't covered by this agreement at all. So net result is, global warming still just as much of a problem and the developed world has no economy left, or wasted hundreds of billions converting over to clean power.
The problem with agreements like this is that you can't know, say the G8 (including US) signs this agreement, and now its 2048, and no one has made fusion work, wind power is still too costly, and too sporadic, wave power doesn't pan out, solar power is still only 15% efficient, nuclear power because of local regulations is not an option... And we have this global treaty that on Jan 1 2050 requires us to pay huge penalties or turn off half our economy.... There is not a good solution to the energy problem, and you don't commit yourself to something extremely detrimental to your economy, way of life, people in general hoping for a massive breakthrough. And that is exactly what this is hoping. We would need a seriously massive breakthrough on some renewable energy front (nuclear, solar, wind, whatever) to comply with this regulation. There is nothing that seems to be on the horizon which would allow us to comply. Hydrogen cars? Great but hydrogen takes energy to produce, so now we're burning more coal. Electric cars, same problem. The only solution is to go completely nuclear. But thanks to these same environmentalists, that is 100% impossible in the US. It will not happen.
The only other possibility is to start spending billions if not hundreds of billions buying up huge swathes of land to put up wind farms or solar panels, and then there is still huge amounts of regulation, law suits, all sorts of things that will happen with that. I wanted to take my house off the grid, but it is impossible for 99% of americans to pull this off, because solar panels to power even a modest home cost > 30k. Very few people have that money sitting around, and even if they did, they would be stupid to spend it on something that will at most save them 100-150/mo on their electric bill. 30+ year ROI is not considered a good investment anywhere.
Anyone know what these "red lines" actually are? I mean, it's fun to just assume that the US is wrong, but it would be neat to know what we are actually disagreeing about.
Also, I wouldn't sign anything that was an "Agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C". How can we possibly agree to that? Do we have some reason to believe that is withing the G8's power?
-Peter
The role of the government is to keep the market free and make it more free. The GPL has to be enforced by the governments legal system. Patents have to be enforced as well.
The solution to climate change is legal. The solution involves a new set of classifications for corporations. We need to define the eco-corp legally. Currently, corporations harm the environment by design because our laws are outdated. We cannot attempt to solve the climate change problem simply by reward and punishment.
We need to also invent new kinds of corporations, so people can start new types of businesses specifically designed to tackle climate change. This increases freedom in the market and thesefore it's the most libertarian policy one could choose.
Basically I advocate a new type of corporation called an eco-corporation. The eco-corporation would need a classification.
The eco-corporation is simply a corporation with a conscience. The conscience is the core of the corporation, not the profit driven motive alone. This would mean the eco-corporation would legally be required to profit with respect towards the social costs and environmental costs.
Now, this type of corporation, in some states that want to attract them, can be started and run tax free like a non profit,
if it's proven to do little to no harm to the environment. The taxes can still come at the federal level.
The point is, the non-profit and the corporation, have to be combined in such a way as to create a completely new corporate entity. This hybrid is the major part of the solution. This hybrid would also need to develop certain legal abilities, new markets, perhaps make these new hybrids more open modeled like open source is, in some areas, but more closed in others.
No idea should go unconsidered. Every idea must be considered. I just think the best ideas will be from the business law category. When governments institute policies, governments should discuss these policies with business law professionals.
Markets are fine, but it's 2007, we need a new idea of what a corporate model is, and we need new models. If corporate models were like cars, we are so far behind. Once we invent the eco-corporation, any corporation or new entrepreuer will be able classify their corporation, as an eco-corporation. Then with a specific set of laws, these corporations can be managed.
Most important you have to make it more fun, more profitable, and more free, to run an eco-corporation than to run a standard corporation. What if eco-corporations got some extra features?
What should some of those features be?
I mean, why don't they listen to the USA. Our position is that since the earth is only 3000 years old, there isn't enough long term data to determine if climage change is even being caused by humans. Not only that, why would God let the planet get too hot? It just doesn't make any sense.
There are some hints in the news here that the USA was sufficiently embarrassed by this leaked memorandum, that it had to mollify its position somewhat.
It happens that the governments of the UK and Germany happen to take global warming very seriously, and both want and need to deliver a deal. If the US refuse to compromise, then the allies of the USA will be in a very awkward position indeed. Chancellor Merkel and especially prime minister Blair will have closely associated themselves with a power that refuses to take action on an issue that they have themselves identified as a significant, even the most important, threat to the future of their own societies and economies. And as no nation on this planet produces even remotely as much CO2 per head of the population as Americans do, that makes the USA a de facto threat, instead of an ally.
The sad truth is that Merkel and Blair they have no reason to expect much in the way of concessions. So their best way out of this corner is to dismiss George W. Bush and his policies as an irrelevance, which they could do with some justification. Many US states have already taken serious steps to fight global warming, and as Tony Blair pointed out today, "I can't think that there's going to be many people running for presidential office next time round in the US who aren't going to have climate change in their program." Never mind the current president... and that's King Tony speaking!
Of course, even from the Bush administration's point of view, provoking such a situation seems rather counterproductive, and I would think that sanity will induce them to offer at least a compromise that people can attempt to interpret as a step forward. On the other hand, consistency or clear sense of purpose have never hallmarks of the Bush Jr. era.
The funny thing is, that Christianity has been perverted to a big degree, I dont know where those groups derive their believe from, it cannot be in the words written down.
Lets sum those words up, there was a guy 2000 years ago, he went into confrontation against people who had strict religious rules, he sided with hookers poor people etc, and called the rich ones being not his people. He went into opposition against things which would make the life miserable for ordinary people, and he was in his core message not really a very capitalistic guy (some people nowadays probably would call him communistic, I just would say he puts the people in the core of his message not the money)
He also was absolutely opposed to any war or violence whatsover even dismissing defense as valid form of violence.
Now lets face it, if a guy with such a message would go out into the crowds nowadays, how long do you think his life expectancy would be. Probably three years as well, the killer, probably some corporate sponsored guy, or a religious zealot, who wants to the defend the words of jesus (and does in fact do totally the opposite). Jesus probably would go in total confrontation with any right wing cristian groups like he did with the jewis zealots in the past, and probably would call them severe names out of anger, he also would go into opposition with lots of governments including our own, and generally our society of self righteousness while we bring lots of misery onto the rest of the planet.
I dont think the message he would bring us would be very comforting for us!
"If you subsidize an industry in your country, due to the rules of the WTO other countries are ALLOWED to impose trade tariffs." You mean like Airbus?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Right:
Much of the alarm about global warming is not centred on increased extreme weather conditions, it's about rising sea levels. How many of the US's (along with the World's) major cities are at huge risk if sea levels rise by several metres? The economics damage posed by higher sea levels is worrying. What about the areas of the world that are going to suffer due to increased temperatures? Europe is experiencing some relatively severe heat waves, it wouldn't be beneficial for these to be regular ocurrances.
Unfortunately if global warming is true, we lose if we keep pumping out greenhouse gasses at alarming rates, but if it isn't true there's nothing to lose by reducing emissions.
And why would introducing limits destroy the US economy, it's not destroying everyone else's. I mean, the way it works at the moment you're getting a free ride compared to the rest of the nations on those countries taking these measures up. A gradual introduction of measures over a long period of time aren't going to destroy anything, but suddenly having to rush measures in in the future would cripple the US. Why pollute more than you need to?
"The consensus approach is the right approach."
Consensus is not science. I can go down south in the US and find a strong consensus that evolution is a fraud, but is it?
Of course, you're about to tell me that those people aren't scientists. True. So shall we discuss the Eugenics movement prevelant throughout the 1920s? Eugenics theories were widely upheld by scientific consensus, to the point where over 45,000 "mental defectives" were forcibly sterilized. Of course, after WWII no one admitted to being an Eugenicist.
How about the scientific communities' "consensus" in the 60s and 70s that we where in the midst of a global cooling trend. So alarmed we should be, it was said, that we should immediately consider spreading millions of acres of soot over the snowfall in the artic.
I'm not debating global warming, you understand, but merely indicating that we need real science and not beliefs and opinions, and that counting noses is rarely the proper way to determine anything...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I did not say that there was no sympathy at all. But at least I have gotten the impression that this mood existed...
.. it will change. And this will affect all of us (including USA, China and India).
After all, if nothing is done against the climate change then
The problem is that you cannot make real money preventing global warming. All you can do is to put yourself at an economic disadvantage.
However, there are mountians of govenment money to be made trying to correct the effects of it once it gets up and slaps people in the face.
So why try to stop it. Ride the tidal wave and make some real money in the future.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
If we simply redefine our system into the globalized century, we can compete.
The reason we cannot compete is because we ignore our strengths. The USA should be the easiest/best/cheapest place on planet earth to start a small business, period. The USA should stop fearing growth, and change the laws so that growth is encouraged.
Pollution is not profitable for anyone. The solution, is simple, if we want a better market, we have to make it more free, and the only way to make it more free is to allow for increased flexibility, more options, more choices for corporations, consumers, etc. The person who wants to start a corporation should have more freedom to define and classify their corporation. The whole (for profit) and (non profit) segregation, is ultimately why we have corporations which are run irresponsibly.
I'm not saying a corporation should not focus on profit, but a founder of a corporation should have many options of many different types of corporate entities they'd like to start, and we need to allow for options which encourage social responsibility and environmentally friendly operation.
We also need to make it more expensive to be irresponsible. How can we make corporations responsible if we don't?
Most importantly, we need hundreds of new tools. Taxes are an old tool. Tarrifs are an old tool, and both of these tools depend on a big centralized government. What about tools that a local community can use? What about tools that allow for the corporation to, by design, operate in the way we require environmentally?
Corporations could be made to pay hefty fines, or high taxes, we could have a pollution tax. We'd also need to give tax credits and benefits to corporations which don't pollute. We'd also need new types of corporations which by law are required to minimize pollution while maximizing profits. We also need corporations which, by architecture, function just the way they should.
What you have to do, is use your ideas, your concepts, your thoughts, to be an intellectual architect, and develop a new corporate architecture. We need corporation 2.0, and corporation 3.0, and 4.0 onto infinity. We have better product standards for motherboard and CPU designs. We design better graphics cards than we do corporations and policies.
Do we need to host a contest with a 10 million dollar prize to see who can come up with the best new policy ideas, best new architectures for corporations, best new corporate classifications?
Because the ideas the green party offers to me, are not going to work. Raising taxes will never work because there is no evidence that the government was ever a more efficient driver in society than the corporation. If there ever were a time, it was when corporations were just barely invented. We have hedge funds now, and a global market, but governments still operating on old models. We have a global market now, but we still have corporations operating on old models.
Corporation need the freedom to operate on new levels, and once this happens then we will be able to solve climate change, and there will not be a need for trade wars. We just need to become more efficient, and the way for us to become more efficient, is for the USA to become the investor nation. We should invest in the third world, and have the third world working for our corporations. When those in the third world start their own corporations, we can buy stock. We have a global market, and it's extremely proitable, but the only thing holding us back at this point is ourselves and our own inefficiency.
Why do we have people starving in the third world, dying of cureable diseases, when we could be using 100% of our human resources? We could invent new sports for people to watch, we can invent new industries, new markets, and then maximize our human resources to realize our dreams.
We could be building stuff on the moon, underwater, or whereever, and you'd think space travel would be a lot cheaper if we had a workforce of 6 billion. How much easier would
Climatologists are uniquely and especially qualified to tell us what's going on with the climate. I don't doubt that what they're saying, is happening.
However, the ultimate question is: what is the most effective course of action to limit the impact of climate change--if indeed it will have any--on human activity?
It does not necessarily follow that the answer is to stop what is causing climate change. Perhaps it would be a more efficient use of resources to address not climate change itself, but rather its effects.
For instance, resources that go into cleaning up power plants are resources that can't be used to, say, develop a better means of combating malaria. Perhaps this new malaria treatment would have a more beneficial impact than stopping whatever is causing climate change.
Yes, this is a rather simplified example, but hopefully it helps you get the idea of what I'm talking about.
No, I don't know for sure if that will be the case--but neither does anyone else, and especially not climatologists.
This is an area where climatologists have no special competence, and that is why their policy suggestions are not necessarily more worthy of consideration than those of the average layman uneducated in economics and the other social sciences. They have no specific qualifications that enables them to discuss, say, risk aversion or time rates of preference, or individual subjective values.
If the goal is to limit the impact of climate change on human activity, then climatologists should not have any special role in the formation of public policy.
Modern societies and their economies are so complex that no individual or monolithic panel can ever hope to comprehend them fully. Over the past few centuries, the free market has demonstrated time and time again that it is the best method yet devised for dealing with just these sorts of problems. No one individual or government can know what the best means of dealing with climate change is--if it is even a problem. But the free market, by aggregating millions and billions of individuals, each with their own bits of information, can.
And if it turns out that the market does not respond to climate change, that is a sign that perhaps it's not as harmful to human activity as climatologists claim.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
If I had a time machine, I would go back to the 1787 and browbeat the Philadelphia Convention delegates into including a "vote of no confidence" into the U.S. Constitution. It could be applied to either the executive or legislative branch (or both) and require an immediate new election rather than waiting for the current term to expire.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I entrusted you with this planet, and you ruined it. Why should I let you into Heaven?
Aargh!!!!
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
http://www.changemakers.net/
Unfortunately, the political will to make real changes seem to be lacking, not only in the US.
Ultimately, everyone's in favor of doing something to help our environment, but there's nearly always something they care more about, and very few people vote on the basis of a politician's stand on the environment.
And, perhaps more importantly. With democracy the way it is, politicians profit (get reelected) by looking no more than 4 years into the future. Any good they do which doesn't show significant results before the next election simply doesn't matter to the professional politician. Politics is a job, and securing your job is one of the greatest motivations for most people.
Making the drastic changes required to slow global warming significantly has a very high political cost - more unemployment as polluting businesses go out of business, and a great deal of money taken from other posts that will be obvious much earlier, and influence the next election a great deal.
We're all environmentalists, but when the interest rates start increasing, when your house falls in value, and you're in danger of losing your job... You don't vote for environmentalism, you vote for your own short term best interests.
And I fear that by the time the global climate becomes the immidiate problem for a majority of the population, it will be far too late to do anything effective to change it.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
I encourage you to watch America: Freedom to Fascism
There's nothing scientifically invalid about eugenics and directed breeding. It may be morally reprehensible, but that's a whole other story entirely.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Yeah, they also told us you cannot make money on open source programs.
Well, I guess you just proved that human nature hasn't really changed that much in 2000 years. They killed him then, they would kill him now. And them really means we.
Rather than write it here, I'll just link my Slashdot journal with some very easy, hard-fact based calculations showing it's the Sun, not man that's driving the situation.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The problem is that you cannot make real money preventing global warming.
The High Priest of Global Warming begs to differ. He even pays himself.
This is certainly one problem - and it's the one that causes real headaches for the recording industry and others trying to create artificial scarcity. But it isn't the only problem with the ownership of ideas. I'll mention two others.
First, in order to operate efficiently the market requires a free flow of information about quality, prices, etc. Thus assigning exclusive rights to ideas is in direct conflict with the needs of the market. For example, the practice in EULAs of forbidding the publication of software test results reduces market efficiency.
Second, and I believe more importantly, property rights over ideas require that those ideas be treated as discrete packages. Of course they're not: not only does all innovation and creativity build on and incorporate previous work and ideas, but the value and significance of ideas is further appropriated and added to by society. Thus the ownership of ideas transforms the ideas themselves, hinders the process by which further creation and innovation takes place (e.g. through the "tragedy of the anti-commons"), and depends on a fiction that ideas are independent. (See Owned Ideas are Different Ideas.)
Similar difficulties afflict environmental resources. When we turn land into property, we transform it by fencing it off and pretend that control over it is now independent of surrounding land. It is not: if I pollute my stretch of river, the effects will flow to others downstream. Furthermore, better management of the resource is hindered because even if I wish to improve the situation effectively I must coordinate with all other users of the water - each of whom has effective veto over participation, and in many cases an interest in not taking part. It is easy to describe a similar situation with patent ownership.
The market can be very effective for managing some kinds of resources (e.g. fungible commodities like wheat, pork bellies, and oil). But it has flaws and entails costs; in some cases it is tremendously inefficient compared to the alternatives.
At worst cleaning up our act and imposing higher CAFE standards
We got higher standards of CAFEs here in New Zealand. What did we end up with? Restaurants.
We got fewer actual cafes and more restaurants that *call* themselves cafes. You know the sort of place; you go in sit down for a meal and a waiter brings you a menu. This, ladies and gentlemen, is *not* a cafe. It is a restaurant.
Sick.
But I have a feeling thats not what you meant...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Timber is theoretically a renewable resource. However, in practice there are two big problems. The first is that it may take centuries to grow a tree similar to the one that has been cut down. The second is that many trees only grow in particular ecosystems; if you clearcut the rainforest, you can't just plant a bunch of rainforest trees in the empty fields and expect them to grow into a new rainforest.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
You must be kidding. You just dumped the blame on what USA did -according to previous poster- on tropical countries?
BTW, in Amazonas there are countless unknown species, you suggest that when they deforest to plant your cheap ethanol farms they replant exactly what in exactly where?
"I think this line is mostly filler"
No sir, I didn't chop down THAT cherry tree.
"North Americans plant billions of trees each year. There is no reason why the rest of the world can't do the same."
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Please, remember how Marie Antoinette ended.
France built up their nuclear capability long ago. They are also far removed from Chernobel. The countries surrounding Ukraine had a serious scare and many nuke projects were scrapped. In some cases nuke stations were converted to coal fire. Anyhoo,just take a look at Uranium prices and shares and you'll understand. - When in doubt, follow the money.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Maybe they will. But they would be terribly counterproductive. Most of Europe runs a large trade deficit with the US. And emerging economies are ready to take up the slack. They have more to lose. Besides the US cut CO2 emissions by 1.3%. Nothing but economic suicide would fully placate them.
an ill wind that blows no good
Frankly, I think that's malarkey. There are a lot of excellent and creative engineers here in the US. It's not about us vs. them, it's about the future vs. the present.
The key to understanding why the value of the future is discounted to zero lies in this: the mobility of capital. Skills and people do not cross national fronteirs easily, but investment does. Some capital will be caught holding the bag when push comes to shove, but overall capital in a diversified portfolio can "route around" environmental damage and flow away from problems to opportunities. The problems themselves are opportunities, the way destroying Iraq makes business rebuilding it.
Its a new twist on the "bird in the hand" theory. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, not because of future uncertainty, but becuase of future certainty. When there are no birds and bushes left, that bird is worthy plenty. The same thing: you can make money by wrecking an economy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I don't imagine this is possible... but (I'll carry on anyway!) would it be possible for the G8 to instead try to reach agreement with individual states? I'd imagine that California (for one) might be more inclined to reach an agreement.
This might be a more practical approach than trying to reach any agreement with the current US administration, which would otherwise involve lots of foot-dragging and then finally a very watered down (and likely useless) agreement.
Also, if some states did sign up, it *might* shame the others into action? Or am I expecting too much?!
I'm convinced, due to knowledge about human nature, that the climate change problem will only be solved by, well, climate change. Mankind has shown time and again that we are incapable of mass action now to prevent crisis later, the stories of Easter Island and the ancient population of New Zealand are good examples. If we (as a species) are lucky our environmental impact will be reduced to a sustainable level before we tip the scales beyond the point of no return.
I heard once that the reason jam preserves fruit is because it is so sugar rich that bacteria drowns in it's own waste before it can establish a viable colony. While I am not qualified to comment on the accuracy of this statement it does seem to strike a chord in relation to to the rise of man, particularly since the industrial revolution.
Someone should come right out and call a shovel a shovel.
The U.S.A. is essentially an international criminal state on this issue,
and it's time that the rest of the world agreed to take some serious
punitive measures.
I think sanctions would be a good first step.
"No oil for you!"
('til you learn how to use it like a responsible adult.)
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank+zappa/jesus+thi nks+youre+a+jerk_20056591.html
You can't say the US doen't care about the environment. North America has taken huge strides in improving environmental factors over many decades. Air and water quality has improved a lot, despite a fast growing population. The USA plants more trees each year than the rest of the world together:
l
e stry/FAQs2/FAQs.htm
"In 1999, the forestry community planted some 1.7 billion trees in the United States. That's an average of more than 4 million new trees planted every day - more than 5 new trees a year for every man, woman and child in America."
http://www.sharplogger.vt.edu/virginiasfi/faq.htm
"Q: Are America's forests in danger?
A: Not at all. Because the United States practices reforestation, its forests have actually grown in size over the past century. About one-third of the United States -- 749 million acres -- is covered with trees. In fact, we have more trees today than we had 70 years ago. On the nation's commercial forests, net annual growth exceeds harvests and losses to insects and disease by an impressive 50 percent each year."
http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/For
I don't see why North America has to suffer due to bad management in the rest of the world that now needs drastic measures to reverse. We have been doing our part for a long time and we'll continue to do so regardless of the European scare mongering.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
You can't make money buying a toilet either. So you're saying you saved yourself that expense and crap on the floor? Or was it on the neighbors lawn?
"North Americans plant billions of trees each year. There is no reason why the rest of the world can't do the same."
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Please, remember how Marie Antoinette ended.
Clever, but a non-sequitir. I imagine your +4 rating has more to do with your historical reference and playing to the anti-american-they'll-get-theirs-someday crowd then you actually having a point.
Trees are a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested- it's just that the season isn't months, it's decades. I see no good reason that we can't expect the rest of the world to act accordingly when it's something we do routinely in the US.
Unless, of course, your opinion is that the rest of the world is too stupid and impatient to treat wood like any other crop.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
That's actually an interesting one. If (this is truly hypothetical) you could get the church involved in environmentalism, mightn't you get something to happen in America?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Did she get to eat cake?
- These characters were randomly selected.
Katrinas was not that bad....
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Brush up on your French history. Marie Antoinette was killed by radical French people who cared nothing but for power and to stay alive. After learning about her and King Louis's executions a huge uproar of anger insued with the Kingdoms of Europe, and the madness was finally brought to an end when a coalition army threatened to burn Paris to the ground.
Than to hand our kids any kind of livable planet.
We should be ashamed.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Except how are you going to convince a tree poacher to replant a forrest? These guys are making more money poaching tree than drug dealers do with illegal the drug trade. The best thing to do is just not buy wood products that are species that are likely to be illegally harvested and to purchase your wood only from dealers like Home Depot that only purchase certified wood. OBTW the Chinese are up to their asses in illegally harvested wood.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Is it just me or in the last five years has slashdot gone totally apeshit left-leaning?
It used to be a nice, informed, libertarian bunch. Now it's like a mob of drunken post-grads.
People try to post informed, reasoned discusions on technology issues and if the articles aren't geared "to the kids" the editors shoot them down. Every day, flamebait is posted and it's just a big pile-on. I mean really, I even saw some idiot try to slam libertarians the other day from the left for Chrissakes.
What happened? When will we ever get our old slashdot back? The net has always been free market and libertarian. When did slashdot decide to leave us?
'nuff said. I think that catches all the nuances.
Rest of World to US: Your attitude is noted and remembered.
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/
The Chinese government is cracking down on the use and trade of rare species of wood. A guy I know who make his living making and selling high end Chinese style furniture is doubling his prices due to this.
actually the sea levels will not change by meters according to the latest models, and the reasons that it's not destroying everybody else's economy is because nobody is seriously attempting to meet the standards, in other words everybody else is all talk and no action.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Now that's good news.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
See, we do care. We use gasoline, not your rainforest killing ethanol..
People obviously do log and renew in many countries around the world. Don't put a retarded straw man into your argument. Many countries also unfortunately heavily clear cut because its a lot cheaper; though, its a lot more damaging to the land and ecosystems. Living in BC, one can see the remains of clear cutting and the slow regrowth that it takes. Trees planted when I was born barely support animal habitats at all. Clear cutting can also effect the geographical features of the land that they're cutting in to. Isn't it true that clear cutting causes higher incidents of flooding and mudslides?
Forgetting all that though, the original complaint about tree cutting wasn't about abolishing the practice, an earlier poster was complaining that the US didn't want accountability of where a tree came from. If I was buying timber harvested illegally from a national park / reserve, I probably wouldn't be doing business with them. Would you?
Bye!
America will rightly take it to world court and EU will lose that. Instead, if they set a tax on ALL goods (imports or local) with a discount awarded to all countries that meet a certain level of "greeness", then it encourages ALL countries (including USA, Mexico, China and India) to move to greening their country.
But yes, it is obvious that it is not fair to countries that are greening their products to compete against countries like China that will not only run the lowest labor and energy costs, but will even cheat on products such as shrimp, Monk Fish, toothpaste, base ingredients, etc. In fact, I would love to see all of the countries who are part of Kyoto do this. America, china, and India (in fact, all the fast growing countries ) do not need to belong to Kyoto, but they need to change their policies.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
--
US solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I will use public transportation (and stick to schedules and plan ahead).
I will recycle and carry it out on foot to the recycle center (and be barely rewarded for my efforts but get exercise dividends).
I will not drive or own a car (may get a ticket for occassional driving adventures, but save big on insurance and less gas usage)
I can nag environmental hogs and not fear them chasing after me or writing down my license plate of any mythical car I might own.
Trees are the ultimate renewable resource because the more you harvest, the more area you have to replant them. It's not like, say, fish, where the more you harvest, the less there are to reproduce and replenish their stocks. The reason the world is losing forested area is because sustenance farmers are able to grow food and cash crops on cleared land, while harvesting trees is not as economically attractive. So they burn the trees down to clear land.
The U.S. only accounts for 24% of the world's carbon emissions. The U.S. also accounts for 28% of the world's economic production. In other words, the rest of the world is less efficient than the U.S. at producing value per ton of CO2 released. Europe is by far more efficient and the U.S. should try to learn from them, but these attempts to paint the U.S. as the sole bogeyman are horribly misguided. If the U.S. were to disappear overnight, by the time the world economy grew back to the level it's at today, there would be more CO2 emissions than before the U.S. disappeared!Also, trying to pin blame on a country by country basis makes no sense (aside from a policy perspective) because each nation has a different size and different population. On a per capita basis (CO2 emissions per person), the U.S. is not at the top, and there are several developed nations who are right up there with the U.S.
Finally, in terms of forest and protected forest, the U.S. has far more than all of Europe combined, nearly 1.7x as much in terms of area, and more than 3x as much per capita. In the above hypothetical scenario where the U.S. disappeared overnight, 7.6% of the world's forests and 9.6% of the world's protected forests would disappear as well.
What's needed to get us out of this mess is a systemic plan which address all aspects of the problem, not trying to single out sole nations for blame. If you do that, as we found out with Kyoto, the nation singled out will simply choose not to play ball. The developed nations need to set and meet energy efficiency goals (the U.S., Canada, and Australia especially). They also need to invest R&D money in non-carbon based energy sources. Environmentalists in these countries need to accept that nuclear is a much, much better option than spewing out millions of tons of carbon and other pollutants by burning fossil fuels. Developing nations need to restrict behaviors which are cheap in labor but expensive in carbon emissions (e.g. slash and burn). They will need economic and organizational aid from the developed world to help them establish economies which are not based on these behaviors.
We are granting may favors and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_ 2005. Eliminating these and shifting to your tax proposal might be helpful.s -selling-solar.html
--
Easy solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Don't worry. I'm selling carbon credits. Just pay me and continue on what you were doing.
This is not "The US's opinion" and too many people confuse this with Bush in office. The guy has an Approval rating of low 30%'s and has made clear anyone who doesn't agree with him can go dip their balls in lava (credit: Daily Show). His decisions don't represent me nor the majority of the US people, not by a long shot. This isn't the US's stance, it's one guy who'd be out of power if the US had a means to dispose of removing bad mistakes from power.
credits. They got off their butts and have introduced carbon reducing measures in other countries, thus they have a head start in buying carbon credits (the alternative to reducing CO2 emissions). Will there be penalties in not making the Kyoto Protcol? Well Japanese industries have the forsight to avoid those penalties in which may bite big business in the United States in the end.
Here are the preachers you requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_ of_Evangelicals#Global_warming. But, Bush attends St. John's in DC so he might want to listen to this http://www.edow.org/diocese/governance/convention/ 2006pages/res-3.html.
Not much. Sauron's influence seriously retarded technological progress there. And the King of Fairies was mistaken for the King of Men, so Gondor is in a heap.
When in doubt, follow the money.
... or toss out a cliche.
Is anyone else annoyed that the focus is only on CO2, a gas given off by animals and people, and inhaled by plant life?
What happened to the concern about dangerous chemicals like nuclear waste, acid rain, nitrates and phosphates, cyanide, CO, PCB's, heavy metals, super fund sites, etc? Can we stop worrying about these? Are the water and food safe? Is the air safe to breathe?
I was visiting the UK and saw an ad in a local paper that showed a black mother and her 2 kids walking in a river. It said "Be a love and switch your computers off at the end of the day." In other words, people in Africa are suffering because you left your computer on. Well, at least Windows users that have to reboot or shutdown can help; sorry, I use Linux:) The English can help with their flat beer. Hey, why don't we ban Coke and Pepsi, or tax them out of existence? The ingested CO2 will not be absorbed by the body; it will leave the body at some point. I asked a pro global warming friend if he would give up soda and said no, he is addicted.
Already in the UK and EU you have people driving motorscooters because price of fuel is already high due to high taxation. These have smelly emissions, and I have to wear earplugs to sleep in some places.
In the past, CNG and propane have always been promoted as being cleaner than gas/petrol or diesel because the byproducts are CO2 and water. Now, governments are seeking to develop a way to tax people/smaller governments/companies even if they were to use a cleaner fuel. This is about government control and taxation, not saving the environment.
The Europeans are upset that if they increase taxes on their companies and people and the US does not, then there will not be tax harmonization (a level playing field), and prosperity will find a tax home with a lower rate.
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
Selfishness seems to have become the core value of America right now. The measure of all actions is self interest. Individuals and corporations are encouraged to act solely in their own self interest, for that, we are told is the best way to ensure the common interest. While there is some truth to this, overall it is dangerous delusion. We are all part of a larger civilization, and the fate of that civilization effects all of us.
Climate change is an issue that will effect all of us. And no matter how many deluded denials there are, no matter how loud those deluded denials are shouted, no matter much we look away from the unpleasant truth, the laws of physics remain. No matter the slippery and reassuring words of oil industry funded public relations people, the landslide of data supporting the predictions of climate scientists will remain.
Reducing carbon emissions is highly likely to cause great harm to corporations whose main income comes from oil extraction. Thus we see many of these oil interests working hard to prevent any effective reduction in carbon emissions. After all, it's just self interest. If you were facing the loss of billions and billions of dollars, wouldn't you be fighting it? Except that the oil companies' profits are coming at the expense of the future of our civilization. I believe that unless we as a society overcome our obsession with pure self interest, our civilization will enter a period of profound decline. Is that really in our best interest?
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
As a preface, if the US was gone tomorrow, the world would largely spiral into a dark age for several generations. Likely not a thousand years like the result of the fall of Rome, but there would definitely be a financial crisis followed by a tremendous depression in every country, issues with supply of food, cotton, and other such goods. Effects of similar magnitude would likely be seen if Europe or Southeast Asia were to disappear.
The US has long been a pioneer in environmental regulation and conservation. Today, the average American is becoming more interested in environmental protections and conservation. American business is also moving towards a more environment-friendly model (a search for "company goes green" on Google will yield results about recycling efforts from Dell Computers, taxi cab companies purchasing hybrid cars, IBM's more energy efficient processors, NBC Universal and FOX making announcements that they will be moving towards carbon neutrality).
Business and the free market, as well as awareness are the best ways to fight CO2 and global warming. Benchmarks, unenforced and detrimental to economic progress, do not work. Companies in the US are already taking the initiative upon themselves and coming up with creative ways to lower their carbon emissions. American car companies are already selling more flex-fuel and hybrid models this year than previous years, and the amount of E85 gas stations across the US has increased 60% last year.
Really though, environmentalism is great and all, but there are still more pressing concerns that could be taken care of with much less cost. The entire country of Africa, for example. Or the barbarous countries that allow people to be stoned in the street. North Korea and its starving population. Looking forward and preparing for future catastrophes is great, but we're not exactly living in a perfect world today either.
Also: I'm not sure about tropical hardwood, but I'm a little worried that the regrowth time for those may be closer to centuries, not decades.
I lost my sig.
...that I am actually doing stuff on my own to reduce my energy consumption. I don't need a treaty to switch my house to CFLs, or keep my automobiles in good running condition for better fuel economy.
No, I'm not perfect. But I'm doing what I can, and thinking ahead. Not all of us here in the USA are complete dolts.
*snigger*
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Actually trees aren't renewable over the long run. A couple of points. Soil gets depleted when you're harvesting biomass and not replacing nutrients. In a lot of forests the nutrients are bound up in the living biomass as large amounts of rain leech nutrients out of the soil. Trees prevent erosion and when the trees are removed the soil washes away.
Second growth timber is never of the same quality as the first growth. Around here the first growth is hundreds to thousands of years old. Nice tight grain makes beautiful building material. The second growth is good for paper and press board
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Get over it, fascism lost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/scrooge.html.
There is plenty of doubt out there about whether man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming...including well-known scientists in the National Academy of Sciences. Like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
For those looking for a PDF of the leaked document...go here :-)
m it%20Declaration%20-%20US%20comments%20May%2014-1. pdf
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/G8%20Sum
The US stance is purely because the US government knows it would ruin its own fragile economy by doing something about our global ecology. The US government would rather make a buck, and screw the world, than save the world and lose economical face. Funny eh?
The world now needs to recognise the US stance and take full economic sanctions against the US government and US industry. Sadly, this will hurt the average American, but this is your own fault for allowing the type of government to lead your people. You've had one revolution in the past, it is time for another, so that true democracy is returned to the people of the United States of America. That's my honest appraisal.
Cheers,
Dave
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
Sure, the trees can be regrown. Too bad for the underlying ecosystem which gets totally trashed.
Ever see the landscape berefit of trees? Just stumps as far as can be seen - no large or even medium size animals, very little ground cover, erosion increased by magnitudes. Sure, there are plantations - in this case, nothing but ordered trees as far as the eye can see, with little return of other plants and animals.
Your proposal only buys time, it doesn't solve the problem.
In fifty years the population doubles again and then we're back where we started.
Or worse.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Rainforest is not just another crop. It is an interlocked ecosystem that consists of thousands of species growing on a very thin layer of soil. Replacing that with a monoculture of eucalyptus or some such would be a criminal waste and probably doomed to failure due to soil erosion. And countries like Malaisia and Brazil have proved quite beyond doubt that they are too greedy, indifferent or incompetent to take care of their rainforests - which happen to produce much of the oxygen you are breathing.
We know very little about rainforests and couldn't even begin to "predictably grow and harvest" one within the next fifty years. So far, all attempts have had disastrous consequences.
"Anyway, what do you think is gonna happen as the US dollar (inevitably) devalues?"
The market will correct and life will go on. You're new to this whole economics thing aren't you? I love watching you US haters pretend that your wishes are anywhere near reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen Yes, there are doubt. But when there are doubt isn't the logical thing to do to act as if it's correct until it's proven harmless? Because if we do it the other way around it might be to late if the conclusion is that it's our own fault.
That's what is done with any thing else. If there are suspected poison in some food product it's taken out of the store until it's cleared. But of course, even if the global warming is our own fault it will not kill us immediately.
Actually it will not really affect any of us... only the later generations so who cares? And *that* is the real problem. We usually find it very hard to care about others. If we cared there would be no poverty, no acid rain, no children working for nothing in factories... The only thing we really care about is our own well being. And our well being is very much depending on things like fossil fuel, children making cheap shoes, people starving to death etc.
Basically, if the global warming is our fault we are screwed because there is no way in hell we will change our way of life.
"On a per capita basis (CO2 emissions per person), the U.S. is not at the top, and there are several developed nations who are right up there with the U.S."
Every country above the US in that list is either tiny or an oil producer and thus obviously uninterested in CO emission restrictions. Australia has refused to sign the Kyoto treaty like the US, and now you're using them as an argument? Note that the worst European emitters - apart from small, wholly covered with industry, coal mines and roads Luxembourg - produce a full third less than the US. On a per capita scale, the German economy is as massive and developed as the US equivalent, with highways without speed limits, even, and yet produces just half its CO emissions.
And China, which Bush likes to trot out is ranked 99th, with a sixth of US output.
Looks like that list doesn't work in your favor after all. Yes, Canada and Australia need to be reigned in as well, but they are already in lockstep with the US, so that would follow automatically, if something happened in the White House.
It seems to me that the best way for the rest of the world to react would be to stop negotiating with the US as a country and move to negotiating with the states. Some of them are as large as a reasonably sized country and act as such. California, for example, seems very ready to move on climate change.
The other states, some of which seem to have "rogue governments" that look very much like "axis of evil", can easily be ostracized. Sanctions can be implemented such as travel restrictions for their elected officials or freezing of funds in foreign bank accounts.
Of course military action cannot be ruled out but liberating Texas may be difficult.
This common refrain ("we won't reduce ours until they do so, too") is like two school-children arguing: "You first!" "Nu-uh, you first!"
You've gone right back to cherry picking just a few snippets of the broad range of facts I presented in order to argue that the U.S. is the worst. Policy decisions need to be made based on broad general facts and statistics. It cannot be based on a narrow hatred for a nation or nations.
e.g. Say the U.S. were to adopt nuclear power to the extent France has (78% of its electricity from nuclear). About 90% of the U.S. coal use is for electricity generation, as is about 25% of its natural gas use (source). (Petroleum is also burned for electricity, but accounts for less than 3% of electricity production in the U.S.).
Nuclear currently accounts for 21% of U.S. electricity generation. If that were increased to 78% with hydro and renewable electricity generation held steady, coal and gas consumption for electricity production would drop to just 17.6% of current levels. This would correspond to a 74% reduction in total coal use, and a 21% reduction in total gas use.
Factoring these reductions into U.S. CO2 production (same source as above), total emissions for the U.S. would drop from 5802 million metric tons to 3996 million metric tons. That's a 31% reduction in CO2 emissions without making a single change to how energy in the U.S. is consumed.
Who does it surprise?
In other news, the sky is still blue, and all the leaves are still green..
You just got troll'd!
Oh come one, you know this is bullshit. Countries like that are still busy getting their economy up and running. You seriously think they should be held to the same standard as the US, who's carbon emission per capita is WAY higher than any of those countries ? (e.g. 6 times higher as China). Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Yes exactly that was my point and the killers would be the same, the religious zealots in combination with those who have money and power (usually both groups are heavily interwined with each other)
:-)
Funny thing is under McCarthy he would probably have been dragged in front of the tribunal as being a hardcore communist
The other G8 nations are coming to the table with proposals that are already very much watered down, due to the demands of big business, and of course political expediency. That the US isn't even prepared to entertain these weak and inadequate changes shows the lack of regard they truly have for the state of the planet on which we live. They should try to bear in mind that the rest of us also have to live with the consequences of their selfishness and shortsightedness.
Bzzzzzt..."AAAAaaaaarrrgh!!!" Thud.
"Clever, but a non-sequitir. I imagine your +4 rating has more to do with your historical reference and playing to the anti-american-they'll-get-theirs-someday crowd then you actually having a point."
Or else, maybe those that rated the post understood it better than you. Just thing for your mind: Were the previous poster said "Finland plants thousands of trees a year so I don't see why the rest of the world can't do the same" I'd answer the same, so there goes your "anti-american" interpretation.
"Trees are a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested"
So what?
1) A mature forest is an ecosystem that goes far, far beyond "a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested".
2) In too many situations the people exploiting the lands are not those that have to live with the disaster coming later, but big fortunes rich enough to have a hard grip on those third world or in-development countries' governments (and do you know why they are third world or in-development countries? Exactly: because first world have already harvested their own forests for the most part -still it seems that it is countries like Brazil or Cambodya the ones that must take the hard part of the reforesting effort).
3) Even if were the natural population of the land the ones taking advantage of the forests, they are, again, third party or in-development countries with many more pressing needs than expending money on sustainable forest management. For instance, paying debt interests that point back to first world countries like USA.
All in all, saying "If USA can do it I don't see why the rest of the world can't" shows an utterly misrepresentation of the world and the situation of 2 out of every 3 people living on it -just exactly the kind of misconception that got Marie Antoinette missing the point why poor people were raging for bread... at Versailles there were no bread for a day, they would take cake!
"Unless, of course, your opinion is that the rest of the world is too stupid and impatient to treat wood like any other crop."
Statistically, the rest of the world is at the verge of dying from famine.
"Otherwise their carbon ends up in houses and furniture, and buried under the ground (where it can turn into oil and coal after a few million years)"
I don't think you understand why Amazonic soild is so delicate and sensible to deforestation: it's because it is very thin. And it is very thin because almost all raw material returns into the living cycle. While it tends to be true that mild climate woods "kidnap" Carbon and bury it, that's not true for the most proliphic ones: those from the tropical belts.
"Trees are the ultimate renewable resource because the more you harvest, the more area you have to replant them."
Except it takes centuries for a natural ecosystem to become a mature forest. And even then, it can be avoided by even not so big disturbing influences: quite a big part of the USA territory went almost untouched for thousand of years and even then just a single big mammal (bison) avoided it to reach a mature forest state.
"The U.S. only accounts for 24% of the world's carbon emissions."
And you have the guts to say "only"? 5% of the world population produces 25% of the world's carbon emissions and you say "only"?
"The U.S. also accounts for 28% of the world's economic production. In other words, the rest of the world is less efficient than the U.S. at producing value per ton of CO2 released."
Yeah, of course. Bad luck they are for the most part developing countries struggling to reach profitability, a state the USA passed away about a century ago.
"Europe is by far more efficient and the U.S. should try to learn from them" but these attempts to paint the U.S. as the sole bogeyman are horribly misguided"
See? Even you recognize that first world countries can and should achieve far better than the USA.
"but these attempts to paint the U.S. as the sole bogeyman are horribly misguided. If the U.S. were to disappear overnight, by the time the world economy grew back to the level it's at today, there would be more CO2 emissions than before the U.S. disappeared!"
*That's* not only a straw but even stupid. Were USA to disappear tomorrow, who do you think would take world leadership? Cambodya, Brazil? It would be Europe, the country that -on your own record knows how to do it better for the money. Even China or Japan would find that they should play by European rules or loose the now (due to USA being no more) one an only big market to sell their goods.
"there are several developed nations who are right up there with the U.S."
There are several *tiny* developed nations (thus hardly meaningful) who are right up there with USA. The nearest truly comparable on this list are Canada and Australia, and they both are *below* USA levels.
"Finally, in terms of forest and protected forest, the U.S. has far more than all of Europe combined, nearly 1.7x as much in terms of area"
That's true. Bad luck that USA average population density is 31 inhabitants/km while European Union is 112 inhabitants/km. That is population density is 350% higher in Europe, and still USA only manages to have 70% more "free land" used in forests.
You can take the way you want, but it is a *fact* USA is the biggest ponderate culprit about current worldwide situation. It is not that plans like Kyoto wants to put the highest load on USA shoulders; it is that *any* reasonalbe worlwide plan will put the highest load on USA, not because some world hathre to USA success but because they are in fact the country in the world where the most work must be done. First control your CO^2 emissions to European levels (you see, it's perfectly doable: Europe already does it), only then look for the next major offender (Canada and Australia, most probably). What USA is currently doing is simply undefensible; don't be surprised USA doesn't find any sympathy on this (too).
Plants store CO2 and release it as they die and dissolve so you'd need a growing plant mass to reduce atmospheric CO2. This mass also includes wood used for furniture or houses and such so it's no big deal (for the greenhouse effect, not the native animals) to destroy a forest provided you don't impact the plant growth rate (which you will if you kill a whole forest but removing some trees from it won't hurt) and don't let the harvested plant mass release its CO2. Of course in practice deforestation usually happens with fire and to use the land the forest was on, especially in tropical climates where the land lacks minerals and the normal farming practices (there are less destructive ways but they aren't as profitable in the short term) leave it as a wasteland after 2-3 years.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
yeah, pretty much the only people who'd follow Jesus if he were alive today would be godless hippies and new-age freaks.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
I do not agree.
If you prevent global warming, you or perhaps you're children will still be able to make money in the future.
In fact, the USA always rejected the CO2 per capita metric and preferred to watch the CO2 per dollar metric, which is a kind of wrapped logic if you ask me.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Governments are dysfunctional at starting things, but are often very capable at sustaining what has already been done. Provide generous tax cuts to entrepreneurs wishing to invest in scientifically proven low-carbon technologies. Let them build new non-polluting power plants. Make sure that whatever technology they use is not limited by copyrights and patents, and when they succeed in large-scale low-carbon electricity generation, copy what they do at the government level. Iceland started using hydropower only after an entrepreneur invested in it. According to Wikipedia, an Icelandic entrepreneur built the first hydropower plant in 1904, and then a municipality built another in 1921. By 1950's the government had invested in hydropower and now Iceland satisfies 81% of its energy needs by hydropower. Geothermal power also started in a similar fashion, when a farmer utilised it in 1907 to heat their house. After more geothermal use in Reykjavik in 1930s, the government invested in it in 1940s and now geothermal power satisfies 18.9% of Iceland's energy needs. The rest 0.01% is satisfied from imported oil, but Icelandic professor Bragi Arnason proposed in 1970s to use hydrogen as a fuel and Iceland opened its first hydrogen station in 2003. They want to completely stop using oil by 2050, and it looks like they can do it. We should all learn from Iceland!
Actually, she never said any such thing.
Advanced users are users too!
America is the one who should take over 300 million muslim refugees. Thats right, there are over that many muslims living in countries where they are majority, which are going to get under seas. The neighbouring countries are NOT muslim countries. And after all americans have always talked about how large their country is they have enough space for them, and they are the ones that have always shot down any attempts of trying to solve problem before it becomes this kind of devastation.
In overall I don't expect man kind to go through the climate change without full scale nuclear war of somekind. There are just too many desparate people and too many nukes around to avoid that.
©God
Oh thats OK then. Lets keep polluting the atmosphere that all life on our only planet depends on, just in case the majority of scientists are wrong.
>> The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to ... ...Like getting off our lazy selfish butts and actually taking some action.
I understand the US may have some objections but at least everyone else is trying to do something, not just sit on their fat butts and avoid taking any active measures. The US's argument is just an excuse to maintain a delaying tactic so that Bush's oil buddies can get richer for a while more at the cost of the whole planet.
Per capita....
Great way to offset the reality.
US: 300 million
China: 1.5 BILLION
Translation, what China doesn't have on a per-capita basis, they make up for in sheer quantity.
What's more, the drive to modernize China will cause a per-capita increase.
Additionally, there are initiatives in the US already to reduce emissions. Sure, they may not move as quickly (the day before yesterday please!) as you'd like. But they ARE in progress.
Yet you want to excuse it because "Oh, they're a developing country!"
Essentially what you want is for us to wreck our economy around the same time China finishes building theirs.
Good idea! (NOT!)
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The US tends to produce about $2,000 worth of goods for every ton of CO2 emissions.
China produces about $500 worth of goods for every ton of CO2 emissions
There's room to grow up (the EU averages about twice as much output as the US, and some EU nations that tend to rely heavily on hydroelectric and/or nuclear do much better than the US, such as France (being a G8 nation, and producing almost 3x as much goods as the US for the same amount of CO2 emissions), but the US is far from being the most inefficient nation.
I suspect that the US will always have higher CO2 emissions than much of Europe, due to the US climate (we do have some large cities in rather cold regions -- Minneapolis, for example), and our lower population density (transportation, including mass transit if viable, won't be as efficient as Europe).
OTOH, the US would do wonders if its electricity generation looked more like France's. If, in the US, we went from 20% nuclear power to 90% nuclear power (replacing the 70% of US power generated from natural gas, coal and petroleum), we'd basically eliminate the third of our greenhouse gasses emissions that come from electricity generation, and end up being producing more goods per ton of CO2 emissions. As a bonus, nuclear power has had an excellent track record powering another industrial nation (France). Too bad that the ecological left in the US tends to hate nuclear power.
I think that the idea of reducing taxes for environmentally beneficial corporations is close to the mark, but why not think about this concept on a wider scale? What if all taxes were solely based on social (including environmental) impact? So a cigarette manufacturer would have a very high social cost, even when you add in any positive social impact like providing jobs and the like. Their profits would be taxed according to the additional cost to society to deal with their negative societal implications. They would be very motivated to offset those taxes by doing positive things - the RJReynolds hospital offering free medical care for smokers anyone?
There is no such thing as a truly "free market," because there are always controls, but couldn't we model the parameters of the market to simply promote the "general welfare."
No, actually, they don't.
If you follow this link you'll see that the emission of the US is still WAY higher than China, even as China has a much larger number of inhabitants. (data is from '96, couldn't find more recent data using a quick google search and I'm too lazy to keep on looking).
The US isn't doing nearly enough, since the US is so wastefull compared to the rest of the developed world it should be relatively easy to cut down, 'we' already demonstrated it can be done. E.g. increase the gas prices through taxation so people will stop buying ridicious cars. (Contrary to popular belief US gas prices are insanely low).
That's pretty much the message the current and former administrations have given to the world regarding environmental issues.
It is amazing how folks just keep talking about a false premise/issue of CO2 causing climate change. They are both poorly educated and misled by a party line or economic criminals. Current incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change are a fraud. When you base anything on a false premise everything else that follows is false. CO2 causing climate change IS a false premise. Consensus is NOT science. Educate, inform yourself, take a 9th grade science class. Additional information http://www.inteliorg.com/co2_climate_change.html Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest. Information Vetting: I have no financial interest in this subject.
You might want to be careful about Texas, it's wind generation is large and growing: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page /trends/table20.pdf.
No, that is not how I feel. I believe we should devote plenty of money towards research in adaptation as well as prevention. But jumping into half-baked actions is not the right approach. The Kyoto Treaty, for example, would simply destroy our economy while doing nothing about China (which is now the major emitter of CO2).
Hey! That's a great idea!
There's no money in treating the cancer now in the early stages. Let's wait until you have a 60 lbs tumor growing out the side of your head before we begin treatment.
By the time this becomes a serious problem, I doubt any amount of spending will be able to correct the damage. For example, you can't un-extinct species.
~X~
~X~
Its not political will that is lacking, rather a US administration that represents the people of the United States of America as a whole, rather than simply those in the oil, gas, and coal industries. When we change this, we will change current policy; not before.
That is not the same. The doctor is not acting on his own initutive to remove the tumor in the early stages. I will be paying him to do so. So what if the West American Blue Tit goes extinct. It is not as if it is really doing anything other than looking pretty and all saving it will do is cost people jobs and thus the party in power votes.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Lets just hope that the Ross Ice Sheet doesn't calve off like a very large piece (the size of Manhatten Island did this past year). Scientists monitoring it have noted it is melting faster than anticipated. If it does calve and if it then floats beyond the Antarctic convergence, we can expect sea levels to rise about 30 m, in as little as a month. Apparently, large rapid melts have occurred previously in the geological record.
The one thing we are now learning about climate change models is that almost all are grossly underestimating the amount of change that is being observed on the ground. At current rates the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free in summer in about 10 - 50 years, not the hundreds virtually all models had been predicting.
As far as "all talk and no action", you might step out and buy a Japanese Toyota Prius. I did and now get nearly 50 miles per gallon, which in time will pay for the price of the car over its useful life at current gas prices. If America doesn't get its act together, others will. Remember, America was founded by adventurous enterprising Europeans.
>> But jumping into half-baked actions is not the right approach.
Reducing human CO2 emissions is NOT a half baked approach. We already know our global Co2 levels are a serious problem and we already know human activities such as transport do release large amounts of Co2. Taking no action until the sometime-never when we figure out exactly who/what is the primary cause is terminally stupid.
In fact nearly all environmental scientists in the world except a few of Bush's cronies in the US are united that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.
>>The Kyoto Treaty, for example, would simply destroy our economy
A little dramatic there dontcha think? Anyway even if its true, which is more important, the economy or our whole frickin planet?
>> while doing nothing about China (which is now the major emitter of CO2).
No it isn't, at least not yet. See US Gov's own references cited on Wikipedia:
The United States was, as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. China is projected to take over at the top of the table by late 2007.
It is dark at night
One plus one equals two
US Opposes G8 Climate Proposals
Pi is an irrational number
Latin is a dead language
It is wet when it rains
Too much beer will make people drunk.
For some other sources, check this graphic for per-capita emissions in 2002. For the US, we have about 19.8 tons, while for China it's about 2.2 tons. Using the CIA World Factbook for current population numbers, we get:
Of course, there is also Wikipedia:
Well... lets have a look, he would go into the areas where hookers and gangs resided, his followers probably would be a bunch of hippies, ex gang people having split from their old gangs, small people probably out of work.
In the long run his followers probably would be a mix of all people you can find (but most of them definitely not drawn from the so called religious groups, more along the lines of ordinary, average people)
His opponents, the religios rightwings, the churches generally probably (well parts of them they probably would be split over him), the corporations definitely, and probably drug lords and others as well.
Life expectancy, 2-5 years, probably three years.
Other option he would go down in a huge trial of founding a terrorist organisation and trying to overtrhow the current administrations (sounds familiar?)
with expected result.
When he urged Congress not to ratify Kyoto, and when he pledged the US could never sign on to the program as long as China and India were not held to the same standards. Now that Bush is refusing something similar being proposed by the EU, the US and its administration are characterized as hidebound, etc. China is now poised to pass the US and the EU as the world's largest emittor of CO2, yet is still given a free ride under the current B.S. carbon regime. Oh, and until we can create a really big umbrella to shade the planet, we cannot stop it getting warmer. CO2 is a smokescreen engineered by back room boys at the UN to redistribute wealth as THEY see fit. Don't buy into the hype.
FYI, according to the Washington Post, the US is reducing its carbon emissions -- at least when the weather cooperates.
What I would like to know is this: what evidence is there that reducing our carbon emissions now will affect global warming?
There is plenty of doubt out there about whether man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming
A handful of skeptics does not constitute "plenty of doubt".
including well-known scientists in the National Academy of Sciences. Like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
And how many other well known scientists in or out of the National Academy of Sciences? Trotting out one ostensibly respectable guy is not impressive. Especially when his counterarguments consist of absurdities like the infrared iris effect. Geesh, after the beating that studies like Lin's gave him, even Lindzen himself has backed off from those arguments.
I don't get it. This should be simple logic. Any country which can retool it's economy to be more environmentally friendly also necessarily retools its economy to be more efficient and less wasteful of resources.
Given that the US cannot stop the movement towards efficient resource utilization (environmentalism), why would the government willingly place itself in a position where in a few years other countries will have succeeded in retooling their economies to the point where it costs them less (overall) to produce something than it would in the US?
Look at it this way: You have two factories, one in Arkansas and one in Sweden, both creating the same product. To make one unit of that product the Arkansas factory uses 10 barrels of oil to the Swedish 5, 5 MW of power to the Swedish 2, etc. Granted, to achieve this efficiency the Swedish plant will have the extra cost of retooling, but so what - everyone should have nice shiny new equipment whenever possible, it's the cost of staying in business.
Hell, US companies would move their entire production facilities to places like Sweden. And no, we're not talking about Swedish meatballs.
I guess if they did it would more or less solve the greenhouse gas problem...
You told me the same thing about four years back when I said "Bush the Balless, Boss Chaney, Dummy Don Rumsfield, Candy Token Rice are totally clueless, delusional, a/o spring-break drugs fried their brains."
... reports. Things are so fucking politically and economically screwed for US and EU, this is just the start of the decline of the Holier-than-thou Western Corporatist Empire and destruction (by gods' will) of the totalitarian Persian and Arab kingdoms. China and Russia will rule the world for the next 10,000 years of delightful vices and economic-exploitation slavery.
Look damn it; So far, the bong has helped me to consistently see the future accurately for Kennedy mafia money connection, Nixon being a crook, Nancy as the US Woman proxy-President, Ollie being a born-again bullshitter, Bill getting a BJ in the OO, The gang of balless Bushites and proxy-President Chaney in the Whitehouse, the Puppet Congress for US in Iraq, falsifying official global warming, CIA, housing/economic
PTFL for all the Christians and Moslems preaching hate and destruction!
Have a nice day, tomorrow may be shit, but today is really nice.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Without making recourse to my own favorites studies and such, just given the figures from previous posters in this thread - that the U.S. has six times the emissions per capita, and that China has five times the population - it follows from a little simple arithmetic that the U.S. should still have higher emissions overall than China. Namely, 20% more.
Just being helpful, please continue...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
That's exactly what I was leading to. Like I said, I proposed this idea to get you to think in that direction. Take it further.
The free market can only be kept free, by the government. The free market can be made more free.
Props to the late great Benny Hill!
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The war of 1812 was the English empire attempting to recapture the USA after they had finished off the french runt. The US attempted to invade Canada preemptively.
The English lost. The Canadians were only English cannon fodder, as were all English colonials for the next 150 years. That's not winning by any reasonable measure.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
E.g. increase the gas prices through taxation so people will stop buying ridicious cars.
I agree, raise the gas prices. It also has other good side effects, like increasing the cost of manufacturing basic plastics, raising transportation costs of food, increasing prices across the board on basic necessities and foods, rising inflation, and hurting one certain class of people the most...the poor.
Too bad for every idiot threatening to leave (they usually don't) we've got 10 smart educated Indians, Chinese etc trying to get in.
When net immigration (of skilled workers in particular) to the USA becomes a negative number then we will have something to worry about.
Until then: 'Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out!'
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How come that isn't a problem here ? I'm not talking about raising the price of crude oil, just increasing the tax on gasoline at the pump.
Over here (the netherlands) most transportation is done by trucks, running on diesel, not gasoline. Diesel is a lot cheaper (per liter) over here than gasoline the difference is in the road tax (diesel cars pay more yearly road tax but less per liter). And anyways, the road tax for companies is a lot less than for private citizens. So this all doesn't affect transportation costs as much as you'd think.
I thought the US didn't care about the poor ? Besides, you don't actually need a car, it's a luxury item.
But if doom and gloom will result from raising tax on gasoline, how come it isn't a problem in Europe. (I pay $7,50 / gallon for gas b.t.w. and according to the CIA world factbook the Netherlands had 1.4% inflation in 2006 compared to 2.5% in the US )
"That is not the same."
It is the same. The people who study climatology and related scientific fields spend decades doing research and study. How is that any different than doctors, who also spend years of study and research. Or how is that different from microbiologists who study diseases such as cancer? They're all experts in their related fields.
"The doctor is not acting on his own initutive to remove the tumor in the early stages."
Intuition? So you're saying that people with multi-doctorate degrees who have studied atmospheric physics and climatology for the past several decades are just using their intuition? O_o
You know, when you get a Ph.D in atmospheric physics and write your own computational fluid dynamics models, and get them peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community then perhaps you'll be worth listening to.
Until then, I'll side with the thousands of scientists worldwide who are actively monitoring and modelling the phenomenology.
Like a cancer, the warming is in it's early stages. Act now and perhaps we can limit the amount of change. Don't act now and we may not be able to.
"So what if the West American Blue Tit goes extinct..."
You know, I bet you'd think the forest was beautiful if it wasn't for all the damn trees.
Let's say some bird goes extinct. Okay, big deal right? Well what happens if that bird was helping to keep, say, some parasite population in check that destroys crops? Without the predator, the prey multiply.
Our ecosystem is a closed system. You have no idea if killing off something in one place won't have some dire consequence elsewhere in the chain. Perhaps nothing will be affected, perhaps the entire orange crop of Florida will be affected.
Good discussion though. But hey, when you get that Ph.D you come back ok?
~X~
~X~
Most of the debate about global warming centers around whether or not it exists and whether or not humans are causing it. Thus far there has been no discussion at all about whether or not we can actually control climate on a global scale. I have never seen any proof that humans have ever been able to or will ever be able to make intentional changes in global temperatures. We can't even say what effect that our attempts to limit green house gasses will have in the long run. The law of unintended consequences will cause any plan to backfire. Limiting CO2 in the USA will just cause more CO2 to be produced elsewhere, for example. Alternately, we will produce some other waste products that will be far more harmfull to the environment in the long term. We should stop trying to do the impossible and start making plans for what to do if and when global temperatures increase (or decrease) dramatically world wide. We may need to move hundreds of millions of people from places that are no longer habitable to new areas that will become useable if temperatures rise. For example, areas of northern Canada and Russia would become farm lands for people displaced by rising oceans.
It is not cheaper to run a business in an environmentally sound manner because the costs to the environment are not actually being paid. Economists call this an externality , I think. So you drive down the street without paying for the pollution that you emit. but others suffer and have to pay for your consequences. Kids with asthma exacerbated by smog have to pay for drugs - this is your cost but they pay.
So when people refer to tarrifs/taxes/charges or what not, it is this idea that they are trying to remedy - some way of getting you to pay for what you are doing. It is not about government vs free markets in all cases - there are costs with some of our activities, both corporate and individual that are not currently being picked up by those who cause them.
A charge, to pollute, set appropriately high, would both dissuade and pay for the costs of pollution. If the # children affected by one car was one, and the asthma drugs cost £100 per year, then that is one charge you should pay.
Not saying a tax or a tariff or a metered use specifically, just the notion of paying has to be there. Then let the free market provide cars that do not pollute. They already do, but they are more expensive. This would not be true if you had to pay all your externalities on your current car.
Finally, infrastructure - changing all our parking spaces so they have power lines - not cheap to do so likely to be a state investment.
So, yes someone needs to invent newer products, but unless they are absolutely cheaper to run, easier to use, as easy to use, as easy to fuel, then we will need the state to charge you for that externality and fund nationwide (international!) changes to allow refueling as easily as petrol.
I just pick cars as an example, there are others.
Cheers
Jon
Good points but irrelivant.
The fact of the matter is that preventing climate change does not create wealth, raise ones (monitary)standard of living or create and maintain jobs on a large scale. However, attempting to repairing the aftermath does.
It all comes down to 'votes and dollars' and it has been that way since the beginning of time. For proof just try to find 'The Ceders of Lebenon' or the forests on Easter Island not to mention the Dodo.
Want to start saving the envorinment, buy a bike and use it for any trip under 5KM.Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Interesting POV, however, there is no historical record that Marie said that. Most of historians that it was anti-monarchy sentiment which created legend about these words.
Almost as the same with Bill Gate's "words" about 640 kilobytes, when he actually didn't say that. Funny how people assume everything so easily.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
"Actually, she never said any such thing."
Of course not. If for no other reason, because she didn't speak English.
It's a luxury when you have the spare change (1st world nations) to even think about environmentalism.
When economies hit the trash I guarantee you the first things that get cut are "luxury" expenditures by governments.
If you want 1st world countries to change you will have to figure a way to do it in a way that keeps them on top. Otherwise they'll ignore you until you turn blue from holding your breath.
MadDogSolar
Yes, reactionaries are fixated and anal retentive to the hilt, but I view them as dogmatic-humorist. For over a decade, I laughed at Rush Limbaugh as a stand-up/stage comic of hilarious and fallacious stories. Then one day (about 5 years ago) when I was laughing at work, a guy in the next cube had Rush on the radio, this guy was ready to attack me with raging rude abusive language.
Is there really a difference between Rush, Colbert, Stewart, and that dumb blond I hear on the fox news now and then? Should anyone take anything or anyone serious anymore, hell, I expect the next war will remind me of a slapstick comedy with some M.A.S.H. witticisms from talking-head news commentators punctuating the crisp-crooked-partial-bodies being pictured.
Always !HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Actually, if you look at the numbers http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/bra.dat (not the abstract http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_bra.htm) Brazil is reducing its CO2 emissions. At a conference I attended last week
http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/juicing.html I found out more about why. Their renewable fuels program is really taking off.
Your example of fusion is a poor one. Fusion research has had steady funding since the 70's oil shocks. The funding level was set to get fusion at about the time oil was estimated to run out. The progress has been pretty much on track and fusion is expected as a power source in about 20 years now. The problem is that the estimates back then did not account for oil companies over estimating reserves or the rapid growth in demand for oil that has occured. Problems with global warming were not known to be crucial at that time either http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/knowing-warmin g.html. Democracies are capable of taking prudent long term action, much more capable than systems that rely more heavily on personalities. Your technocrats would be so swayed by their egos that policies would change rapidly based on petty rivalries and would leave long term projects wastefully abandoned. Collective wisdom, harnessed by democracy, does much better than ephemeral expertise when it comes to instituting policies to enhance the gerneral welfare. The philosopher king http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king has never worked out the problem of succession and thus is the most disappointing form of government of all.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get seventies wisdom now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This has been said before, but I'll say it again.
In order to agree to this, you must first accept this theory that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are going to destroy the earth. Until there is a global climate change model that holds up to scrutiny, these draft proposals need to stay right where they are. I have heard a LOT of fear mongering in my lifetime.
Two, forcing the United States to change is only going to create a surplus in cheap energy, other countries will come along to fill in the gaps, production will shift closer to China where energy is still cheap.
Best bet is to either increase the price of oil, globally, which you see happening on it's own already, or to invest in free market initiatives for cheap clean energy, such as new solar technologies, nuclear (somewhat controversial), or build more dams; put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. I see these free market initiatives going fast and steady as we speak. Plug in hybrids are only a couple years off. Plug in hybrids alone could reduce these CO2 emissions by double digit percent.
Hats off to Germany for putting their money where their mouth is, we shall see what effect this has, I myself am optimistic about Germany's future, they have really made themselves the solar energy capital of the world. I think California is headed in that direction as well.
Blaming people for the early extinction of megafauna in North America has been trendy, and also has some circumstantial evidence behind it. But, there is a new theory covered recently on slashdot http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/2 2/2023212 that might have legs. This one looks at a carbon rich layer deposited 12,000 years ago that contains siderophile materials. Here is another link http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_Clovis_Age_C omet_Impact_Theory_999.html since the New Scientist link seems to be dead. I wonder if there is any connection with Hopi kiva traditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiva.s -selling-solar.html
--
Good stuff from space: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Actually, it is the countries with the highest GDPs that are in the best position to lead in transitioning to renewable energy since they have the best access to funds to do it. One would expect their GDPs to grow as they then provide these advances more broadly. This seems to be happening for Japan and Germany as they grow their solar and wind industries. China, with a low per capita GDP but large concentrations of capital is also advancing on this. If China cuts the rest of the world's emissions by 25% by supplying solar panels fabricated using coal power with a 2 year EROI, how do we count their emissions? They are exporting their energy so really it is the purchasing country that has caused the coal to burn. But, China could have bootstrapped at least for the sake of export and used renewable energy to make the panels. Do they get to claim credit for that somehow?
We do country-by-country targets because it is countries that have the juristiction to implement cuts in emissions, but we do need everyone's participation and cooperation and these kinds of issues need to be considered. It is easy to say the US is not cooperating, but it is also holding out for broader participation. I'm not saying that it is doing this in good faith, but it is a mildly tenable position.
The main thing is that the US does not see global warming as the most important issue yet. With regard to China, it wants China to break North Korea's will, it wants the US currency protected, in wants to sell software and food and it wants to avoid assisting in missle technology. All of this comes ahead of global warming, yet China and India are given as the excuse for not going along with European priorites.
This will change. FOX News is going to the other side. We'll be hearing about the global war on warming soon. If you thought Al Gore was too much, just wait until it's Orin Hatch. But then Europe (mostly) liked Ike, so maybe our enthusiasm will be welcome.
That's how much gas is a gallon in my town, and that's a lot less than in other parts of the country. Environmentalism saves you money right now, and will save you a lot more money down the road if we avert the worst of the damage now.
Is voting for the Republicans and Democrats (RD) going to cause election reform? It seems to me it's the opposite. It seems to me that voting third party does actually get them closer to getting the government that they want, and voting for the RD takes them further from it.
I can understand that there are people who actually agree with the RD' platforms and voting histories. I can also understand that there are people who think that either the Rs or the Ds are much closer to their personal philosophies. What I do not understand is how in a country with a total population of about 300 million people, ~97% of voters can be that close to the RD. What I certainly don't understand is how people who say they are libertarian left or libertarian right can either not vote, or actually vote RD and then complain about the government they have and the actions that government takes in their name using their tax dollars.
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene Victor Debs
Essentially what you want is for us to wreck our economy around the same time China finishes building theirs.
Nope, essentially I want you to stop wrecking the world my (grand)children will have to live in. But of course your wealth is far more important.
Thats just it, everyone pays the pollution tax, and we can either pay it now, or pay it later when our health declines.
I'd rather we pay it now.
Well, I'm not exactly sure what a road tax is....our road maintenance is paid for by the taxes already on gasoline. Anyone that drives, pays for the roads they use. I think diesel is more per gallon over here than plain gas.
"Besides, you don't actually need a car, it's a luxury item."
Pretty much a necessity over here if you want to work and earn a decent living. We aren't squeezed into little compact cities here...avg. commute to work is about 30mi each way....and there's no real public transportation you can count on unless you live in a large metropolitan area, which most of us do not.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If that was so, why propose that China not be held to the same standards?
This "because they're a developing country" bullshit is just that. Bullshit.
Will it make it more expensive for them to modernize if they avoid 50 years of industrialization-based pollution (on a scale that'd dwarf the US pollution history, even in the short run) and go straight for clean(er) energy from the get-go?
Sure!
Yet that's what the person I responded to was proposing.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
So I pay $7,50 / gallon (most of that is tax) PLUS aprox. $25/month just for owning a car.
personally I think taxing me more and making my electric bill more is just a bunch of crap I am grateful that I live in a country that will not saddle me with pseudo science - we will not make you believe in creationism if you do not make us believe we have to pay some stupid carbon tax or some stupid thing like local climate change. Everyone thinks it is the end of the world hell if it is not the bible thumpers it is the left-wing looneys. All of you who believe that the climate is something we can really adjust need to just keep smoking your medical marijuana and wait for the pain to go away.
Added Pressly: "Oh, and by the way, milk is nothing but liquid meat."
Universal Service is very acceptable to me, and would be as good or better than Selective/Draft.
...) units. For those that refuse combat and welfare Federal Service after high school or dropout, they should be disenfranchised from ever voting and holding any local, state, or federal job or elected office. However, I would not support financial fines or incarceration for those refusing Federal Service.
I have always believed that it is appropriate for men, women, handicap (physical, not mental), gays, religious, rich, and poor to serve US and humanity for four+ years. In Federal Service for the willing in combat units, for the pacifist in welfare (medical, emergency, housing, child/elder care
The Federal Service could not be Political or Civil Service. IOW: You could make a career at Federal Service (prior to 20yo, or never) for 20 to 40 years, or leave Federal Service to start a career in Civil Service, Elective Politics, or Judicial appointments. Federal Service would never become easy-street grooming service for fart-breathing, shit-sucking, ass-kissers of wealthy/connected parents/friends.
Federal Service could be anything from combat Warriors, forest-fire Fighters, road/playground/school Builders, to soup-kitchen Servers, public bathroom Cleaners, and care Givers. My heroes' peer group have always included Magdalene, Joan, Washington, Marshal, Patton, Gandhi and Theresa (Good Folks All!).
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I do think China should be held to the same standards. But I also think that whatever China does is never an excuse for the US to do the same. Didn't you learn as a kid that 'But he did it as well!' is not an excuse? Apart from that, how much chinese people are driving needlessly big and inefficient cars?
He spoke generally of sinners, but read it again, there are lots of quotes where he despised the rich. First the famous camel quote, then the rich guy who asked him what he had to do to get into heavens etc... I am not sure how many of the protestant churches came to the conclusion that earning lots of money is a christian thing, it is totally in opposite of the message in the bible.
A study of satire was clearly missing in your educational background.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that we should NOT enter into one of these agreements without making certain that all other participants are truly held to the same standards.
If they're not, or it's easy for them to cheat out of it?
Fuck.
That..
Noise...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I thought the US didn't care about the poor ?
No, that's what *you* think because you're spoon fed that information.
But if doom and gloom will result from raising tax on gasoline, how come it isn't a problem in Europe.
Classic case of faulty reasoning. It is possible to have BETTER conditions than what you currently have, just imagine sometime and open your eyes to the world beyond your doorstep.