Absolutely agree, you can minimise impact by technological change, but ultimately people have to realise that you can't just drive your 1965 pink cadillac eldorado with the whaleskin hubcaps down the highway at 100 mph getting 4 miles to the gallon, chewing on quarter pounders in the original styrene containers and not have an impact on the environment.
Hmm.. so a UN committee of hundreds of scientists vs one MIT climatologist.
Interesting to note as well, that many of the so-called 'respected scientists' who challenge anthropogenic warming fail to declare what their PhD is actually in, and who granted it. Are these the same 'Universities' who offer PhDs in Bible Studies and Genesis? When medical doctors and archaeologists and biblical scholars deny global warming I might just listen to metereologists, climatologist, earth scientists and the evidence of my own eyes.
Where I live we are seeing extinctions because higher altitudes are consistently warmer, so creatures evolved for those climates have nowhere to go.
Actually, the simple answer to the question is yes. It also meets the (much stricter than the rest of the US) Californian requirements.
In fact the emission and safety standards required in most of the continental US are significantly below those mandated in Europe, the UK, New Zealand and Australia.
regards
This is at least partially true. Although the most advanced silicon and solar cell technologies currently come from Canberra (Australia) Australian National University.
One of the things most often missed is that the great climate change debate (pretty much over for all you continuing sceptics out there) will stimulate a lot of things. If Carbon trading is adopted globally, and even when it is adopted locally, there is then a significant incentive to innovation to reduce carbon impacts. If a carbon tax of say US $25 per ton is applied then all of a sudden there are technologies such as solar, wave, wind, geo-thermal etc that start to become competitive with older technologies such as coal etc. Carbon sequestration becomes cost effective, then we see genuine competition to develop new and better technologies that will give companies an economic advantage. If these efficiencies have an impact at a reasonable cost then yes, they will be adopting them in India and China.
This is where innovation can restore a competitive advantage to economies who have lost out on low-skilled manufacturing to India, China, Indonesia and others. Cutting back emissions can actually stimulate economic growth.
Ok, didn't mean to offend, Hungarian Uprising. I guess it's a bit better known if your ex-wife was Hungarian and you came from europe anyway. The ex Soviet Bloc is a very interesting place at the moment. Putin seems to be flexing his muscles.
Any understanding about history and you would know what 1956 signifies, you might even know that all the way through Radio America kept broadcasting and people believed the Americans couldn't possibly encourage them then abandon them. They were wrong.
However the actual Murmansk Runs were usually done escorted by the Royal Navy. For a very moving fictional account - I recommend HMS Ulysses by Alistair MacLean.
As far as supplying the UK, yes, America did; however they made very sure they were well paid for it. Britain only finished paying off it's war debt to the US in 2006, that's right.. last year. That and the small matter of bases in the Caribbean in exchange for 50 obsolete destroyers that were little better than death-traps.
It would greatly interest the current director of the Australian National War Museum in Canberra if there were 'irrefutable evidence' of Japan's plans to invade Australia. He is convinced there weren't. The problem is that it has become a nationalistic 'Brit-bashing' rallying cry to say that Menzies and Churchill left Australia undefended so that Australian troops could be wasted in the African desert and in SE Asia.
Slashdot Mirror
2 so far.. The debate is really on to what extent is the earth's climate a solid state system. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11cnd-ar ctic.htm?ex=1181188800&en=2eedff2644276c15&ei=5070
Absolutely agree, you can minimise impact by technological change, but ultimately people have to realise that you can't just drive your 1965 pink cadillac eldorado with the whaleskin hubcaps down the highway at 100 mph getting 4 miles to the gallon, chewing on quarter pounders in the original styrene containers and not have an impact on the environment.
Hmm.. so a UN committee of hundreds of scientists vs one MIT climatologist.
Interesting to note as well, that many of the so-called 'respected scientists' who challenge anthropogenic warming fail to declare what their PhD is actually in, and who granted it. Are these the same 'Universities' who offer PhDs in Bible Studies and Genesis? When medical doctors and archaeologists and biblical scholars deny global warming I might just listen to metereologists, climatologist, earth scientists and the evidence of my own eyes.
Where I live we are seeing extinctions because higher altitudes are consistently warmer, so creatures evolved for those climates have nowhere to go.
Actually, the simple answer to the question is yes. It also meets the (much stricter than the rest of the US) Californian requirements. In fact the emission and safety standards required in most of the continental US are significantly below those mandated in Europe, the UK, New Zealand and Australia. regards
This is at least partially true. Although the most advanced silicon and solar cell technologies currently come from Canberra (Australia) Australian National University. One of the things most often missed is that the great climate change debate (pretty much over for all you continuing sceptics out there) will stimulate a lot of things. If Carbon trading is adopted globally, and even when it is adopted locally, there is then a significant incentive to innovation to reduce carbon impacts. If a carbon tax of say US $25 per ton is applied then all of a sudden there are technologies such as solar, wave, wind, geo-thermal etc that start to become competitive with older technologies such as coal etc. Carbon sequestration becomes cost effective, then we see genuine competition to develop new and better technologies that will give companies an economic advantage. If these efficiencies have an impact at a reasonable cost then yes, they will be adopting them in India and China. This is where innovation can restore a competitive advantage to economies who have lost out on low-skilled manufacturing to India, China, Indonesia and others. Cutting back emissions can actually stimulate economic growth.
Ok, didn't mean to offend, Hungarian Uprising. I guess it's a bit better known if your ex-wife was Hungarian and you came from europe anyway. The ex Soviet Bloc is a very interesting place at the moment. Putin seems to be flexing his muscles.
Any understanding about history and you would know what 1956 signifies, you might even know that all the way through Radio America kept broadcasting and people believed the Americans couldn't possibly encourage them then abandon them. They were wrong.
However the actual Murmansk Runs were usually done escorted by the Royal Navy. For a very moving fictional account - I recommend HMS Ulysses by Alistair MacLean. As far as supplying the UK, yes, America did; however they made very sure they were well paid for it. Britain only finished paying off it's war debt to the US in 2006, that's right.. last year. That and the small matter of bases in the Caribbean in exchange for 50 obsolete destroyers that were little better than death-traps.
It would greatly interest the current director of the Australian National War Museum in Canberra if there were 'irrefutable evidence' of Japan's plans to invade Australia. He is convinced there weren't. The problem is that it has become a nationalistic 'Brit-bashing' rallying cry to say that Menzies and Churchill left Australia undefended so that Australian troops could be wasted in the African desert and in SE Asia.