The G8 and the environment - DPChallenge Forums

06/21/2005 01:10:40 PM · #26

Coming from a nation that "owned", bullied and looted half the earth at one time, leaving in its wake only the desire for tea at noon and the game of cricket, I can understand your deflective posturings and myopic inspection of another powerful country that never titled itself an Empire. Have you looked at the Birmingham or Sheffield stacks lately? A bit dusty, aren't they?

While it is simplistic to say, "We could have had cars, telephones, sophisticated mass communication equipment and a myriad of other life-transforming technology without the contributions of the United States," that view fails to deflect fully the world debt to a superpower which has remained content within its own borders, reflecting honest benevolence when looked at on an historic scale. Your rhetoric to deny America any decent motivation is complicated by your own shortened vision, I would imagine formed along with a debate-hungry posture, in a country where speculation is viewed as productivity.

06/21/2005 01:14:13 PM · #27

"This report seems to indicate otherwise - just look at the amount of greehouse gases produced in the US. 5.6 billion tons p.a. out of 22 billion produced by the world as a whole. That is 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions produced by 300 million out of 6.5 billion people. I think that puts the US firmly in the number one spot of most polluting countries (in total and per capita)."
[[[Yes,...but let's look at productivity? See this is the fact you are forgetting. Sure, Australia only produces 300,000 tons. But how much does Australia produce? What about South America's 750,000 tons. But how much industrial manufacturing do they do? Not that much... but look at the pollution environmental damage they contribute from deforestation, etc. That is their environmental pollution. One could argue that the Middle East and N. Africa contribute very little to Greenhouse Gases. But what do they make? Rather, they benefit from the selling of oil...which is used in such production. They in return buy manufactured goods. So what does it all mean?

Let's look at the per capita:
U.S. - 19,910
Australia - 16,980
Canada - 16,040
Belgium - 11,600
Netherlands - 10,600
Germany - 10,010
Japan - 9,130
U.K. - 9,030
China - 2,530

Sure the U.S. is double much of Europe. And China is way at the bottom. But what does this really mean?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!

Unless you first you must evaluate how productive each country and also evaluate the quality of living of each populace.

U.S. GDP: $11,750B
Australia GDP: $611 B
Canada GDP: $1,023B
Belgium GDP: $316B
Netherlands GDP: $481B
Germany GDP: $2,362B
Japan GDP: $3,745B
U.K. GDP: $1,782B
China GDP: $7,262B

*2004 estimates

So let's look at some of these figures.

Productivity to pollution/capita factor:

USA = 1.6944680851063829787234042553191
Japan = 2.4859813084112149532710280373832
UK = 5.0673400673400673400673400673401
Australia = 27.790507364975450081833060556465
China = 0.3483888735885431010740842743046

*lower is better

So what do these numbers represent? They simply present a way to evaluate productivity in relation to pollution/per capita.

So if you evalutated each citizen as 1 allowable pollution point. America produces 1.69 pollution points for every citizen for each unit of productivity. Japan produces 2.48 pollution points.

Legalbeagle, for all your talk of Britain you produce three times the pollution per capita per what you produce. So Great Britain is a much worse polluter than the U.S. Don't worry LB, you're not the worst!

Australia produces a whopping 27.79 pollution points for each production point for each citizen. Sure Australia might release a LOT less pollution than the U.S. per capita but they are NOT producing a lot of goods either. And the ratio of what they produce per capita as compared to how much pollution they produce per capita is atrocious. But when you have a small populace, abounding land - you won't notice that your productivity to pollution rate is extremely high.

Now the last one is interesting - China

China is literally surpassing all... one production/capita point only generates 0.35 pollution/capita point. That's a very nice efficient ratio. But this brings me to second aspect...the quality of life!

The first 4 nations I listed ensure that 90%+ of their populace enjoys a very nice standard of living quality. China on the other hand, although the figures look nice fails to meet a good standard of living quality for the majority of it's populace.

In that fact, China does not compare. China still has billions of impoverished farmers, etc. and this is evident as they continue to industrialize and increase their quality of living their pollution and consumption figures are skyrocketing. And are estimated to far exceed the U.S. shortly.

So there is what that report actually show you. The U.S. is pound-for-pound a much cleaner and efficient producer per capita than most of Europe.

Sincerely,
Jason "The Saj"

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/21/2005 02:07:46 PM · #28

Very telling point, Saj. In the case of China, one must also remember that few people own cars in that nation. If they had the transportation system of a European nation, the pollution could be catastrophic if left unchecked or loosely monitored (as it is in many global communities.) The whole idea of "clean up your own yard before pointing to the neighbor's trash" is often overlooked when the debate of who most dirties the air is flying around. No one should accept filth, but as I first stated in this thread; I have been many places on earth and would favorably compare the attitudes concerning willingness to accept responsibility in the USA to about anywhere else. And an attitude and direction is prime motivation for all of us engaged in attempting to reinvigorate the planet.

SJCarter

Canon EOS-7D

06/21/2005 02:44:34 PM · #29

For all of you world citizens, please don't feel that those in favor of Bush's policies speak for everyone in the USA. They certainly do not speak for me. IMHO, Bush has done more to harm the environment than any US President in modern times, done more to grease the palms of fellow oil bigwigs, steal civil rights detailed as inalienable by our founding fathers, deceive American citizens into starting a vengeful war, and create a world with more hatred of "Americans" than every existed prior to 9/11...

Sorry, but I had to say it.

And in response to your specific question, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was the USA that objected to the "facts" as I (and the vast majority of world scientists) see them.

Just my 2 cents - and thank goodness I still have the right to voice it!

Jimmy

Message edited by author 2005-06-21 14:45:50.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/21/2005 03:03:30 PM · #30

"For all of you world citizens, please don't feel that those in favor of Bush's policies speak for everyone in the USA."
[[[Agreed...]]]

"IMHO, Bush has done more to harm the environment than any US President in modern times"
[[[IMHO he has done more long reaching benefit than any President in modern history.]]]

"steal civil rights detailed as inalienable by our founding fathers"
[[[ You mean be like the first president to appoint "two" Secretaries of State of African-American heritage? To endeavor to have more ethnic judges placed than all the other administrations combined? ]]]

Of course, this is all from S. Jimmy Carter.... :P

SJCarter

Canon EOS-7D

06/21/2005 03:12:37 PM · #31

LOL - touche Saj. I must admit that I do go by Jimmy Carter - a name I'm proud to bear. And I'm glad that in this fine country, we can still agree on at least "some" of the issues and still have the freedom to express those closest to our hearts.

:-)

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

06/21/2005 03:50:12 PM · #32

Very much so....

I will fight for every communist to have a right to speak here. (Actually, there are quite a few things I am on agreement with the communist party on... *lol*... I think it's a great ideal. I just don't think man's morality level is up to the task yet.)

Problem with President Jimmy Carter...the road to hell is paved with the best intentions. Lord knows how many times problems have occurred for me because I had good intentions.

Now mind you, that doesn't mean you stop having good intentions - just simply that you think about the ramifications a bit more deeply.

Believe it or not, I am actually very strongly supportive of the environment. I went to a special high school that focused on the environment (with special focus to the marine environment). In high school I participated in research studies on heavy metal contamination, etc. In college I pursued a marine science degree program.

However, I became discouraged in political/legal based environmentalism after the Clinton/Gore administration. I was not a supporter nor even eligable to vote. But I spent a good 1/2 of a year hearing how Gore was the super-environmentalist and how now we'd see growth in renewable energies, etc. I saw nothing...

This combined with local environmental rules. (Example: spend 2 hours cutting up boxes into the proper size only to have them reject and not take the boxes after hours of work. So, shove said boxes into a plastic bag and dispose frustratingly.

I believe we are being far from the best stewards of the earth. And that disturbs me greatly. But I am a strategist...I look several steps down and see the conesequences and repurcussions. I do believe improvement is a good thing but I think it's a poor excuse for the necessary steps.

In fact, I would like to see us devote much more $$$ toward advanced designs for improving the environment. And better use of our trash waste. And a lot more $$$ for space exploration. Because I believe the commercializing of space will in fact lead us to great strides in fuel efficiency. Whether fuel cell or nuclear...the truth is space requires compact efficient designs - usually at the loss of "cost". The result though is technology leaps that better mankind.

That is how I see our needs for investment. Long term....the medicine should only be there to hold our heart over until we get to surgery. Crying that we need more medicine but not scheduling the surgery to me is foolish. Why pay the $$$ for the medicine to post-pone death if you are not trying to invest in the surgery to prevent death? In truth, you just consume resources.

I believe if we had a budget of $5 billion. That money is better spend toward fuel cell design and implementation than trying to eke out an extra 5mpg from I.C.E. vehicles. In fact, I believe the market will drive improvemetns (albeit slowly at times) from I.C.E. manufacturers.

As is already being seen with hybrids, variable cyclinder vehicles, auto-off/fast-start engines, etc.

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

06/21/2005 06:02:43 PM · #33

Originally posted by theSaj:

....But I spent a good 1/2 of a year hearing how Gore was the super-environmentalist and how now we'd see growth in renewable energies, etc. I saw nothing...

I think your stance on environmentalism is really cool, TheSaj.:)
But,
OW! Don't be so fast to dis the Gore-Man, Saj. :D :)

He really IS an environmentalist. Don't forget he had to deal with a anti-anything and everything Republican Congress. They stopped any environmental initiative they could.

Gore should have gotten more done in the first term, however!

And the NAFTA thing was a disgrace for a Democratic Administration.

Originally posted by theSaj:

This combined with local environmental rules. (Example: spend 2 hours cutting up boxes into the proper size only to have them reject and not take the boxes after hours of work. So, shove said boxes into a plastic bag and dispose frustratingly

I think you are right on. We are lead to believe that we are really doing something positive when we pitch in personally, but it is an illusion, I think.

Sure, we ARE helping the environment by recycling.

But, a lot more can be done by the government than by us at an individual level.

Like mandating packaging materials that aren't all plastic. Or huge amounts of packaging for marketing purposes. Or having rules that mandate the biodegradability of the plastic-like part of the packaging. (It can be made of sugar polymers, for instance). Or actually reusing packaging- what a concept.

We keep on hauling away our garbage with no thought to eliminating most of it from the start.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

06/21/2005 07:39:14 PM · #34

Interesting points, Jason.

It is very difficult to work out which bits of any of your posts are yours or are quotes â�� would be significantly easier to understand if you used the mark up language rather than the square bracket thing. For example, you seemed earlier to be advocating the transition to more efficient cars (eg hybrids), but now seem to be saying that this will not have a significant impact because cars donâ��t affect pollution levels very much (you say 5-10% improvements to be gained) and the money would be better spent on transforming the energy research structure. But then you say that China is very efficient and the difference appears to be that they have fewer cars.

Cars

My position is that cars do have a significant effect, at the very least locally to the area in which they are driven in concentration. There are significant gains to be made by moving people out of cars with an mpg of 5-25 mpg (Hummer, Range Rover, most SUVs) into cars with an mpg of 40-75 mpg (Smart Car, Mini, Peugeot 206 diesels). The difference is staggering: from worst to best, (Hummer to Smart Car), 15 times less fuel required. A median, 20-25mpg to 40mpg â�� achievable while choosing cars in a similar class to each other - still nearly halving the fuel requirement in cars. That blows your suggested 5-10% efficiencies to be gained out of the water.

UK

At no point have I sought to defend the UKâ��s position: we are not very efficient, and have polluted historically. The UK was responsible for the Industrial Revolution, and industrial centres such as London paid the price, and reaped the rewards for many decades. However, at the time, we did not understand the ecological impact, not have the knowledge to deal with the waste. That has changed â�� though there is a certain amount of averting of eyes going on. Modern nation states, and in particular those that have most benefited from the wanton disregard of the environment, need to lead the way in developing and implementing pollution control.

Our government acts in the coutry's self interest (though, IMO, with marginally greater respect than the US for other nations' respective self interests).

I believe that the current UK stance is to impose significant controls on polluting industries in accordance with our Kyoto obligations (at cost to our economy and, ironically, from your stats, our GDP). The ongoing debate in the UK is not the control of oil supplies (though this is important), but the positioning of wind farms. The US policy (as far as I can work out - or the international media tells me) is to reject the increasing evidence that there is global warming, or any need to deal with it. I condemn that attitude.

GDP

I believe that your figures are a little misleading. By focussing on GDP, you concentrate on production, not consumption. It is unethical consumption that is driving pollution issues.

The US produces a lot. But it appears to consume even more. This [url=//tse.export.gov ]US Government Website[/url] appears (me not being an expert on trade data) to show the US as exporting $800 billion, but importing $1,500 billion of merchandise. A trade deficit of almost $700 billion and widening year on year since the start of the Bush presidency.

So the US has great natural and human resources, and produces a huge GDP. And then consumes all that it produces, and then consumes a whole load more.

Is there really an ethical justification for 5% of the worldâ��s population producing so much wealth for the purpose of consuming it all (and more), and in the process producing 25% of the worldâ��s air pollutants for the rest of the world to deal with, while simultaneously and unilaterally rejecting the world's best scientific analyses that this pollution has any significant effect?

Wouldnâ��t it be better for everyone if the US took a hit on its GDP by implementing measures designed to limit the amount of pollution it produces and at the same time reigned in its populationâ��s profligate and wasteful spending habits? If this will have to be done in the medium term, surely a gradually phased step by step process, starting as soon as possible would be preferable?

If not the easiest medicine from the point of view of the US, can you see why the rest of the world might be resentful of its attitude in refusing to recognise the problem?

Message edited by author 2005-06-21 19:40:52.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

06/21/2005 09:44:36 PM · #35

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Wouldnâ��t it be better for everyone if the US took a hit on its GDP

You are a lawyer? I would surmise by the above suggestion that you are not in business law. What leader or any level political official of which country is going to make that kind of proposal? And then hope the opposition would not tear them to shreds! I thought we had heard the last of the regression-at-any-price ideas, especially as we enter the 21st century. Try using that logic on one of your clients sometime and gauge the reaction, then multiple it times the population of a nation. "Say, Henry, the prosecution's case is a little weak against you. What say we help them out a little with some extra evidence that only we know about? Just, you know, to keep it fair."

Message edited by author 2005-06-21 21:46:52.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

06/22/2005 12:30:30 AM · #36

I agree with you that a big problem with air pollution has to do with deforestation and land usage issues. However, I find this production to pollution per capita statistic a bit misleading. Just how much in the way of goods and services produced are needed by a people of a country to live a high standard of living? How big do the vehicles have to be? How fast do they have to go? How big do the houses have to be built? Do we really need 4 car households? Can we not get by with improved mass transit for a higher percentage of the population to use? Do we really need to driving our SUV\'s and Hummers to the supermarket?

Does all this give us (the United States) a vastly improved standard of living over other first world nations? Why isn\'t this \"bigger is better\" philosophy that exists in the US curtailed by government? This is where I would like to see the Bush administration take some initiative and set some limits on business so resource usage is limited to some extent. Large houses draw more electricity, oil for heat, lumber, etc etc etc. Large vehicles likewise for petrol. From what I see, the Bush admin are more interested in consumption than preservation of resources. Spending the future today.

Developing fuel cell technology is a great idea whose time has come, but in the meantime, we need some leadership that recognizes that we have no time to squander in this fight against global warming and environmental degradation. We need both long and short term solutions.

Originally posted by theSaj:

So there is what that report actually show you. The U.S. is pound-for-pound a much cleaner and efficient producer per capita than most of Europe.

Sincerely,
Jason "The Saj"

MadMordegon

06/22/2005 02:23:27 AM · #37

Tuff to know these days, what with all the Exxon supported "scientific" research going on. Hell, even the US gov is in on the fix, editing scientific documents (1) (2) to down play the issues.

One could almost think money and corporate lobbying groups have more influence over our country's environmental policy than science and Earth's climate/living conditions. Naa..

Also for reference, climate change denial and junk science.

Message edited by author 2005-06-22 02:25:32.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

06/22/2005 07:06:49 AM · #38

Originally posted by RonBeam:

What leader or any level political official of which country is going to make that kind of proposal? And then hope the opposition would not tear them to shreds! I thought we had heard the last of the regression-at-any-price ideas, especially as we enter the 21st century.

The Kyoto treaty was signed by a long list of countries that recognise the problem facing the world, for which we have joint responsibility. Each has agreed to reduce emmissions. Every reduction will come at a price. Pretty much every major polluting nation agrees - except one: the US. Which continues to refuse to acknowledge the problem to which it is the greatest contributor. It protects its gdp while others suffer the cost. That attitude, as you can imagine causes some resentment.

Originally posted by ronbeam:

"Say, Henry, the prosecution's case is a little weak against you. What say we help them out a little with some extra evidence that only we know about? Just, you know, to keep it fair."

I take the point (people are self interested), but you have chosen a bad example: lawyers are under a duty to disclose materials unhelpful to their case to the other side in any court proceedings. The lawyers tend to have a certain amount of integrity. It is the non-lawyers who tend to keep that kind of information secret and away from the lawyers, as they know that the lawyers could not continue to act if they were aware that their client was witholding evidence.

The point is one of degree - many developed nations recognise the impact of their actions and are willing to shoulder the burden of corrective measures. It is in our joint best interests to do so. One country is failing to join in in spectacular fashion, while taking advantage of other countries' efforts to make a quick buck. Commercially successful - yes. Acting in its self interest - yes. To the detriment of others - yes. Shortsighted - yes. Exploitative - yes.

It's a policy, but not one that will win friends.

Message edited by author 2005-06-22 07:07:27.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

06/22/2005 10:22:34 AM · #39

I applaud your integrity, LegalBeagle.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/22/2005 10:31:16 AM · #40

Originally posted by RonBeam:

I applaud your integrity, LegalBeagle.

thanks... I think!

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/22/2005 01:15:04 PM · #41

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonBeam:
I applaud your integrity, LegalBeagle.

thanks... I think!

[quote]Gore should have gotten more done in the first term, however! [/quote]
No excuse, can't blame the Republicans as that was the second term. Where was he the entire first term.

[quote]"But, a lot more can be done by the government than by us at an individual level."[/quote]
I think we forget, the government is us at the individual level. But in truth, I believe how we spend our dollars makes the biggest determinations.

I've long thought they should increase the deposit on soda bottles to 25 cents. And on cans to a dime.

Alcoholic beverages (beer cans/bottles) should be a quarter too.

[quote]you seemed earlier to be advocating the transition to more efficient cars[/quote]

I do, but it's not enough....cars create quite a bit of pollution. But even hybrids are only slightly increasing MPG and thus the improvement is but nominal. It is still an improvement but it is not a solution.

[quote]But then you say that China is very efficient and the difference appears to be that they have fewer cars. [/quote]
It's funny, I knew this was you legalbeagle without even seeing who posted. I could tell by how much you mis-read what is posted.

China, per capita emits a lower level of pollution per production. However, that is because they have an immense amount of population crammed into impoverished living. Which is why I said you must also compare quality of life. If you were to do so, the quality of life factor of 1 European would probably total the equivalent of 10 Chinese commoners. Thus, if you were to address per capita of "quality life" China's score plummets dramatically.

[quote] mpg of 5-25 mpg (Hummer, Range Rover, most SUVs) into cars with an mpg of 40-75 mpg (Smart Car, Mini, Peugeot 206 diesels)[/quote]

Sure, that'd be nice...but I'd love to see the Mini carry a bunch of sound equipment or tow my trailer when I need to get all that gear somewhere. Thus, such are not viable options. GM is actually putting a lot of research into trying to build a viable fuel cell vehicle. Their plan is to release a full size fuel-cell driven SUV and pick-up Truck. Once this is done you will see a great improvement in the adoption of such vehicles.

Why? because for many Americans the micro-compact fuel efficient cars are not sufficient. They're great secondary commuter cars but not for the private business owner.

And actually, I believe Hummer's get above 5mpg. 10-20mpg is realistic for SUVs. And the average extra efficient car is about 50-60. For yes, a 2.5x-6x rating. As I said though, many of those cars are not suitable for many families needs. In fact, I think most families of 5 (parents plus 2.3+ kids) would have much difficulty functioning in a Mini. Hence, the large adoptions of mini-vans (the station wagon replacement). Efficiency is worthless if it cannot meet the need. Need varies. For a commuter car to work those models are great. Thus, they make great secondary vehicles.

[quote] need to lead the way in developing and implementing pollution control. [/quote]
I am in total agreeance here...I just think we should put most of the investment in cures not band-aids.

[quote]Our government acts in the coutry's self interest (though, IMO, with marginally greater respect than the US for other nations' respective self interests).[/quote]
I'd be curious to know what country has outlayed more $$$ for the world than the U.S. - none!

[quote]Wouldnâ��t it be better for everyone if the US took a hit on its GDP[/quote]
If that were to happen, the global repercussions would be catastrophic...and only a fool would not be aware of such. Is consumption higher in America, Japan, Europe than elsewhere....yes. Historically, the consumption rate has a correspondance with quality of life.

However, also historical is that high quality of life areas develop most of the technological advancements.

For the U.S. to reduce it's GDP and to reduce it's consumption would be to ask one to impoverish the developing world. Go to Malaysia, India, etc. And ask them if they would like the U.S. to reduce it's GDP and reduce it's consumption. The U.S. trade deficit is in fact the greatest gift to developing nations. It means their is a cash drain toward their favor. If America had a trade benefit, that would mean we were accumulating wealth from others instead of disbursing it.

[quote]I agree with you that a big problem with air pollution has to do with deforestation and land usage issues. However, I find this production to pollution per capita statistic a bit misleading. Just how much in the way of goods and services produced are needed by a people of a country to live a high standard of living? How big do the vehicles have to be? How fast do they have to go? How big do the houses have to be built? Do we really need 4 car households? Can we not get by with improved mass transit for a higher percentage of the population to use? Do we really need to driving our SUV\'s and Hummers to the supermarket?[/quote]
1. Just how much in the way of goods and services produced are needed by a people of a country to live a high standard of living?
- The continual increase spurns advancements in technology. For example, this is like asking "Do we really need 300gig hard drives? Couldn't we just not develop digital audio and video and keep our systems at 8 gig drives?" This is what advances mankind.

2. How big do the vehicles have to be? [big enough to have the kids in the back seat and fit all the groceries in the back cargo hold of the mini-van or SUV]

How fast do they have to go?
[most go 50-75mph...those that go faster usually get a ticket. Do you really think that makes ANY real difference?]]]

How big do the houses have to be built?
[Big enough to accomodate the goods and services provided in #1]

3. Can we not get by with improved mass transit for a higher percentage of the population to use?
[No we cannot, at least in many instances. We have a society that is extremely fast paced. One does not want to waste an hour or more to travel to work and another to travel back. Now, for those going to work in a large city like NYC. Many do commute. There are trains that run about every 20 minutes. That is an effective mass transit use. But when I want to get around my city. Why would I spend 2 hours to go a 10 minute drive?

And the cost of an effective mass transit system is too exhorberent to get budgeted.
]

4. Do we really need to driving our SUV\'s and Hummers to the supermarket? [I stated the reason for SUV's and mini-vans. So for many yes...and it's a rare occasion I see a Hummer in the grocery lot.]

[quote]Does all this give us (the United States) a vastly improved standard of living over other first world nations?[/quote]
As I showed, most of the first world nations are really not much better if not worse on pollution front. But most all that have good employment and production are in higher pollution brackets.

[quote]This is where I would like to see the Bush administration take some initiative and set some limits on business so resource usage is limited to some extent. Large houses draw more electricity, oil for heat, lumber, etc etc etc[/quote]
Why don't you move into a little shack akin to some poor rural asian community. Why do you want Bush to force others to reduce but not reduce yourself?

I am actually a big opponent of de-forestation and believe that cycle cutting / re-foresting should be mandated. By that, I mean large areas should be designated for forestation. You cut an acre you plant an acre.

I read an interesting article on global warming and the big study that was done touting the research. It showed that a lot of the presentation had been skewed. Furthermore, if man created zero emissions the planet would be warming up dramatically. And will reach a point to where much of the equatorial areas will be arid desert regions. This is in line with historical thermal-geographic fluctuations.

And even if you made 100mpg vehicles, you are still going to be having high pollution totals. Hence, we need to get AWAY from the I.C.E. and go to zero pollution vehicles. And zero pollution energy production.

[quote]the US. Which continues to refuse to acknowledge the problem to which it is the greatest contributor. It protects its gdp while others suffer the cost. That attitude, as you can imagine causes some resentment.[/quote]
And is directly related to the resentment in Americans toward Europe and others who constantly criticize America for it's wealth regardless of how many times we have bailed our France & Britain, rebuilt Germany. Many Americans watch things like Airbus being subsidized by the EU and declaring their goal to put America's Boeing out of business. And feel like Europe is trying to wage an economic war. And frankly, is still getting it's butt kicked.

Such attitudes, and America's experiences with past "global treaties" has put a distaste in our mouth for such.

But I will tell you this. America will be the first of any large major power to reach 90% "zero" emission vehicles. Because we'll demand it once it's properly developed. We will innovate, create, design. We're in a lull in some ways. In part due to social structure. (Our automobile companies are reeling from 60 yr old pension contracts, etc. Things most of the newer Japanese automobile companies do not have.) But whether an American car company or Japanese or European car company "invents" a "zero" emission vehicle that meets full needs (as in mini-van, truck, SUV, form factors - one that serve multi-purpose functions). Rest assured - Americans will buy it... ;)

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

06/22/2005 03:55:49 PM · #42

Originally posted by theSaj:

And is directly related to the resentment in Americans toward Europe and others who constantly criticize America for it's wealth regardless of how many times we have bailed our France & Britain, rebuilt Germany.

Been watching "Saving Private Ryan" Saj? :)
This attitude of the great USA saving the world, coming to others' rescue because they can't manage without you and the rewriting of history through Stephen Spielberg is exactly why other nations get rather annoyed!
We don't criticize the US for its wealth but for the use of it and its lack of understanding demonstrated at times.!

Pauline

armin

Sony DSC-R1

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

06/22/2005 04:22:28 PM · #43

There are no easy answers. Even hydrogen, while clean to burn, is dirty to make as there are obviously no natural sources of it. One therefore has to spend energy first to make it, from water or natural gas. Due to laws of nature, some of that energy is unavoidably wasted as heat, hence what can be recovered later by burning said hydrogen is considerably less what it took to make it in the first place. It is not yet clear where that energy will come from. Coal, gas or nuclear?

06/22/2005 04:47:05 PM · #44

Originally posted by Riponlady:

We don't criticize the US for its wealth but for the use of it and its lack of understanding demonstrated at times.!
Pauline

I would be interested in reading your plans for the proper use of the wealth of the United States, Pauline.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

06/22/2005 04:52:26 PM · #45

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonBeam:
I applaud your integrity, LegalBeagle.

thanks... I think!

The lack of integrity and its subsequent corrosive effects upon the heart is far and away the most destructive pollution problem facing the populace of the earth. I may not admire your politics, leagalbeagle, but I admire your integrity.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

06/22/2005 04:57:41 PM · #46

But people, what IS wealth? This thread revolves around many things, including wealth and criticizing the unevenness of wealth distribution in the world. Some justify it and some attack it, but I haven't seen anyone define it. Need vs. Want is the key here, and I am painfully aware that it is not possible to trigger that part of the brain in 90% of the people in the world.
How much is enough? Without criticizing anyone but myself, I must say that I do own more than probably 95% of the people in the world. Therefore, I am wealthy. I live in about 2x the space I would need to live comfortably. And probably in about 3x the space necessary. I spend about 1MWh of el. energy a month, and I use natural gas for heating! I drive 25+miles (40+km) every day because I choose to live here where I live, and by making that choice I have no choice regarding transportation.
The life revolves around gas stations - I can't get a bottle of milk or a loaf of bread without either walking 20min to the nearest grocery store (which just happens to be inside the gas station) or turning on the ignition key.
This country is built around cars. It simply was not designed for a simple life. It is justified and defended as a high-standard of living, better, bigger etc. but in the essence it completely ruins the life as it could be.
Another issue is the openness of this country to other ways of life. Since here is the best, all other forms and ways of life are inferior and should not be considered at all. Walking to work? Riding a bike to work? No, to inconvenient. Takes too much time....

It is not the question of what democrats did not do and what the republicans will do for this country. Neither side can possibly concede and realize that the exponential curve of growth (not the growth of need, but rather the growth of want) must reach its peak.

And then, it will not be about whether there will be a catastrophy, but it will be about who will be prepared to take it and hit the ground running. My guess here is: the people in the countries that are used to living on reasonable amounts of goods, and not the people that are spoiled with the 300GB hard disks and zillion megapixel images transferred over a wireless G networks etc...

I think that it is not too late to do something. The only thing that I am afraid of is, Kyoto is not the answer. The answer is in ourselves, and in our acceptance of the need to reduce the want in favor of what we really need.

SJCarter

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/22/2005 05:04:32 PM · #47

I must say I admire the vehemence that several of the US citizens have touted their arguments. I stand fully ready to "agree to disagree" with some of them. I could also list volumes of statistics and polls, but they are a dime a dozen these days - for whatever you happen to be proposing.

I only want to reiterate that as a democracy, President Bush does not speak for all of us - nor do his policies (or the democrats or republicans for that matter). I think that actually both parties have fallen far short of acknowledging the earth's current environmental status and the US has certainly fallen far short of doing its proportional share of conservation and support of "green" energy sources (given its past & current usage of natural resources).

Hopefully, a greater "world" conscience will help us all realize what we are doing wrong and help us to reconcile the errors we have made in the past...

p2jvr

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/22/2005 05:42:04 PM · #48

Originally posted by RonBeam:

Originally posted by Riponlady:
We don't criticize the US for its wealth but for the use of it and its lack of understanding demonstrated at times.!
Pauline

I would be interested in reading your plans for the proper use of the wealth of the United States, Pauline.

A good start would be to stop trying to police the world and create the American view of democracy in foreign countries and start leading the world in organising a global commitment to reducing pollution, poverty, creating fair trade deals for poorer countries, wiping out the debts of third world countries and providing loans for these countries to enable them to build towards a standard of living for their people that most of us would consider utmost poverty compared with our way of life.

Running out of battery! will have to sign out before I lose this! I have no doubt Ron will pull me to pieces and fill the page with statistics but this is my gut feeling based on my reading and experience!
:)
Pauline

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/22/2005 06:11:36 PM · #49

sorry logged in on wrong name for previous post - don't blame my husband for my views!
:)
Pauline