Hurricane Rita Rant - DPChallenge Forums

09/22/2005 06:31:23 PM · #53

Originally posted by GeneralE:

And NOAA has no "agenda" to push? Perhaps you forget that all scientific declarations by Federal agencies must be first vetted by the Administration, which has ordered changes made before publication.

So, do you consider Karl Rove, et al, to be more "qualified than the people who conducted the actual research and wrote the article?

Please re-read my post! I said they possibly both have agendas! That's why I'd rather see the data then just pick the guy that supports my agenda.
The intellgent mind gathers data then forms an opinion. The unintelligent mind forms an opinion and then looks for support for that opinion.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/22/2005 06:49:39 PM · #54

The last 5 decades have been below average for total hurricanes and the last 4 decades has been below average for major hurricanes.

Based on that data, on average, the last 50 years has seen less hurricane activity then the 100 years prior. So, if anything, industrialization of the US over the last 50 years has reduced hurricane activity. At least that is what these numbers say.

Now, realize that this data is just hurricanes that hit the USA, and not all hurricanes. To do this right you need to look at all the hurricanes.

Message edited by author 2005-09-22 18:50:09.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/22/2005 07:08:39 PM · #55

Originally posted by louddog:

Those decades happen to coincide with the rise of Federal environmental efforts and regulation, such as the Clean Air Act, which have significantly reduced certain airborn pollutants, and perhaps slowed the growth of others. Unfortunately, those are the very measures which are being gutted or abolished by the current regime.

Suppose we examine the relative risks of guessing wrong.

If the "environmentalists" are wrong about global warming, we have an economy which may have slightly lower overall growth, with redistribution of industrial income shifted from "heavy energy" to new technologies, such as effective solar>electric conversion, environmental restoration, etc. Essentially, the major problem with the approach proposed by those who "believe global warming is real" is that the very fat cats who own the military-industrial complex might become just a little leaner -- maybe they'll have to make do with a $6.00 shower curtain like the rest of us.

If the current administration's "faith-based" outlook is wrong, we get:

- Rising sea levels (goodbye Malibu and Manhattan)
- More poisonous air, leading to increases in health care costs to treat respiratory and cardiac disease as well as cancers
- a greater dependence on technology to produce food, leading to increased risk of catestrophic food shortages due to either drought, crop failure, accident, or terrorism.
- Catastrophic floods in the alpine regions as glaciers melt and hidden lakes are breached
- Many other results I don't have time to list.

Basically, I look at the risk benefit ratio:

Environmentalists wrong: "poorer economy" but a healthier world.
Administration wrong: increased profits for Bechtel and Chevron, but modern civilization destroyed.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

09/22/2005 07:33:07 PM · #56

I don't know the answer to this, it's not a loaded question. I'm pretty neutral on this issue and I'm going off just the data I've seen. Personally I hope global warming is just a myth, but I fear my hopes are not true.

Is the US putting out more or less pollution then 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago...

How does our pollution output today compare to the previous 50 years?

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/22/2005 07:57:05 PM · #57

Originally posted by laurielblack:

This is nature, people. Find something else to argue about. Worry about your own country or something. Sheesh.

While I agree that a God induced hurricane-fest is somewhat implausible it's this attitude towards boundaries that is causing such environmental devastation and perpetuating a sense of island mentality. The world is interconnected through its ecology - that's the irrefutable end of it. There's no new air made and no new water and there never will be. We have to share everything that's ever been and ever will be.

As a superpower America MUST change its ways or be largely resonsible for generations of misery. Of course, so should all nations and peoples with the luxury of knowledge and power to adapt. The planet is about to be battered again by India and China's industrialisation, but by definition a superpower is a nation that can influence world events. As the world\'s biggest polluter by a massive margin, America's people, not just its government need to implement lifestyle changes on a huge scale - without excuses.

Part of America's general state of denial and ambivolence may be down its inability to convey a unified message across such expansive geography. In Britain it's much easier to feel like a collective and actually implement changes (although even we have increased emmissions rather than reduced them thanks to Blair). With the huge array of media avenues and disparate cultures in the US the task is more difficult, so it's going to take some brave individuals to stick their necks out and make a difference or forever be blamed by the generations to come.

What religion has to do with it I really can't imagine though.

Message edited by author 2005-09-22 19:59:13.

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

09/22/2005 08:00:08 PM · #58

Originally posted by Imagineer:

With the huge array of media avenues and disparate cultures in the US the task is more difficult, so it's going to take some brave individuals to stick their necks out and make a difference or forever be blamed by the generations to come.

Just blame Bush, everyone else does.

oops, forgot the ;) winky smiley

Message edited by author 2005-09-22 20:00:59.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

09/22/2005 08:42:17 PM · #59

Originally posted by Imagineer:

In Britain it's much easier to feel like a collective and actually implement changes (although even we have increased emmissions rather than reduced them thanks to Blair).

Not EVERYONE blames Bush. SOME blame Blair. But, it seems, NO ONE blames themselves. THEY are just innocent myrmidons, faithfully following the orders of their leaders.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

09/22/2005 09:01:39 PM · #60

Originally posted by louddog:

//www.cleanairprogress.org/research/2004_Report_Final907.pdf

Interesting to skim through. Seems to me things have improved dramatically since 1980.

colyla

Canon EOS-50D

09/22/2005 09:32:23 PM · #61

Well....I'll just get it off my chest and say it then...

the debbil did it....

now group hug :)

MadMordegon

09/22/2005 09:49:28 PM · #62

Originally posted by louddog:

I was able to find this; a report by the United Nations Environment Programme THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE? .

But if the Union of Concerned Scientists Warning to Humanity from 1992 was not a clear enough wake up, maybe the tracking of Bush Administration environmental policy would give an idea that we arenâ��t doing at all better.

We are committing ecocide and until the #1 priority of humans is taking care of our biosphere and ourselves with it instead of economic and material success, gay hating, non-beneficial bible thumping and wars over bullshit, were doomed.

Were committing intergenerational tyranny; giving our childrenâ��s children a world of poison to try and fix.

09/22/2005 10:36:29 PM · #63

Originally posted by sabphoto:

Originally posted by DanSig:
...we have only normal weather all year round, no disasters, mega storms, floods, drout, tsunamis, or anything related to polution changing the weather.

so clean up your country and air, and these storms will slowly disapear, stop thinking about a quick profit and start thinking long term, like most of the world !

As bear stated your weather isn't a direct offshot of your clean approach. How about you move your country to a different location where these natural disasters are more prone to happen like warm waters of the gulf or tropical areas where rain causes mud slides or places where the earth plates are more active and see how much your green approach helps the country.

Saying that you don't have disasters becuase you don't pollute is almost as silly as saying America is being punished for our sins. If I remember correctly God does not punish us for your sins, His son took this punishment for all of us.

If I can add my 2 cents here, let me add that Iceland is one of the most geologically unstable, seismically active places in the world. At any time an earthquake or a brand-new volcano could devestate or even destroy, say, Reykjavik, and no amount of 'clean living' or self-righteous posturing could stop it from happening. Although the Earth is a beautiful place, it is quite dangerous in many ways, and there is really no place one could live in where all of these possible dangers could be escaped.

09/22/2005 10:47:49 PM · #64

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

The economic Rita effect; Coup de Grace for the American Economy

My goodness, this could be almost as bad as Y2K!!

09/22/2005 10:51:52 PM · #65

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by bear_music:
...and while it is true that our government pulled out of the Kyoto Accord (which I don't udnerstand at all and consider indefensible)...

The reason the Kyoto treaty was rejected was because it exempted the worst poluters, such as China, India and Eastern Europe. The real effect would not have been to reduce polution but to draw yet more industry from the US to these countries. If the framers of that treaty really cared about polution and global warming, its restrictions would have been applied universally. In reality, it was a geo-political power grab.

BINGO!

And don't forget, that useless sheet of bun-wad was rejected by the senate 96-0 (yes, zero) during the CLINTON adminsitration.

09/22/2005 11:01:25 PM · #66

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by ScottK:
The reason the Kyoto treaty was rejected was because it exempted the worst poluters, such as China, India and Eastern Europe. The real effect would not have been to reduce polution but to draw yet more industry from the US to these countries. If the framers of that treaty really cared about polution and global warming, its restrictions would have been applied universally. In reality, it was a geo-political power grab.

Since when are China, India and Eastern Europe the worst polluters? There is only one reason the U.S. did not sign the treaty, because the present U.S. administration considers it bad for business to do so. Period. End of story.

Oh no Judith, you are WRONG this time. The reason the U.S. did not sign the treaty is that the U.S. Senate (which must approve all treaties; it's in the Constitution, look it up) rejected the treaty 96-0 (yes, ZERO) during the PREVIOUS U.S. administration. Please stand corrected for once.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/22/2005 11:10:59 PM · #67

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by louddog:
I don't know the answer to this, it's not a loaded question. I'm pretty neutral on this issue and I'm going off just the data I've seen. Personally I hope global warming is just a myth, but I fear my hopes are not true.

Is the US putting out more or less pollution then 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago...

How does our pollution output today compare to the previous 50 years?

I was able to find this; a report by the United Nations Environment Programme THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE? .

But if the Union of Concerned Scientists Warning to Humanity from 1992 was not a clear enough wake up, maybe the tracking of Bush Administration environmental policy would give an idea that we arenâ��t doing at all better.

We are committing ecocide and until the #1 priority of humans is taking care of our biosphere and ourselves with it instead of economic and material success, gay hating, non-beneficial bible thumping and wars over bullshit, were doomed.

Were committing intergenerational tyranny; giving our childrenâ��s children a world of poison to try and fix.

Uhhh okay, but pollution output has dramatically declined and air quality has dramatically improved since the 70's and 80's. (but F Bush, just because it hasn't been said enough yet and why not add some hate to a civil discussion)

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

09/22/2005 11:14:14 PM · #68

I really hate to sound heartless, but I sure hope those evil sinners from down in Louisiana and Texas don't get evacuated to Oregon. I'd hate to have those vengeful hurricanes following them up here.

BTW, when was last time Las Vegas (A.k.a. Sin City) got hit by a catagory 5 hurricane anyway?

And what about the seriously sinful cities? My guess is the winds should start picking up in Washington D.C. any time now.

MadMordegon

09/23/2005 12:07:41 AM · #69

Originally posted by louddog:

Some aspects of air quality have improved. But the overall environmental damage increases every year. From dead spots and coral reef death in the ocean to deforestation and ecosystem destruction. For christ sake, cruise ships,once three miles out at sea, can legally dump raw sewage in the ocean. Wastewater from galleys, laundries and hair salons can be dumped untreated anywhere in the ocean. We shit were we live and eat.

You know in the US the fine for dumping toxic waste is only $25,000? Big companies can pay that like its nothing.

In US business practice (and much of the world), if the penalty or fine costs less than what it would cost to comply with the law, they will just look at breaking the law as a financially sound business decision.

Message edited by author 2005-09-23 00:43:09.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/23/2005 12:29:01 AM · #70

Originally posted by scalvert:

Yes, of course we should take better care of our planet, but even if all technology and pollution ceased today, there would still be natural disasters 100 years from now to blame on President Bush VII.

If this should come to pass, god forbid, then yes, I would say we ARE being punished for our sins ;).

Message edited by author 2005-09-23 00:39:27.

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

09/23/2005 08:48:43 AM · #71

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Imagineer:
In Britain it's much easier to feel like a collective and actually implement changes (although even we have increased emmissions rather than reduced them thanks to Blair).

Not EVERYONE blames Bush. SOME blame Blair. But, it seems, NO ONE blames themselves. THEY are just innocent myrmidons, faithfully following the orders of their leaders.

You are so right here and this is the biggest problem. It's easy to hide. I do blame governments primarily because they are blessed with so much potential to conduct change, yet they disappoint with unerring reliability time and again. So it's down to individuals to push the change. Don't buy overpackaged foods. Walk. Cycle. Buy thing locally and discard things locally. Try not to fly too far. A single passenger's return flight from Britain to the US emits a staggering 2 tons of CO2.

I've actually begun to make myself a pain with respected friends, clients and anyone I meet touting a more responsible attitude towards consumption generally. It's not easy because of peer pressure and the fear of being branded an eccentric, but to be honest I'd rather be disparaged for that than being an arrogant, ignorant waster. It might be easier if I was a hippy, but I've noticed a distinct change in many people since 'educating' them.

For my part I'm far from totally green, but I'm switching to a hybrid Prius (zero emissions around town and 67mpg - and it looks good with a bit of poke) and I'm gong to make changes as I can afford them, like using a water butt for the guttering, a wormery for kitchen waste, etc. My kids have grown with it and have very strong natural unity with their environment now and I'm proud of that.

If I can I'll gradually install solar panels and whatever else I can do within planning permission. I already begin to feel better as a person for not contributing so much to planetry degradation, and it's quite fun to do.

My big question is, why not? It's now more fashionable to be green too.

I'll leave you with some quotes:

Teddy Roosevelt:
"The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, not impaired, in value."

Edmund Burke:
"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

09/23/2005 09:28:17 AM · #72

Originally posted by louddog:

Strange then that the US cannot commit to Kyoto, which only seeks that nations return to 1990 levels of pollution.

I wish that the Western World would lead from the front. There is no real hope of developing cleaner energy and manufacturing processes until there is an economic imperative. When we force ourselves into shape, that will be the locomotive of change. We would give ourselves a reason to develop clean processes that will become cheap by mass adoption and the whole world would follow in our wake.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

09/23/2005 09:43:56 AM · #73

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by louddog:

Uhhh okay, but pollution output has dramatically declined and air quality has dramatically improved since the 70's and 80's. (but F Bush, just because it hasn't been said enough yet and why not add some hate to a civil discussion)

Some aspects of air quality have improved. But the overall environmental damage increases every year. From dead spots and coral reef death in the ocean to deforestation and ecosystem destruction. For christ sake, cruise ships,once three miles out at sea, can legally dump raw sewage in the ocean. Wastewater from galleys, laundries and hair salons can be dumped untreated anywhere in the ocean. We shit were we live and eat.

You know in the US the fine for dumping toxic waste is only $25,000? Big companies can pay that like its nothing.

In US business practice (and much of the world), if the penalty or fine costs less than what it would cost to comply with the law, they will just look at breaking the law as a financially sound business decision.

A few quick points:
1. I believe almost all aspects of air quality in the USA, not some, have improved in the last 20-30 years. Check the EPA report. If I am wrong please show me some data.
2. If humans ceased to exist tomorrow the overall environmental damage would still increase every year.
3. Might want to check that $25,000 number. I did a quick search and the first company I found, which is not a big corporation, was facing fines up to $750,000 and 15 years in prison for one big dump of paint. //www.sspc.org/regnews/penaltybox/FL400.html

And from the website you pointed me to (thanks) //www.surfrider.org/a-z/cruise.asp

Originally posted by web site mad pointed to:

From 1993 to 1998, cruise ships were involved in 87 confirmed cases of illegal discharges of oil, garbage, and hazardous wastes into US waters, and have paid more than $30 million in fines. Some of these cases involved multiple incidents of illegal dumping that numbered in the hundreds over the six-year period.
In 2001, Royal Caribbean admitted in court it had installed special piping to bypass pollution control devices and pleaded guilty to dumping toxic chemicals. Royal Caribbean was levied fines and penalties totaling $33.5 million to settle dumping complaints that occurred between 1994 and 1998.
In April 2002, Carnival Corporation pleaded guilty to falsifying records to cover up pollution by six ships over several years. They were assessed an $18 million fine and were placed on probation.
In July 2002, Norwegian Cruise Lines paid a $1 million fine and agreed to pay $500,000 to environmental organizations in Florida for falsifying Coast Guard records regarding discharge of oily waste and hazardous waste into the ocean.
In September 2002, a fired Carnival Cruise Lines executive filed a "whistle-blower" lawsuit, alleging a host of environmental violations, including toxic chemical dumping.
In October 2002, Carnival Corp. disclosed that officers from one of its ships had been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in Alaska regarding a 40,000-gallon wastewater release.
In April 2003, a lawsuit filed by Bluewater Network, Environmental Law Foundation, San Diego Baykeeper and Surfrider Foundation against Carnival Corp., Princess Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean, Holland America and others for illegal discharge of ballast water into shoreline waters was settled after the cruise lines agreed to pay $75,000 to research alternative ballast water management technologies. Carnival Corp. admitted to breaking the law.

Only a $25,000 fine to dump toxic waste?

Message edited by author 2005-09-23 09:46:10.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

09/23/2005 11:09:37 AM · #74

Originally posted by queanbeez:

Dircted to the starter of the original thread...... Bible pushers always seem to be able to translate everything that happens in the world. They'll always be this way, cant change them.

I wish I could describe how statements like this rile me and just downright get on my nerves. But since I can't, let me address the "topic."

Bible pushers, as you say (and if you knew me, would probably consider me one), do not as you say try to be able to translate everything that happens in the world. There is a SMALL faction of Christians (be it fundamental or evangelical) that seem to want to think that everything that happens is God's judgement on the earth. When hurricanes ravaged our small town last year (Western North Carolina, not exactly coastal, mind you) there were some that said it was because Canton allowed "liquor by the drink" earlier in the year. I simply looked at them and asked about all the ones that suffered outside of city limits.

Now, based on what I believe and understand from the Bible, God can/has used "natural disasters" to "purge" the earth. However, unlike Hurricane Francis, Ivan, Rita, or Katrina, He very clearly alerted those involved that He was getting ready to judge, (Noah and the Arc, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc) and gave His people a chance to repent/escape.

I would say, if you wanted to look at it from a Biblical perspective, it is probably more a "consequence" than a cause. Whilst I don't believe in all the "global warming" bruhaha, I do think that our basic existence has caused warmer temperatures (ever been in a small room with 50 people without proper ventilation). Heck, even without a population growth, all the pavement and black top we have on our roads (which, I believe, is fairly worldwide -- at least in the cities) that is a lot of heat produced. Even if we used black dirt, as many roads as there are on the Earth, that would be a lot of black dirt. (Okay, the black dirt part is tongue in cheek).

I really hate to break it to everyone, but it is not W's fault. It's not Clinton's fault. It's not Daddy's fault. It's not Reagan's fault. It's not Carter's fault, et. etc. W has been president in the most recent years, this is an issue I have heard addressed all my life. Is it time to do something about it? Yes. Is it W's responsibility? To clean up the whole world? No.

I think it begins on a personal level. We in America have gotten so used to following our government (regardless of who the president is), that we have forgotten that if we lead, they will follow. At some point, we are going to have to stop blaming everything on Bush, and look at the bigger picture, because whether you are Republican or Democrat, it is bigger than just him.

So, are these monster hurricanes God's judgement? If so, the sin is that we aren't taking responsibility for our own actions and taking care of what has been given to us.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D