|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/17/2005 07:37:08 AM · #1 |
Disagreement regarding key issues G8 proposal
Another Article
"An introductory paragraph has moved the statement "our world is warming" into square brackets and given the same treatment to a statement from the top scientists that climate change is already under way and demands urgent action"
"Comments from the earlier draft, stating that "our world is warming", that the problem is "urgent" and that the G8 nations have "a responsibility to show leadership" and "cannot afford to postpone action" all have square brackets around them in the new text - indicating that they are not accepted by all parties to the discussions.
Square brackets have also been placed around a quotation from a joint statement of the G8 science academies, saying that there is strong evidence that global warming is happening and that human activities are the cause."
I just heard on the radio that it has been confirmed that 7 of the 8 countries in the G8 agree on the aformentioned 'square-bracketed' issues. That leaves one voice of dissent, which, judging by the initial reluctance of Dubya, is probably the US. What do you American citizens think of this? What does everyone else think?
Discuss :)
|
|
|
|
06/17/2005 09:55:17 AM · #2 |
George W. Bush is the greatest steward of the environment in the world. Just ask his press secretary and he will tell you about the Clear Sky Initiative. Or how easing regulatory standards on industrial pollution has actually improved our environment.
So, as an American, I resent your implication That the U.S. is somehow wrong about this, when in reality, George Bush is not wrong about anything. You don't even need to ask his press secretary about that one - George has said it himself during the last election debates!
So, let's cut to the chase, and figure out why the rest of the world is necessarily wrong. (Because, after all, GOD himself instructs George W. Bush, and that's why he is always right.)
The rest of the G8 are deluded on this issue because of shortcomings of the European Moral Fiber. You see, they are moral relativists, who do not realize that Right is Right, and Wrong is Wrong.
First of all, they don't believe in a Culture of Life, like we do in the U.S.
To my knowledge, not a single other member country of the G8 has even ONE secret military prison camp where folks randomly swept off the street can be tortured to death, or raped if they are under 14 years old. That's right, they don't have a single one!!!
How can they support our freedoms, protect the unborn children from abortion murder, or support our troops for that matter, if they don't have the moral wherewithal to fight terrorism? Answer - they CAN'T!
Second of all, The Europeans et al don't even have a fair and balanced understanding of Science.
They actually have been brainwashed by the omnipotent Secular Humanist Movement to be in lock-goosestep with the world's "leading" scientists on Global Warming. The same kind of "leading" scientists, I might add, who also believe in the blasphemy of evolution - need I say more?
So unbalanced and distanced from good, hard, critical thinking have these (many socialist) countries become, that they do not understand that a dissenting view on Global Warming from a single petroleum industry-paid scientist is equivalent in rational value to several thousand elitist academicians.
They really should pay heed to the cutting edge work of George Bush's Philip Cooney, who accepted a job just this week with Exxon Petroleum after resigning from the Bush administration. Mr Cooney could show the G8 how to interpret the import of so-called Scientific Concensus papers on Global Warming, I can tell you.
Here is a man who understands the relative weighting of industry vs elitist leftist Ivory Tower "scientists". Mr Cooney vigorously and properly edited out the Looney Left's references in the U.S. Government reports re the Negative Effects of pollution and Global Warming on the planet's health, and replaced them with Mobil logos with happy faces in the red "O".
Lastly, the Europeans can't be relied upon for good sense decision-making because they don't know the meaning of Hard Work.
George W. Bush can tell you that Hard Work is making Iraq ready for Freedom and Democracy even if it means killing all of them. And he will also tell you that Hard Work is telling an officer to tell the relatives of a soldier that he will be coming home in a darkened airliner under the cover of night, in a coffin that noone is allowed to take pictures of, for a funeral that the President will never ever attend. Now THAT is Hard Work.
But the Europeans?
When they aren't eating Freedom Fries, they have their snooty noses turned skyward during their typical six weeks of vacation time per year. Lazy body means lazy thinking - that's why George jogs so often.
And why are the G8 nations so lazy and obsessed with recreation? Because they aren't terrified of losing their homes and lifestyles due to the Communist traditions of National Health Care, basically free college educations, and secure government pensions.
The G8 governments love their witches brew of benefits - if you can keep the population so lazy and self-centered they don't worry about anything at all, then they are apathetic to the ruinous Kyoto Protocol and all its attendent evils.
Those G8 countries and their evil ways - thank God George W. Bush will never let the U.S.A. fall into that same downward spiral.
;) ;) ;)
Message edited by author 2005-06-17 10:04:38. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 09:59:59 AM · #3 |
Wow!
This pretty much closes this thread. There is nothing else to be said or written.
hats off, gingerbaker. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 10:46:28 AM · #4 |
Or being the first president to dedicate large amounts of money toward fuel cell and fuel cell delivery development....the first real step toward zero emission cars and a removal of our dependency on oil.
Or that for the first time in many years the national oil reserves are going to be fully stock-piled come August.
These are LONG term strategic plans as opposed to popular "sounds good in the news headline" plans to simply win elections. I'm sorry...I was a staunch environmentalist. And it was the one thing I expected to see improvement on with regards to the Clinton/Gore administration. It was abysmal.
10 yrs of laws to improve the I.C.E. (internal combustion engine) has resulted in very little progress. Even the most efficient cars still are far below the 100mpg, and those that are in the 50mpg+ have few capabilities. They are good commuter vehicles but not much else. And most ICE vehicles are in the 20-30mpg range.
The truth, we need to completely LEAVE the I.C.E. and move toward hydrogen powered vehicles. Secondly, every environmentalist should quit using the following products or shut-up about ranting about Bush and oil:
- electricity
- plastic
- rubber
- vaseline
- and more...
It's NOT Bush that's using all the oil - it's "us" (you and me). Don't expect to benefit and than deride the providers of said benefit. Otherwise you're no better than the freaky hollywood wackos who go around speaking about "how people should not use SUVs cause they're not fuel efficient" and then a little bit of research reveals said speaker to be riding around in a limousine and flying private jets.
No, the solution is technology, wisely used. One thing that would help the environment greatly is to re-do the U.S. laws on nuclear power. Currently, we are not building any new nuclear power plants. The ones we have are ancient designs....antiquated to say the least. New designs (commonly used in Europe and Japan) are so much cleaner that they can actually use much of the "waste products" of our current plants as fuel. Furthermore, these new designs are atomically much more stable in that if any thing goes wrong they are designed to shut-down the reaction. In otherwords, a failure in the reactor causes the reaction process to collapse thus one does not have to worry about a meltdown akin to Chernobyl.
Nuclear power when done right has one of the lowest affects on the environment with one of the highest "power" output levels.
And, with the trend of many of these plants being secured one could push that large vats of land be purchased for housing these units. The land would be made into "nature preserves". Thus, even in the worst theoretical catastrophe - minimal harm would ensue. The benefit? Lots of energy without the air pollution. Large tracts of land protected for natural use. Freedom from our dependency on oil.
Sadly, environmentalist who are often uneducated, terrified, and on rhetoric do no realize that build such newer 4th generation nuclear plants would be in our best interest. And would also allow us to shut down the old 1st & 2nd generation nuclear plants which are potentially dangerous.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2005 12:32:37 PM · #5 |
Fuel cell technology at the consumer level is a good 20 years away, a very important 20 years with regard to global warming, so what are we to do in the meantime? The 1.2 billion dollars that the Bush administration has committed to hydrogen power is a drop in the bucket to what's really needed. To develop a fuel cell infrastructure that will rival the oil-combustion engine infrastructure will require great amounts of resources and energy...resources that are now being put into a war in Iraq for no good reason.
I"m all for fuel cell development, but why can't we require more greater fuel efficient cars and vehicles now, and at the same time develop fuel cell technology? The auto and oil industries have long and hard resisted such changes. A great step towards cleaner air would be to require great refinement of diesel fuel, but this has been resisted by the above industries for many years, and Bush is not about to go against them as he's taken a lot of money from them and is one of them. He's putting greater profits for these industries ahead of a sound environmental policy.
Bush is also pushing for nuclear power and coal to be major parts of his energy plan. Coal will certainly not improve air quality and this industry has long and hard fought against any type of treatments of emmissions. Nuclear power is still dangerous, prone to human error and what of radioactive waste? Right now the Bush plan is to transport over 75,000 tons of radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain in New Mexico to be stored underground in metal containers. The citizens of that state do not want this storage facility in their backyards and the metal containers are prone to leakage which could seep into water tables. In addition there are numerous earthquake faults in the area. Transporting radioactive wastes over the highways of America is dangerous and prone to terrorist attack.
The Bush administration is all about business, and they align themselves with big business needs. They are not encouraging conservation of natural resources and through their current policies are making us more dependent on foreign oil. That's one of the reasons they are in Iraq, and that their good friends are the Saudi royal family who are human rights abusers.
Again, I ask, why can't we (the US) develop fuel cell technology and require more efficient and less polluting oil technolgies?
Message edited by author 2005-06-17 12:35:23. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 12:40:41 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Or being the first president to dedicate large amounts of money toward fuel cell and fuel cell delivery development....the first real step toward zero emission cars and a removal of our dependency on oil. |
Bush was not, I think the first to spend more monies here. Here is an article on Clintons extra funding. The article also notes that Congress was to blame for not fully funding such budget expenditure in the past.:
//archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/10/17/fuel.cells.enn/
Message edited by author 2005-06-17 12:41:03. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 12:59:00 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
These are LONG term strategic plans as opposed to popular "sounds good in the news headline" plans to simply win elections. |
Unfortunately, the devil is in the details, and according to many environmentalists ( including Friends of the Earth, The Foundation on Economic Trends, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, Greenpeace, the League of Conservation Voters, MoveOn.org, Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, and the US Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG)), it was...
Bush who is guilty of getting good headlines, whilst meanwhile charting his typical course of crony capitalism.
"The Green Hydrogen Coalition accuses the
Bush administration of attempting to hijack America’s hydrogen future to promote the interests of the coal, oil, gas, and nuclear industries."
article here:
//www.foet.org/GreenHydrogenCoalition.htm
Message edited by author 2005-06-17 13:00:42. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 01:13:06 PM · #8 |
"Fuel cell technology at the consumer level is a good 20 years away, a very important 20 years with regard to global warming."
[[[And without the support it'd be a good 30-50 yrs away.
"so what are we to do in the meantime"
[[[They're called "hybrids", "variable cyclinder engines", "no idle engines", etc. Both Honda and Toyota currently offer hybrids. GM and Dodge have begun offering variable cyclinder engies on their large vehicles. Instead of running 8 cyclinders when just cruising on the highway they drop to 4 or 6 cyclinders as needed. Ford has an engine being developed that does not idle. Instead it turns off when you stop at a light and has near instant re-start < 1 second.
I'd also say all fuel efficiency research costs should be 100% tax deductible. And bonuses to any technology brought to market that substantially improves efficiency.
]]]
"The 1.2 billion dollars that the Bush administration has committed to hydrogen power is a drop in the bucket to what's really needed."
[[[As I recall that's per year. And furthermore, there has been push for additional funding as well.]]]
"To develop a fuel cell infrastructure that will rival the oil-combustion engine infrastructure will require great amounts of resources and energy...resources that are now being put into a war in Iraq for no good reason."
[[[War for no good reason....sorry...you're too ignant to realize the reasons. But there is a seperate thread for that debate and you can go read it there. You mean like President Clinton's illegal war for oil in Yugoslavia?
Clinton's War for Oil
And no, you can't say it's Republican propoganda cause that's a Communist Party website. But I don't hear many of the people complaining now about that war for oil...one purely for oil. At least I can look toward where the WTC used to stand and see more motive. I can understand the philosophy to de-stabilize the middle-east, endeavor to establish democracies and democratic reform (Egypt, Libya, Jordan, & Saudi Arabia are all now starting to have limited elections and introduce democratic principles). Furthermore, one of the main reasons for being in Iraq is to bring the fight to the enemy's territory. It's a very old but sound strategic principle. As such, most of the terrorist attacks are happening in Iraq against our soldiers instead of in here against U.S. citizens. Sorry if you don't understand strategic actions.
]]]
"I"m all for fuel cell development, but why can't we require more greater fuel efficient cars and vehicles now"
[[[Because of several reasons:
a) the I.C.E. is limited in it's efficiency
b) pushing the efficiency further requires $$$, in truth, we've dumped a lot of $$$ with minimal results over the last 30 yrs.
c) we are already requiring more and more fuel efficient vehicles.
d) no matter how efficient of an ICE vehicle you build it will still pollute. These are stop gaps not the answer.
e) China is going to far exceed usage and pollution within a few short years. if new technologies are not developed so that China can take advantage of them. Nothing America does will make any real difference.
]]]
"A great step towards cleaner air would be to require great refinement of diesel fuel, but this has been resisted by the above industries for many years, and Bush is not about to go against them as he's taken a lot of money from them and is one of them."
[[[And you get dirtier water. Sure diesel causes less air pollution but that's because it's waste is a heavier particulate. The result is it pollutes the water ways instead of the air.]]]
"Bush is also pushing for nuclear power and coal to be major parts of his energy plan."
[[[There have been many advances to the coal refinement. I remember reading 10 yrs ago a process method of coal that resulted in cleaner burning than oil. There are two types of coal (soft and hard) the latter being much cleaner than the first. Anyways, the problem with these processes is that they are not cost efficient. Are you willing to pay $5/gallon? how about $10/gallon? In truth, they are starting to look at these methods of coal use once again because a) the technology has improved b) the cost of oil is narrowing the margin and making it more economical.]]]
"Nuclear power is still dangerous, prone to human error and what of radioactive waste?"
[[[Modern day nuclear plant designs are extremely safe. Even in the event of failure they do no have meltdowns. They also produce much less radioactive waste than current plants. Furthermore, some are so efficient that they can use the old waste as fuel. Thus reducing the problem of nuclear waste. But i've said all this already.]]]
"Right now the Bush plan is to transport over 75,000 tons of radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain in New Mexico to be stored underground in metal containers."
[[[New plant designs and processing could reduce said waste.]]]
"They are not encouraging conservation of natural resources and through their current policies are making us more dependent on foreign oil. That's one of the reasons they are in Iraq, and that their good friends are the Saudi royal family who are human rights abusers."
[[[Oh come on now....please don't be so ignorant. And you want to bring up human rights violations. Clinton was extremely cosy with the Chinese....and by far their rights violations exceed Saudi Arabias.]]]
"Again, I ask, why can't we (the US) develop fuel cell technology and require more efficient and less polluting oil technolgies?"
[[[We already are working to develop fuel cell technology and already periodically require more stringent emissions and fuel efficiency standards. A better question is why aren't you being more efficient?]]]
"Bush was not, I think the first to spend more monies here. Here is an article on Clintons extra funding. The article also notes that Congress was to blame for not fully funding such budget expenditure in the past."
[[[Okay, I'll grant that....but then when Bush increases funding 10 fold. How can that be so easily ignored? And furthermore, much of those funds for vehicular development were focused on mass transit. So in 2000 Clinton requested $90 million (a 50% increase on the prior year). Bush allocates $1+ billion ( a 1000% increase) with promises of more.]]]
|
|
|
|
06/17/2005 01:18:03 PM · #9 |
Unfortunately, the devil is in the details, and according to many environmentalists ( including Friends of the Earth, The Foundation on Economic Trends, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, Greenpeace, the League of Conservation Voters, MoveOn.org, Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, and the US Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG)),
[[[Gee, MoveOn.org (blatant political organization NOT at all an environmental organization...just the inclusion of said group is enough to dismiss said argument), you include some very questionable groups there. I'm surprised you did not include "E.L.F".
Furthermore, I don't give a crap if they say "Bush who is guilty of getting good headlines, whilst meanwhile charting his typical course of crony capitalism." That's not a fact, that's simply an opinionated statement with no basis provided. Clinton/Gore with a Democractic Congress didn't get jack done. Sure a few small things to keep people appeased. But there was no real progress. No innovation....
In my opinion, the supposedly anti-green President has accomplished more. Because he IS looking 20-40 yrs down the road which is what we need. A 5 yr view that actually manages to cut emmissions by 50% and doubles fuel-efficiency accomplishes nothing but delaying the problem an extra 50 years.
We need a solution not some medication to mask the symptoms. And the solution is to develop the long term future and work on improving the short term.
]]]
Message edited by author 2005-06-17 13:21:12. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 01:55:49 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Fuel cell technology at the consumer level is a good 20 years away, ... |
I agree with most everything else you say in your post, Olyuzi, but I'm not so sure about your first statement.
Certain forms of large fuel cell energy generators have been used for several years in industrial settings.
I remember seeing a working solar hydrogen fuel cell 20 years ago on 60 minutes. Since then great strides have been taken in the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of regular solar cell electricity generating cells, which I assume is a closely related field.
With global warming, peak oil, and the price of gas and environmental sequelae being as high as they are even today, this kind of completely renewable, environmentally safe technology is clearly cost effective today. It is only a matter of willpower.
To that end, the conversion of much of our energy needs doesn't depend on fully functional hydrogen fuel cells today, as much of our energy needs might be met with gaseous hydrogen.
It can be distributed in a system like natural gas - perhaps in the very same pipes? - and manufactured by renewable energy generators and nuclear power plants during off-peak hours. :) |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 02:05:56 PM · #11 |
I"m talking in getting the fuel cell infrastructure established as ubiquitously as it is with oil, and not the technology per se.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Fuel cell technology at the consumer level is a good 20 years away, ... |
I agree with most everything else you say in your post, Olyuzi, but I'm not so sure about your first statement.
Certain forms of large fuel cell energy generators have been used for several years in industrial settings.
I remember seeing a working solar hydrogen fuel cell 20 years ago on 60 minutes. Since then great strides have been taken in the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of regular solar cell electricity generating cells, which I assume is a closely related field.
With global warming, peak oil, and the price of gas and environmental sequelae being as high as they are even today, this kind of completely renewable, environmentally safe technology is clearly cost effective today. It is only a matter of willpower.
To that end, the conversion of much of our energy needs doesn't depend on fully functional hydrogen fuel cells today, as much of our energy needs might be met with gaseous hydrogen.
It can be distributed in a system like natural gas - perhaps in the very same pipes? - and manufactured by renewable energy generators and nuclear power plants during off-peak hours. :) |
|
|
|
|
06/17/2005 02:10:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
...Gee, MoveOn.org (blatant political organization NOT at all an environmental organization...just the inclusion of said group is enough to dismiss said argument) |
I disagree, but it appears enough for you to use as an excuse to not read or comment on the article?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Furthermore, I don't give a crap if they say "Bush who is guilty of getting good headlines, whilst meanwhile charting his typical course of crony capitalism." That's not a fact, that's simply an opinionated statement with no basis provided. |
Possibly true. But they didn't say that - I did. So, to determine whether it IS true, the article needs to be read and evaluated.
Does the article make valid points about whether Bush's plan is truly green and truly dedicated to producing an environmentaly viable future, or is it poorly conceived as well as a windfall for crony capitalists? |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 03:00:38 PM · #13 |
Don't want to get into the politics, but i was interested in the mention of more reliable nuclear reactors, and later the mention of human error...
Originally posted by theSaj:
Furthermore, these new designs are atomically much more stable in that if any thing goes wrong they are designed to shut-down the reaction. In otherwords, a failure in the reactor causes the reaction process to collapse thus one does not have to worry about a meltdown akin to Chernobyl. |
Chernobyl did not melt down because of a failure in the reactor, it melted down because the untrained operators cranked it up to full power to prevent it from shutting down... an automatic shutdown activated by such a system as you're describing.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2005 07:26:04 AM · #14 |
!
Message edited by author 2019-12-27 11:19:06. |
|
|
|
06/19/2005 01:43:28 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
if humans were not on earth, it would be warming up anyway our effect on the warming of the planet, is pathetically small. polution is getting BETTER every year not worse |
So how did that pollution get there in the first place if humans are having no effect on the earth? :)
|
|
|
|
06/19/2005 07:16:45 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by theSaj:
...Gee, MoveOn.org (blatant political organization NOT at all an environmental organization...just the inclusion of said group is enough to dismiss said argument) |
I disagree, but it appears enough for you to use as an excuse to not read or comment on the article?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Furthermore, I don't give a crap if they say "Bush who is guilty of getting good headlines, whilst meanwhile charting his typical course of crony capitalism." That's not a fact, that's simply an opinionated statement with no basis provided. |
Possibly true. But they didn't say that - I did. So, to determine whether it IS true, the article needs to be read and evaluated.
Does the article make valid points about whether Bush's plan is truly green and truly dedicated to producing an environmentaly viable future, or is it poorly conceived as well as a windfall for crony capitalists? |
i've read many such zarticles and always find them very short-sighted on the immediate and not recognizing the investment in the long-term.
I also feel that it needs to be "us" the people who conserve and not just say "we need more fuel efficient cars" but look at how we can be more fuel efficient and how we can find news and freer forms of energy. |
|
|
|
06/19/2005 07:18:44 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Does anyone here recognize the fact that if humans were not on earth, it would be warming up anyway? Our planet has gone through many cycles pre us, I think our effect on the warming of the planet, is pathetically small.
|
I do, I am actually well read and have read numerous articles that state we are still coming out of the last ice age. Anyone realize there used to be an ocean in the center of N. America? Or that if you study the cyclic records of earth's temperatures we are still quite a bit far from the crest of the normal heat cycle. |
|
|
|
06/19/2005 09:30:11 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Does anyone here recognize the fact that if humans were not on earth, it would be warming up anyway? Our planet has gone through many cycles pre us, I think our effect on the warming of the planet, is pathetically small.
|
I do, I am actually well read and have read numerous articles that state we are still coming out of the last ice age. Anyone realize there used to be an ocean in the center of N. America? Or that if you study the cyclic records of earth's temperatures we are still quite a bit far from the crest of the normal heat cycle. |
Yeah it was heating, but not this quick |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 09:38:53 AM · #19 |
gingerbaker - your first post was a very cleverly written piece.
theSaj - I cannot believe that you think that there will be a panacea in the (undefined) "long term" that absolves us from all responsibility to phase in the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels in the short term.
On your suggestion that there should be an instant switch to hydrogen:
It will take the UK another 25 years to get to the stage where we will produce 50% of our power from renewable resources. And we started several years ago. We are participating in the development of the Iter experimental fusion plant. We experiment with fuel cell buses. There is a lot of interest in locating alternative fuel sources. I think that if there was the option to "switch to hydrogen now", we would gladly do so (notwithstanding the fact that hydrogen takes a lot of electricity to produce, and much electricity is still generated at oil and coal powered plants). It takes a long time. Fundamentally, it must be a gradual and phased conversion.
On making fuel efficient vehicles:
The expensive duty on petrol means that (along with many other Western European countries) we have spurred on the development of small and fuel efficient cars (which we are only now starting to export to the gas guzzling US). VW has had cars with automatic ignition for years, and I think that there is even a law in Switzerland that drivers must switch their ignition off at traffic lights. The US is a very late adopter. There are a very many further efficiencies to be made. However, most innovations have arisen out of market forces in the rest of the world, not natural evolution as you seem to suggest.
On nuclear power:
There are already proposals for more nuclear power plants as stop gaps. They take a long time to build. There are some recent articles in Wired magazine on pebble reactors that are quite interesting. However, these are not long term solutions because of the waste issues. In any case, as I understand it, these are not G Bush's preferred option. He would prefer to drill for more oil in Alaska.
On Bush having a "long term policy" that absolves the US from participation today:
Do not think that the rest of the world cannot see that the US is acting in its self interest, and out of corporate pressure, when making policies on oil. The US is the world's biggest polluter by far. It is also dependent on a very strong economy to maintain its position in the world's politics. Imposing fiscal control on oil use would have a negative impact on the US economy (something that is understood and accepted elsewhere in the world). "Democracy" in the US is substantially influenced by advertising, creating an overwhelming thirst in politics for the support of rich companies. The US is home to the world's biggest oil companies, which are some of the richest companies in the world.
Now let me think... is the US government truly independent and objective when deciding what policies to make in respect of the reduction of dependency on oil. Or is there a blindingly obvious link between the oil companies and the US government's policy.
And finally, is the man from Texas, synonymous with oil, whose background is in oil, whose fortunes were made in oil, supported by a cabinet whose personal fortunes were made in oil, going to be more, or less, critical of the oil industry than another? The words "vested" and "conflict of" interest come to mind when discussing Bush's approach to global warming and the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 11:20:38 PM · #20 |
I have lived in the USA and I have lived in Mexico and I now live in Brazil. I have also travelled extensively visiting other countries, industrialized and those attempting to become so. From my experiences I would say that many countries paint with a very broad brush the highly industrialized USA as the worst pollutor on earth simply because it convenient to do so. There are multiple harmful pollutants coming out of industrial smokestacks and the rear of vehicles here in Brazil and in Mexico in the extravagent quanitities of which I have not noted in the USA for over 30 years. Detroit had no noticable skyline in 1979 due to the smog problems. Legislation and the Clean Air Acts that have been regulated and enforced since that time have a telling impact. To go there now would insure you great photo opportunities of a grand blue skyline nearly any day of the year. The big difference is that while many countries talk about pollution ruining THEIR earth, the USA really does make small, but effective long range corrections that over time, have and will continue to yield positive results.
Many nations are, at the heart of the matter, just wanting more US dollars for their declining coffers suffering from sputtering economies, and global warming is a convenient tin cup at this time. |
|
|
|
06/21/2005 12:19:18 AM · #21 |
| The Bush administration want to gut the Clean Air Act by passing into law the Clear Skies initiaitive. It would allow industry to emit much more pollution such as mercury, sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxides than the Clean Air act allows. Why after more than 30 years of cleaning up the air does Bush now want to weaken existing legislation? Most likely because he must pay back to the oil industry the thousands of dollars in campaign contributions he received from them in the form of political and legislative favors. Can we really trust a president to set environmental policy that is for the benefit of the people of the US, and the rest of the world, when he has had an oil industry lobbyist working in the White House as Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality? When it was found out that Phillip Cooney had edited climate reports that downplayed the effects of global warming he left the White house for a job with Exxon-Mobil. Same could be said of the coal industry and the Bush administration. Doesn't appear to me that Bush is interested in cleaning up the environment, just making his "friends" richer. |
|
|
|
06/21/2005 09:36:41 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
From my experiences I would say that many countries paint with a very broad brush the highly industrialized USA as the worst pollutor on earth simply because it convenient to do so. |
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).
|
|
|
|
06/21/2005 11:29:51 AM · #23 |
| My point wasn't that the USA has less pollution than Mexico or Brazil. My point was the hypocracy of a world that says, "Aid us, supply us, propel world market advances, technologically revitalize us." Then points a finger and says, "But along the way, eliminate your waste emissions..." while a cursory look at industrialized portions of these same countries would reveal the standard is not so high. Of course the world's number one production engine (by a huge margin) will consume the most resources and emit the highest amount of waste. Simple math expousing quantities might be of less value to the debate than a ratio study of pollutants to goods produced, which might prove the USA far from the number one pollutor. Fact is, the direction the USA is travelling is not a result of a Kyoto Treaty type of world ordered mandate. It is the resultant effort by what is perhaps the most accomodating, consciencious nation to have every inhabited the earth to make the world a better place. I, for one, am just exhausted by the "USA as world's whipping boy" mentality that seems so pervasive. |
|
|
|
06/21/2005 12:02:44 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
It is the resultant effort by what is perhaps the most accomodating, consciencious nation to have every inhabited the earth to make the world a better place. I, for one, am just exhausted by the "USA as world's whipping boy" mentality that seems so pervasive. |
I suppose that the counter argument that many of the planet's peoples do not necessarily wish to be improved by the US. Strangely, much of the "improvement" comes at great cost to the nation being improved. Often, the US is the beneficiary of that cost. Often this is, of course, dressed up in language that makes the gesture appear beneficient. Like the recent reports (in which Europe is fingered as well - not just the US that is a whipping boy) that place aid levels in the last couple of decades as providing $24 per head per annum to the third world, at a cost of $30 per head per annum to the same nations (due to the requirement that aid is only given on restrictive terms that require the opening of markets to Western companies).
This is especially the case if the cost of such improvement "for the world" is global warming, the effects of which may be overcome by a nation such as the US, but be fatal on an almighty scale somewhere like India.
Most governments act out of self interest. The US acts out of self interest. It is not merely trying to make the world "a better place" - if it does so in part, it is often because self interest is at stake.
The frustration is increased by a number of recent acts, that indicate a certain sense of superiority:
The US has recently consistently refused to properly participate in some of the more community minded and mutually beneficial enterprises: G8, debt forgiveness proposals and Kyoto treaties springing to mind.
It has refused to listen to community decisions, and go it alone on others: Iraq & the UN.
There are ongoing derogations away from international law (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay), international human rights (execution policies) and existing conventions (nuclear non-proliferation).
All of these are the subject of intense debate on their rights and wrongs (I am not trying to start a debate about any of these points). However, it cannot be denied that internationally these acts do not sit happily and each creates ill-will. Especially when carried out by a country that holds itself out as a shining example of statehood. For me, it is through this hypocrisy that the US opens itself up to substantial criticism.
EDIT: I ought to say that I still like pretty much all Americans - just not some of their international policies!!
Message edited by author 2005-06-21 12:04:50.
|
|
|
|
06/21/2005 01:02:34 PM · #25 |
"Yeah it was heating, but not this quick"
[[[Actually, many argue it is very much on pattern and some argue we are actually behind on the warm-up historically.]]]
"theSaj - I cannot believe that you think that there will be a panacea in the (undefined) "long term" that absolves us from all responsibility to phase in the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels in the short term."
[[[That's good, cause I don't and never have said that I do. I support the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels. But I believe such is merely a band-aid. And has very minimal effect. China alone will negate any real affect within 5 yrs. Bandages do not save lives!
So I am for pushing for improvement. Example: my city is going to allow free parking for hybrids and high-efficiency cars. I think that's a great idea. On the flip side....hybrids, even if every vehicle was a hybrid will have a mere 1-2% influence on oil usage.
We need solutions and not bandages. And I have felt for years the media has focused on bandages. In truth, our environment in America is improving air quality, water quality, etc. over where it was in the 60's or 70's. It still has a long way to go. There is one environmental condition that is increasingly worsening and the funny thing is there are quite a few scientists who state it's actually the number one cause for man influenced global warming.
Habitat loss. We keep building our cities wider and wider and putting down more and more cement. We lose forest, trees, etc. Furthermore, all this cement restricts thermal absorbtion of the sun's heat and energy. Thus it is reflected back into the atmosphere. Habitat loss is truly the main environmental problem we have currently.
]]]
"On your suggestion that there should be an instant switch to hydrogen:"
[[[Um who suggested that legalbeagle...please keep your words to your mouth and not mine. My argument is that environmental resource funds should be put strongly toward such a switch. My point is American presidents have historically gotten kudos from the media for useless legislation that simply has negligable effect or implementation. And that President Bush's focus on and devotion toward longer term strategies is ignored because there is no immediate result. But is of much greater significance.]]]
"The expensive duty on petrol means that we have spurred on the development of small and fuel efficient cars"
"I think that there is even a law in Switzerland that drivers must switch their ignition off at traffic lights."
[[[Man you twist words big time. And to simply re-iterate my points. This is a "people" issue. And guess what, Americans are not going to vote for someone who raises the gas prices to $5.
Nor are they willing to turn off the ignitions at a stop light. Most American drivers are extremely impatient and would yell and honk at anyone who did such as they had to wait 5-10 seconds at every light as they turn the engine back on. Furthermore, doing so consumes much more gas than leaving the car idle unless the engine has been designed to do so efficiently. So I must assume that Switzerland is full of idiots. Now, Ford is releasing a truck that has auto-shut-off engines. These are designed to efficiently and quickly re-start with minimal waste of fuel. Now if you're saying Switzerland requires all cars sold in their country to do so than I would be extremely surpised by such a fact. I would not be suprised if they have cars that do...and may have had them for years. This goes to another point of mine which I believe you were opposed too. "Patents"...sure maybe Volvo or Saab developed the technology 5 yrs ago. Thanks to patents other companies now either have to pay exhorberant licensing fees raising costs, reducing sales of cars and thus not economically feasible. Or spend another 5 yrs researching another way of doing the same job. Or wait for the patents to expire. Many advances in efficiency would arise if patents did not exist.
The comments regarding the requirement of drivers to turn off their engines or an extra $2 tariff on gas in fact goes back to my original point(s) - my point - my point - not the ones you want to say I made but rather the ones I actually DID make - that it's the people! Don't gripe about political leaders inaction and then gripe about gas prices.]]]
"There are a very many further efficiencies to be made." [[[ Yes there are...]]]
"However, most innovations have arisen out of market forces in the rest of the world, not natural evolution as you seem to suggest."
[[[Um, I believe that I actually was stating that "innovations arise from market forces"....*sheesh*....]]]
"There are already proposals for more nuclear power plants"
[[[In Europe and the U.K. yes...but here in the U.S. it's been over 20 yrs. We halted the building of such plants. Europe advanced them. We halted them over environmental fears. Europe reduced such fears with innovation and design. America, foolishly froze technology with legislation.]]]
"In any case, as I understand it, these are not G Bush's preferred option. He would prefer to drill for more oil in Alaska."
[[[Actually, it is one of his options. To actually re-start America's nuclear development. In fact, one of the strategies is to build several of the new much cleaner, more efficient, safer nuclear plants in remote nature areas and shut down the older heavier waste producing plants.
As for the drilling in Alaska. The idea is to in the short term free us from our dependency on foreign oil. Currently, the strategy in the U.S. has been to use foreign oil instead of using America's own resources - consume the resources of others - and thus maintain the U.S. reserves. Then the U.S. will be in a strong position if the oil supplies were to be drained. If the world was smart they would be rejoicing at such a fact.
(And a note, even if all energy production was moved to alternate sources, oil is still a precious commodity because all of our rubbers, plastics, etc are made from it!)
]]]
"On Bush having a "long term policy" that absolves the US from participation today:"
[[[Never said it absolves us from participation today. But we're not going to hurt our ability to develop for the future and free ourselves from bondage for a mere 1-2% effect that will not truly make any real difference.]]]
"Do not think that the rest of the world cannot see that the US is acting in its self interest, and out of corporate pressure, when making policies on oil."
[[[Sorry, so does Europe. So does every nation.]]]
"The US is the world's biggest polluter by far."
[[[You go to China...you go to Hong Kong, Asia, or any of the growing urban centers. You come to America. You tell me which is more polluted. In fact, I question whether a lot of europe is any better? Oh...and I think any Brit is quite hypocritical. At your peak empire you guys outputted so much pollution. In fact, they used to say London skies were black with smoke from wood and coal. That was way way way more global warming gases than we emit now for it's density.
In America our rivers have been greatly improving chemically. Our big issue is habitat loss and trash (yes, Americans are irresponsible and don't take much heed to cleaning their trash.)
]]]
"It is also dependent on a very strong economy to maintain its position in the world's politics. Imposing fiscal control on oil use would have a negative impact on the US economy"
[[[Of course it would.]]]
"Democracy" in the US is substantially influenced by advertising, creating an overwhelming thirst in politics for the support of rich companies.
"The US is home to the world's biggest oil companies, which are some of the richest companies in the world."
[[[Your point? and in truth, many of those said mega-companies are multi-nationals. They are so large, and have ownership in so many regions, nations, etc. that they truly supersede any one government...even the U.S. Britain also has quite a bit of oil company leverage. Another note, those same companies are responsible for finding and providing most of the world's oil. And unless consumers stop using and stop demanding...don't blame them for providing.]]]
"Now let me think... is the US government truly independent and objective when deciding what policies to make in respect of the reduction of dependency on oil. Or is there a blindingly obvious link between the oil companies and the US government's policy."
[[[As I stated above, there has been a long-standing policy to conserve America's natural resources and utilize global resources. Guess what....Britain does likewise. And in fact, Britain has very little to say on the matter IMHO. The British empire consumed natural resources bare and put much worse pressures on the nations of the world. And by and far, no country has donated as much investments into the world and into charity as the U.S. Nor forgiven as much debts as the U.S.]]]
"The words "vested" and "conflict of" interest come to mind when discussing Bush's approach to global warming and the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels."
[[[You have no mind for strategy my dear legalbeagle. I'll wager 10-to-1 that if someone were to research that GWB's investments are probably more strongly on refineries. You see, when fuel cell development comes to vogue - oil companies value will decrease. They'll still be in demand (plastics, tires, etc are all made from oil) but they won't be quite as influentially necessary. However, refineries and delivery services will be - regardless of whether it's oil or hydrogen. ;) ]]] |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 08:24:30 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 08:24:30 AM EDT.
|
