Tsk, tsk, George. You've only got one planet. And you really shouldn't be so obvious about being the bitch of 'Big Business.'
[ March 16, 2002, 16:34: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
I don't trust members of the EPA anyway. This is the same organization that didn't allow people to mow their lawns because some supposedly endangered species of rat lived there. Here is what happened. The grass grew and grew, became a fire hazard, caught flame, and the rats died, and the houses burned down.
All that for a stupid rat (which didn't survive anyway)
As for the atmosphere, let the algae take care of it. They've choked down everything else, and I think they enjoy it. Algae are what make this planet great!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Uh, er, huh? Rats don't live in grass, they live in nooks and crannies. And I'm sure they'd run from a loud lawn mower.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Rats live anywhere rats can, from houses to pit cracks to holes other animals burrowed in the lawn.
However, I think that the animal in question was a kind of 'kangaroo rat' which is entirely different from a house rat, and is more like a field mouse.
Speaking of corporations, let's look at ENRON! Did you know Enron pushed strongly for ratification of the Kyoto treaty?
quote: With a payoff worth billions at stake, Enron Corporation laid out millions apparently in support of the Kyoto global warming treaty.
Enron hoped to cash in on Kyoto by masterminding a worldwide trading network in which major industries could buy and sell credits to emit carbon dioxide � which some scientists and most environmentalists believe contributes to global warming.
The firm appeared to be on the verge of success when Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto treaty in November 1998. The treaty required the U.S. to reduce CO2 emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels.
The Clinton Administration's interest in fighting global warming meshed with Enron's dream of huge profits from related investments. Kyoto ratification would have forced the U.S. to switch from coal-fired power plants to ones fueled by cleaner-burning natural gas. The trading surge in emission credits would have funneled cash to Enron.
When the Senate examined the potential economic impact of a global warming treaty, it voted 95-0 to urge the White House not to send it any treaty that would harm the economy.
Studies by impartial third parties show why: The Energy Information Administration, the official forecasting arm of the Energy Department, found that meeting the Kyoto limits would increase gasoline prices by over 50 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent, and decrease GDP by 4.2 percent.
A study by Dr. Stephen Brown, Senior Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Texas, found that under a best case scenario, reducing CO2 emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels would represent a loss of between 3 to 4.3 percent of U.S. GDP. That's $921 to $1,320 per person and $3,684 to $5,280 for a family of four. Under a worst-case scenario Kyoto would cost the average family of four $6,400 a year.
When it became apparent that Kyoto had little chance of Senate approval, Enron began seeking ways to implement its provisions through backdoor means.
CEO Kenneth Lay signed Enron onto the Business Environmental Leadership Council of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, a left-leaning think-tank. The Pew Center has waged an expensive propaganda campaign to convince journalists that global warming is a dire threat.
Enron also joined two far-left environmental groups � the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council � in calling for new curbs on emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
President Bush's political rivals have expended a fair amount of energy trying to tie the White House to Enron, but it was they and their allies who were, politically-speaking, in bed with Enron on this crucial policy question.
Ah, I see. I see that Enron, motivated mostly by greed, pushed the Kyoto agreement. But would they have done so if there was no direct return for them?
Show me a company that does that, and I'll listen with great interest. Right now, I'd like to hear a defense for Bush allowing big business (in general, happy now?) to run rampant over the environment like a fat sixty-year old child molester on a five-year old.
And I don't hear that (the defense, that is). I just hear attempts at distraction.
[ March 13, 2002, 09:37: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
There's no return for ANYBODY on Kyoto, except the people who take advantage of its BAD science.
Different question... how do YOU stand letting the environmentalists (mostly white, financially secure) run rampant over the poor and minorities?
quote:A report conducted by Management Information Services, Inc. found black family income could decline by an average of $2,220 and 864,000 black jobs could be at risk. As many as 100,000 black and Hispanic businesses could also face ruin as energy costs increase and the ability to turn a profit decreases.
quote:When you're a struggling black family already spending a larger percentage of your income on these necessities than everyone else, it leads to serious decisions. Air conditioning, heat or the convenience of a car may be sacrificed so other bills can be paid. And pray there are no medical emergencies or unexpected expenses.
Who benefits from the Kyoto Protocol? China, Russia and Brazil, among others, are exempt from it. While our nation has shown environmental concern in the past and promoted cleaner manufacturing practices and improved car emissions, countries that have not are being rewarded.
Bill Clinton once signed an executive order charging the government with promoting "environmental justice" to protect minorities from undue environmental harm.
By potentially reducing our wages, raising our cost of living, putting us out of work and destroying our businesses, the Kyoto Protocol is an environmental threat to black America. If the government is going to meet its commitment, it can make sure the Kyoto Protocol is never imposed upon us.
quote:(John Meredith is a member of the African-American leadership network Project 21 and is a board member of two community-based non-profit organizations, a consultant for an educational organization and the national co-chairman of minority outreach for an independent election monitoring organization. He can be reached at [email protected].)
[ March 13, 2002, 10:03: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Ah, I see, now you're accusing environmentalists of being racists.
First you say "Enron = Big Business = Good Enviornmental Care!"
Then you say "Enviornmentalists = Racists!"
I can't wait to see what you're next miserable attempt will be.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Actually, you missed the point about my Enron post.
Enron = bad. (I never said they weren't) Enron = in favor of Kyoto.
And my second post's point:
Kyoto = destruction of minority jobs = unintended but obvious consequence = bad.
Racist? No. Shortsighted and unconcerned with the consequences of their actions? Yes. Just like, or worse than, the companies they decry.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
You're going to have to explain to me why preserving the environment is short-sighted. And why not enforcing those laws isn't criminal. Because, frankly, I just don't see that.
[ March 13, 2002, 12:09: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Basing a multitrillion-dollar, global, economically and socially devastating plan on science which has a 10-to-1 disapproval rate among scientists is shortsighted.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
For a librarian, you show a trend of not doing your reading. Please read the article, Rob. Not that you care, but it isn't about the Kyoto Accords.
Oh, do you feel silly now ... ?
[ March 13, 2002, 12:14: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
Well I suppose the words 'personal' and 'professional' look somewhat alike...
Just by putting "getting" in front of one, and "being" in front of the other polarizes them remarkably! The wonders of grammatics...
Fo2: "...entirely different from a house rat, and is more like a field mouse. Did you know Enron pushed strongly for ratification of the Kyoto treaty?"
Ha, ha, ha. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Snay, that would mean something if I had been talking about the article.
Admittedly, the topic in the first post was not Kyoto... but you're hardly the one to complain about threads being diverted to other topics. (Neither am I, for that matter)
I brought it up because Kyoto is a non-Bush Administration example of bad environmental policy. The topic then remained open for discussion.
In other words, I semi-hijacked your thread.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And you didn't even use a gun! Speaking of which...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Ok, answered that there, rather than here.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Enron = bad. (I never said they weren't) Enron = in favor of Kyoto.
So you hate Kyoto, and you hate Enron. You also hate Enron because they supported Kyoto, and you hate Kyoto because it was supported by Enron. My goodness, what a feedback loop. It's a miracle you don't explode with all that pent-up rage. . . 8)
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
I can assist in this.
Specifically, global warming is a sham.
The most pessimistic approximations only allow for an overall rise of 1-3 degrees total.
Also, with regard to the ozone, it's so thin it is less than .0000001% of the earth's atmosphere. This makes the ozone layer thinner than the bredth of a hair, so I don't believe all the ozone propaganda either.
With regard to carbon dioxide as a "greenhouse gas" well, we've got like .025% of the atmostphere (or something like that) as carbon dioxide. The vast majority is oxygen and nitrogen.
As for global warming, that happened on Venus, and their clouds are made of sulfuric acid. The clouds on earth are made of hydrogen hydroxide, aka water.
If global warming ocurrs, it will ocurr after humanity is already extinct. The worst that I think could happen is a return to the tropical age the dinosaurs lived in.
As for global warming, well, any major amount of heating is caused by the sun. The sun's high times and low times; right now I think we're in its mid times.
Low times were during the ice age, high times were during the mesezoic period.
The only thing that we can do as humans to have any fatal effect on the environment is to detonate a large number of big nukes in the atmosphere.
Anything else takes so much time that I'll have died of old age before the planet become uninhabitable.
What I am saying, is if global warming is ocurring, there is nothing we can do to stop it. If global warming is not ocurring, we're not going to unintentionally make it happen (though, I suppose we could detonate a number of nukes in an effort to make it happen, but that has an equal if not greater probability of capitulating into a nuclear winter...)
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Global warming's a sham? Yet, each year is warmer then the previous? So, what's that ... coincidence?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Global warming is occurring (to some extent, it seems, sometimes. Actually, the Antarctic ice sheet is currently showing similarities to its condition immediately prior to the "Little Ice Age"). It is not a sham (maybe)
However, the concept that humans are a bigger contributor to it than the Sun is, is a sham. As is the concept that any changes we make are going to drastically change conditions.
We're in a (moderately) warm phase. During the last cold phase, the glaciers came all the way to the Great Plains. During the last warm phase, hippopotami wallowed in the Thames.
None of it was caused by CO2.
Posted by Supreme Chancellor Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Of course, Global Warming is a sham. It's exaclty like that one trick that David Blaine - Magic Man where he picks a guy off of the street and asks him to pick a card. The guy picks a card and then David Blaine - Magic Man throws the deck of cards against a storefront window, and then David Blaine - Magic Man reveals that his card is on the INSIDE of the window. It's just a trick. Probably perpetrated by Majestic 12. Something is fishy about David Blaine - Magic Man. Nanoaugmented perhaps?
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
There was a TV special on about this several nights ago. They referred to Global Warming as the "Science of Uncertainty".
Non Environmentalists say that it is too much of a risk to gamble on anything that is "Uncertain".
Environmentalists say that it is prudent to try to slow this problem down, because by the time it has become "Certain" it may be too late.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
For what, exactly? For all they know, and for all the evidence suggests, we're about to enter another ice age, and we'll NEED the CO2 to keep from freezing to death. You can't predict the weather on a national scale three days in advance with much better than 75% accuracy. How much less can you predict global climate changes decades beforehand?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
At a guess, because one refers to a general trend in the weather, and the other refers to specific times and days. We can't say for certain what the weather will be like 4 days from now, but you we can make a pretty safe guess that Summer will be warmer than winter.
And obviously you don't want to get rid of all CO2. The argument is (presumably) reducing the amount that we emmit through industry and stuff that wouldn't normally be emmitted. There would still be a "normal" amount produced.
And why have both Simon and UM got the Deus Ex bug recently?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The problem that we keep finding with the computer models is that the equations don't balance.
They input "current" conditions and trends, and run it forward for a couple hundred years, and they show global warming.
But when they reverse the equations, and run it backwards from the "hot" 200 years in the future to now... they don't get "current" conditions.
This indicates that somewhere in the predictive process, an error/errors have creeped in.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Speaking about government being in the pocket of the Oil industry... has anyone here ever heard about the Elk Hills Oil Reserve?
Do you know who has (inherited from his political father) a lotta stock shares in Occidental?
If you said Bush, you guessed wrong. Then-VP Al Gore.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And if Gore was, oh, I don't know, relavent at all to the government we've got, that would mean something.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
He was relevant to the government we had at the time.
He was in an oil company's pocket.
His supporters (or at least, the people who would rather have seen him as president) are still going on about how bad it is to be in an oil company's pocket, and how horrible it is to have a president who (to them) is.
I'm merely pointing out a flaw in the logic.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Interestingly enough, Elk Hills was part of the famous (and oddly similar to these events) Teapot Dome scandal, which brought down Then-President Warren Harding.
Incidentally, Occidental also controlled the company which was responsible for the dumping in Love Canal.
[ March 16, 2002, 14:24: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
When I was twelve, I put oil on my bike chain.
That must mean I shot down Kyoto all by my self. Logic being what it is and all.
Well, that being that, I'm off to go begin voluntary personal measures in support of the environment that in no way harm the economy of the United States of America...which, at some point in the not so distant past became even more important than all other life on the planet.
If that damned Spotted Owl doesn't want to go all extinct, he'd better get himself a real job like the rest of us. Tell him to stop living off government land like some kind of lazy...uh...animal.
[ March 16, 2002, 14:43: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
What a perfectly useless distinction, First. Al Gore could be somewhere ripping the heads off chickens and opening portrals to the ninth circle, and it would not render a single word in any criticism of the current administration invalid.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Did nobody notice that the official didn't quit over the stand on Kyoto but about deadly toxins in the air. Whether you believe that global warming is occurring or not, has nothing to do with this. Pouring deadly toxins in the air at the rate that we are is bad, even FOT couldn't ignore the science on that. If it comes to putting less pollution in our air, I'm all for it. Sure it will cause short term job losses in some areas, but in other areas, such as filtering technologies it will increase jobs. Finding ways to curb pollution rates is important not because of what the first world is doing but because of what the third world is doing. As the first world becomes more service oriented and the third world is taking on the jobs of raw material manipulation (ie steel mills,aluminum,ore processing) it is up to the first world to help them do this safely. We have polluted some of the most beautiful places to death in NA and Europe and now we should help the emerging economies to get on their feet without destorying their envoments as we have. Less pollution is just common sence, most people can't see that because they are only looking short term.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That would be good, except that every treaty out there EXEMPTS the developing countries from the pollution standards, because they know that those standards will cripple the countries' economic development. Even Kyoto exempted China (by far the largest polluter in terms of production to pollution ratio), Brazil, etc.
Dehli, Beijing, Moscow, all have much more particulates per cubic meter in their air than any US city. In fact, in a study of a large number of major metropolitan areas, only France and Japan had lower pollution levels than New York
The US already has lower production to pollution rates than any other country and higher pollution standards than most countries in the world. Perhaps if the rest of the world would play catch-up, they wouldn't need to worry about the US so much.
I don't know where you got the highest production/pollution rates in the world from but the world bank site you sent us to doesn't work so I'm not sure what you are refering to there. Looking around the world bank site though it shows the US has the highest Co2 emmissions per capita in the world. Could you please show us where you got the p/p rates from?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)