kipperthefrog Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I cant beleive more people are not doing anything about this. I heard they want to (and has) cut environmental protection funds. The United States didn't also sighn the kyoto treaty. I heard the oil companies are tring to keep Hybrid and hydrogencars from mass producing. Good ol republicans can spend $500 million for an party, but they can't afford to save the world we live in. -Clickage- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Hottest year? Pfft, not where I live. It's cold as hell here (oxymoron ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Don't fool yourself, the amercian federal government is acting retarded on the issue but the states have done a good share of trying to save the environment. Look at California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by Rogue15 Not only not constructive, but also a nice way to disregard something that really is a problem. I guess that's typical humans though, we can't see beyond our own life-spans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I have a life-span? .. ;D .. Let's face it, this planet is already gone and also noone knows what the climate would look like without us. There were dramatical climate changes in the past and they will of course happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Yes, but they were slow and the changes extended over hundreds of years, even millenias while right now, in about 150 years, we managed to screw the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Assumed there was for instance something like the big stone from space happening, I'm not sure if the climatic changes it causes would need to 'develop' more than 1 month. Also, I do not say we cause nothing, but how is someone going to measure how much global warming is 'made by humans' or if it's these 2°C we will 'need' in 300 years to 'prevent' the next ice-age and if it's a good idea? I don't think we should care too much about the global warming, but more about resources and the common sense for our environment. Nearly everyone of us is constantly wasting resources and polluting our world and that just because of laziness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 Originally posted by RayJones I have a life-span? .. ;D .. There were dramatical climate changes in the past and they will of course happen again. Originally posted by RayJones Assumed there was for instance something like the big stone from space happening, I'm not sure if the climatic changes it causes would need to 'develop' more than 1 month. Also, I do not say we cause nothing, but how is someone going to measure how much global warming is 'made by humans' or if it's these 2°C we will 'need' in 300 years to 'prevent' the next ice-age and if it's a good idea? I don't think we should care too much about the global warming, but more about resources and the common sense for our environment. Nearly everyone of us is constantly wasting resources and polluting our world and that just because of laziness. ...so are you saying the climat fixes itself? ...or we are doing a GOOD thing by increasing the tempature of out planet? by the way, I heard mars was cold becuase of LACK of the greenhouse effect. if we can pump the greenhouse gasses here, we can do it there too. only on mars it will be benificial. -clicky- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 The climate can't be 'fixed', I mean how is it supposed to be 'run' the right way? It changes all the time and always did. This is how it basically works. We influence it, no question, but the increase of the global temperature itself would happen anyway. And even it the global temperature would decrease, would that be a better scenario? Maybe global warming looks not good for us but i think we have other, more important problems to solve. The main points are resources and pollution of our environment. I think that is more a danger for any life on this planet than global warming which is endangering 'only' us humans and a bunch of other species. Needless to say that, even if we would produce no pollution and would not 'increase the increasing' of the global temperature, earth and therefore our living conditions would change anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Since pretty much every country on earth has ratified kyoto except the US it wil be interesting to see if their economies get trashed in the way the US government says the US economy would be. Or if the US gains a huge advantage by being the only one outside the system. Though of course, kyoto doesent exactly set impressive goals, just keeping emissions a few % lower than they were when it was written. Nothing mindblowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 It's funny because in actuality agreeing to these kinds of enviromental laws will CREATE jobs. We'll need more people to produce the items we need to follow with these laws, people to study new effective technology, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Originally posted by kipperthefrog Good ol republicans can spend $500 million for an party, but they can't afford to save the world we live in. Good ol' Kipper, blaming all of lifes problems on the Republic Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Originally posted by Hiroki Good ol' Kipper, blaming all of lifes problems on the Republic Party. Hiroki has a point, it's the neo-cons, who are mostly republican, but there are democrat neo-cons too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 To be fair, it isn't even really just hte neo-cons.. it is politicians in general who are more worried about short term effects on businesses (and therefore their election funds) than long term effects on the population. The democrats might have been slightly better on the environment, but they would never have it high on their agenda. It just so happens that the US is big enough to be able to ignore the international pressure/consensus that forced many of the other countries politicians into making the (minor) commitment required by kyoto. And you would think that the chalenge of increased consumption without increased emmisions would be exactly the sort of thing to spur on new technological innovation. But what do I know. The funny thing is that the Ill Will that NOT signing kyoto created against the US (which subsequently played a reasonable part in the anti US/iraq situation) has probably ended up costing the US more than just signing the darn thing would have. Bush (with his ass kissing trip to europe) seems to have finally realised that if you always look out for your own interests and never compromise on issues important to others, then you shouldn't be surprised if you don't have many friends when you look around for them. The trick with international diplomacy is to compromise on the less important issues, so that when something comes up that is REALLY important to you you have built up some good will to get others to compromise for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 What are neo conservitives? Good ol' Kipper, blaming all of lifes problems on the Republic Party. My apoligies. I was talking about the purticuar polititions that favor the rich big business. My dad told me the republicans favor the rich and most the senaters and Bu$h are in the oil busness. They just want to make money so they will do whatever is in favor of the oil companies. I'll admit there are democrats that fit into that catagory too. I say real conservitives conserve the enviorment. real conservitives conserve resources. real conservitives conserve life and don't start wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Neo-conservatives agenda is making money, regardless of who it hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith Neo-conservatives agenda is making money, regardless of who it hurts. That's about it in a nutshell. Another link to Kyoto one paragraph interesting it this one: President Bush withdrew in 2001, saying Kyoto was too costly and wrongly excluded developing countries from the first round of targets. Bush doubts whether scientists know enough about the climate to warrant Kyoto-style caps. well, I'll bet the scientist know more than HE does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 ...The Kyoto pact would reduce global tempeartures in the world by less than 1 degree celcius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 And that can change everything. Remember that you only need to go slightly above 0°C around the polar ice cap for it to start melting. It might take long, but it melts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 That's right, for the climate being a chaotic system, the result from the change for 1 degree may be significant. Also, the main-point of the pact is more the reduce of emissions, what seems very important. And it's more than doing nothing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 the point of kyoto isn't really to REDUCE emissions or temperatures, it is just to keep them steady. The only reason it now looks like a bigger reduction is that it is based on level from when it was written (1996?) not the decade or so later that it finally gets passed. Considering the US has been moaning a lot recently about other countries not being dynamic enough and shirking their responsibilities when it comes to the war on terror (and iraq), it is slightly ironic that when the world DOES decide to do something dynamic (about a much bigger threat to life than terrorism) then the US blocks it for 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 While I do think the US should have signed up with Kyoto Protocol, there are also other, possibly, more important issues that need to be taken care of as well. There's the fact that the US uses 1/3 of the world's resources. I think it is more important to lower that amount. and get people to produce less waste. Recycling stuff would save tons of money... I think European leadership should start trying to pressure the US on these issues. Maybe show us how it's done right [/rant] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Originally posted by toms the point of kyoto isn't really to REDUCE emissions or temperatures, it is just to keep them steady. Yes, Sir Mister Split Hairs. But basically it's keeping emissions steady by a growing number of emissioners, which means a reduce for the single one. So, keep in mind: Don't eat beans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 ...you know, you guys should buy/steal/check out State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It does a good job exposing the reality in environmental conservation. Theres a lot of "scare tactics" that are released by the media to get your attention, so don't believe most of the crap you see on network television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.