Climate change-Implications


Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

He's an idiot. He wants to put his right to steal money above the good of the planet.

His dropping farm subsidies is a joke too. Do you have any idea how much money Monsanto, Cargill and such corporations gave to Bush's campaign?


idiot indeed. Totally focussed into one way "thinking" and behaving. But seeing as how he cares so little for LIFE Itself......it fits the pattern of his "greed/power and steal ideology as why would the planet itself matter to him?? Totally SELF centred and his self defined POWER on this planet. Heck, in his mind he is "God" or his immediate right hand assistant. In a way it is no surprise that the US population follows this kind of ideology......as it has become conditioned to the "power" trip itself and glorifies itself in it. Very heady trip.

Meanwhile common sense approach like reducing the toxic emissions might be a darned good start .......as any new "technologies" can be developed simultaneously.
 
TenPenny
#32
"Do you have any idea how much money Monsanto, Cargill and such corporations gave to Bush's campaign?"

Let's just say it's probably a fraction of what they make due to the US subsidies to the whole gasohol program. Paying these corporations to grow corn, so that it can be turned into alcohol in plants they themselves own, so that it can be sold to the big oil companies...oh, there's no profit being made by the friends of the republicans there, is there?
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#33
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS....ap/index.html


Bush wants to shift the debate. Something about a little boy who just HAS TO HAVE HIS way comes to mind. Makes them feel important.

But then he doesn't 'negotiate" ( or discuss) ----probably doesn't know how./ He wants to DICTATE the terms of each situation.
 
Reverend Blair
#34
Oh man is he an idiot.

First of all the technologies he's talking about are being driven by Kyoto in the developed world (I no longer think of the US as being part of the developing world...it's regressing).

Second of all his plans lead to an increase in emissions, not a reduction, not even a stabilization.

On the bright side there already a movement to introduce trade sanctions against the US because there insistence on relying on early 20th century technology and 19th century thinking gives them a trade advantage. I wonder how well his economy will do when trade sanctions are in place.
 
LeftCoast
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

I'm curious if anyone knows of an environmental plan that reduces greenhouse gases and doesn't impact the economy long term.

Sure - here is one. (actually this is two as cap and trade regimes which I have included in my example tend to be market driven, revenue neutral and quite efficient).

Currently, in the United States, farmers are subsidized to grow corn for the production of ethanol. Ethanol is used as an additive in gasoline to boost octane - and increase fuel efficiency.

Unfortunately, when you add up all the energy inputs required to produce a gallon of ethanol, it ends up being more energy than is contained in a gallon of ethanol. The biggest energy input is natural gas that is required to produce fertilizer required to grow annual crops such as corn.

Study after study has shown that ethanol production (at least from annual crops such as corn) is a net consumer of energy rather than a producer of energy. For the most recent published study, look here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0329132436.htm

or

http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0305/patzek.html


Ethanol production is all about farm subsidies not energy.

So if the objective is to simply give money to farmers why not accomplish some good?

An alternative is to use the money allocated to ethanol subsidies (over $0.50/gal US) to provide loan guarantees and grants to farmers who install grid connected wind turbines. Net metering for electric utilities of course would also have to be mandated.

This would:
- provide farmers with a year round cash "crop" in the form of wind leases or direct generation revenues
- cost taxpayers nothing that they are not already paying
- consume very little farm land (a wind turbine has a very small footprint and needs little clearance - the land could still be used for food crop farming)
- benefit the environment by replacing fossil fuel with clean wind energy. Other octane booster such as MTBE are more effective, but have environmental concerns of their own.

Additionally, if the US implemented a CO2 credit cap and trade regine, the farmer would be able to unbundle the electrical production and carbon credit and sell the carbon credits to dirtier industries or producers. This would simultaneously make wind energy cheaper and dirtiers energy more expensive - at no costs to tax payers or consumers.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#36
Bush strikes blow to Blair's hopes of global warming deal
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#37
vanni : from your link:

Quote:

Tony Blair's hopes of a breakthrough to tackle climate change were dealt a blowwhen President George Bush made it clear that he would not help the Prime Minister to strike a deal on global warming at the G8 summit in return for his support on Iraq.

As G8 leaders prepared to gather in Gleneagles for Wednesday's summit, the US Presidentsignalled that there would be no quid pro quo on climate change.


interesting isn't it. Seems blair has been a fool to think he could rely on his former buddy in crime ( Iraq invasion). Blair got taken.......big time. Bush is just doing what the USG has usually done.......use others to their advantage, bribe others into supporting them.......and then turn traitor to their supporters. The megalomaniacs in washington have no friends and want none. No one on this planet that can trust the US(G).

but isolating itself as the USG Has done this way.......is also creating a backward moving nation.

Blair would be smart to really distance himself from bush now.....and if bush doesn't want to cooperate......leave him and the US out of any discussions and agreements. who needs that crap??? Obstructionism USG style should not interfere with progress. New alliances are being formed and the US is being quietly left out in the cold. The US wants to be an island onto itself..........let it. New partnerships will evolve.. But the US had better be careful as the nations it own money to, might call in their chips.
 
Reverend Blair
#38
I guess there's no honour among war criminals.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#39
Quote:

Bush, the obstacle to a deal on global warming
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 05 July 2005
Can America prevent the rich countries agreeing what to do about climate change? That's the other vital question at Gleneagles alongside Africa and its poverty and, last night, the omens did not look good.

President George Bush made anything but reassuring noises in a pre-summit television interview with Trevor McDonald, rejecting outright any suggestion that the US might join the Kyoto protocol on global warming, or consider any binding agreements to cut US emissions of greenhouse gases.

But Mr Bush's blunt stance - "I go to the G8 with an agenda that I think is best for our country" - was clearly aimed at opinion back home, and may not prevent Tony Blair putting climate change on top of the G8 agenda. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, insisted last night a deal was still possible.

Mr Blair's aims are concrete, but limited. He has accepted, even if many environmentalists have not, that the US will not rejoin Kyoto, certainly before the first period of the treaty ends in 2012, and that it will not accept targets to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide before then, under any circumstances.

America signing up to any of that has never been on his Gleneagles shopping list. Instead, he wants progress in three areas, which may take the business of tackling climate change on substantially, even while the Kyoto process itself is inching forward with the rich countries trying, and mainly failing, to shave a very small amount off their CO2 emissions.

Mr Blair wants a statement on the science of climate change, an agreement on the development of energy-saving technology and the beginnings of a climate change partnership with the developing world. He may still get all of them. If he does, he will have proved that he was right to put global warming at the top of the agenda at Gleneagles with Africa, although it has been the forgotten issue of the past few days.

Global warming was not mentioned in the global triumph of goodwill for Africa that was Live8. They did not sing about the warming atmosphere from the stage in Hyde Park, or in Philadelphia, Berlin or Rome. But if the unforgettable coalition of singers and performers could have looked into Africa's future rather than at the haunting images of its past and present, they surely would have done.

For everything that makes Africa hard to inhabit today will be made harder by global warming. Hunger will be made more acute; shortage of clean water will be more degrading; disease will be more painful, crippling and deadly; natural disasters will be more overwhelming. Climate change threatens to vitiate all the efforts to help Africa that the rich world can possibly come up with, all the debt cancellation, the aid increases and the trade liberalisation.

Two weeks ago, a group of British aid agencies and environmental groups, from Oxfam to Greenpeace, forcefully pointed out this awkward truth. Their report, Africa - Up In Smoke? insisted the issues of African poverty and climate change are inseparably linked, and the first cannot be solved without dealing with the second. It was a direct challenge to the simple Live8 theme, that if only the economic basis of Africa's future can be sorted by a properly responsible rich world, the continent will come good. It will not, the report said, if we do not tackle the warming atmosphere.

There is no doubt Mr Blair has grasped that truth and it is reflected in his three aims from the summit. His statement on the science of climate change, signed by all the G8 leaders, is the simplest, but also the riskiest, of his initiatives at Gleneagles.

Its purpose, he told the Word Economic Forum in Davos in January, was " to set a direction of travel". Mr Blair believes the business community will not really get going on the task of building a low-carbon future, and investing in the new technology needed for long-term projects such as new power stations until it sees clearly that world governments are united on the essentials of climate change.

The scientific consensus that climate change is real and happening is now overwhelming. But that is to reckon without the astonishing attempts by the Bush administration in its second term to deny the science. Yesterday, however, there were reports that summit "sherpas" had managed to agree a text all G8 leaders could agree to, which, although not stating that global warming was happening, did state that scientists said it was. On such subtleties are summits sometimes rescued.

Mr Blair's second climate change aim at Gleneagles is to reach agreements about how new energy-saving or CO2-limiting technology can be speeded in development, and be adopted more quickly by industry. He has in mind renewable energy projects and others such as the hydrogen fuel cell, which may replace the internal combustion engine without emissions of CO2, and carbon sequestration, a method of taking CO2 out of the waste gases of a power station and burying it.

As that is hardly a contentious issue - and indeed, the US sees the way forward on climate change as developing technical fixes rather than agreeing to targets set by somebody else - Mr Blair may get his way.

His third and final initiative is perhaps the most vital: it concerns the developing countries. As we report elsewhere, in the next 20 years, China, India and other developing nations will produce gigantic emissions of CO2 as their economies boom. Yet they have no commitments to cut those emissions. If they do not tackle them eventually, all the CO2 savings the US and the other rich nations can make will go for nothing, because emissions from the emerging economies will more than make up for rich countries' cut. So Mr Blair wants to start a climate change dialogue with the developing world, reassuring them they can continue to grow but offering to help them grow cleanly, by using new energy-saving technology as soon as it comes on stream.

In all the righteous, clamorous protest about aid, trade, and debt in Hyde Park, amid the Geldof-inspired, rock'n'roll-fuelled euphoria, it was easy to forget that Africa can be ruined by the atmosphere as well as by economics. But in that luxury golfing hotel on the edge of the Scottish Highlands, it is going to be forcefully remembered.

Can America prevent the rich countries agreeing what to do about climate change? That's the other vital question at Gleneagles alongside Africa and its poverty and, last night, the omens did not look good.

President George Bush made anything but reassuring noises in a pre-summit television interview with Trevor McDonald, rejecting outright any suggestion that the US might join the Kyoto protocol on global warming, or consider any binding agreements to cut US emissions of greenhouse gases.

But Mr Bush's blunt stance - "I go to the G8 with an agenda that I think is best for our country" - was clearly aimed at opinion back home, and may not prevent Tony Blair putting climate change on top of the G8 agenda. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, insisted last night a deal was still possible.

Mr Blair's aims are concrete, but limited. He has accepted, even if many environmentalists have not, that the US will not rejoin Kyoto, certainly before the first period of the treaty ends in 2012, and that it will not accept targets to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide before then, under any circumstances.

America signing up to any of that has never been on his Gleneagles shopping list. Instead, he wants progress in three areas, which may take the business of tackling climate change on substantially, even while the Kyoto process itself is inching forward with the rich countries trying, and mainly failing, to shave a very small amount off their CO2 emissions.

Mr Blair wants a statement on the science of climate change, an agreement on the development of energy-saving technology and the beginnings of a climate change partnership with the developing world. He may still get all of them. If he does, he will have proved that he was right to put global warming at the top of the agenda at Gleneagles with Africa, although it has been the forgotten issue of the past few days.

Global warming was not mentioned in the global triumph of goodwill for Africa that was Live8. They did not sing about the warming atmosphere from the stage in Hyde Park, or in Philadelphia, Berlin or Rome. But if the unforgettable coalition of singers and performers could have looked into Africa's future rather than at the haunting images of its past and present, they surely would have done.

For everything that makes Africa hard to inhabit today will be made harder by global warming. Hunger will be made more acute; shortage of clean water will be more degrading; disease will be more painful, crippling and deadly; natural disasters will be more overwhelming. Climate change threatens to vitiate all the efforts to help Africa that the rich world can possibly come up with, all the debt cancellation, the aid increases and the trade liberalisation.

Two weeks ago, a group of British aid agencies and environmental groups, from Oxfam to Greenpeace, forcefully pointed out this awkward truth. Their report, Africa - Up In Smoke? insisted the issues of African poverty and climate change are inseparably linked, and the first cannot be solved without dealing with the second. It was a direct challenge to the simple Live8 theme, that if only the economic basis of Africa's future can be sorted by a properly responsible rich world, the continent will come good. It will not, the report said, if we do not tackle the warming atmosphere.
There is no doubt Mr Blair has grasped that truth and it is reflected in his three aims from the summit. His statement on the science of climate change, signed by all the G8 leaders, is the simplest, but also the riskiest, of his initiatives at Gleneagles.

Its purpose, he told the Word Economic Forum in Davos in January, was " to set a direction of travel". Mr Blair believes the business community will not really get going on the task of building a low-carbon future, and investing in the new technology needed for long-term projects such as new power stations until it sees clearly that world governments are united on the essentials of climate change.

The scientific consensus that climate change is real and happening is now overwhelming. But that is to reckon without the astonishing attempts by the Bush administration in its second term to deny the science. Yesterday, however, there were reports that summit "sherpas" had managed to agree a text all G8 leaders could agree to, which, although not stating that global warming was happening, did state that scientists said it was. On such subtleties are summits sometimes rescued.

Mr Blair's second climate change aim at Gleneagles is to reach agreements about how new energy-saving or CO2-limiting technology can be speeded in development, and be adopted more quickly by industry. He has in mind renewable energy projects and others such as the hydrogen fuel cell, which may replace the internal combustion engine without emissions of CO2, and carbon sequestration, a method of taking CO2 out of the waste gases of a power station and burying it.

As that is hardly a contentious issue - and indeed, the US sees the way forward on climate change as developing technical fixes rather than agreeing to targets set by somebody else - Mr Blair may get his way.

His third and final initiative is perhaps the most vital: it concerns the developing countries. As we report elsewhere, in the next 20 years, China, India and other developing nations will produce gigantic emissions of CO2 as their economies boom. Yet they have no commitments to cut those emissions. If they do not tackle them eventually, all the CO2 savings the US and the other rich nations can make will go for nothing, because emissions from the emerging economies will more than make up for rich countries' cut. So Mr Blair wants to start a climate change dialogue with the developing world, reassuring them they can continue to grow but offering to help them grow cleanly, by using new energy-saving technology as soon as it comes on stream.

In all the righteous, clamorous protest about aid, trade, and debt in Hyde Park, amid the Geldof-inspired, rock'n'roll-fuelled euphoria, it was easy to forget that Africa can be ruined by the atmosphere as well as by economics. But in that luxury golfing hotel on the edge of the Scottish Highlands, it is going to be forcefully remembered.

bush the major obstructionist. It is HIS way or forget it. Why does the word "dictator" come to mind.?? LIttle men with little brains do well as "dictators" or a reasonable facsimile of.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#40
Quote:

DUBLIN, Ireland (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin will do what he can at the G8 meeting in Scotland to persuade his neighbour George W. Bush to recognize the reality of climate change, say senior Canadian officials. But no one should expect the American president to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol against global warming, they said, adding that just an acknowledgement of climate change would be a big step.

Officials, who held a background briefing for reporters Monday during Martin's trip to Ireland, said the G8 countries are making progress in pre-meeting talks on both climate change and aid for Africa.

They said leaders won't all agree to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's call to raise aid for poor countries to 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2015, but they will agree to his challenge to double aid for Africa to $50 billion US by 2010.

Canada has already decided to double aid to the troubled continent by 2008-09 and double overall aid by 2010. But critics say that would only bring total aid worldwide to about 0.37 per cent of the current GDP.

The United States, the world's richest country, lags far behind others in the percentage of GDP it commits to aid: just 0.16 per cent.

Bush announced last week that he will ask Congress to double U.S. support for Africa by the target date.

Blair has described Africa's condition as a "scar on the conscience of the world."

A number of G8 leaders have signed on to Blair's 0.7 target but Martin has refused, saying it would be irresponsible to make a promise he's not sure Canada can keep. He has even chided some of the leaders who have said they will reach that target.

Canadian officials noted that while several countries have agreed to the 0.7 target, some have attached caveats tied to economic growth.

They also said the Africa plan will build on the current process of tying aid to good governance to ensure money isn't wasted.

Martin heads to Scotland on Wednesday to meet with Bush, Blair and the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia.

The meetings will be held under heavy security in the luxury golf resort at Gleneagles, about an hour's drive north of Edinburgh. Thousands of demonstrators have been protesting in Edinburgh in recent days. They want the leaders to go even further to help poor countries.

In addition to pouring billions more dollars into Africa through aid and investment, the leaders have already agreed to cancel $40 billion in debt to the world's poorest countries.

They are also expected to pledge to work for a successful conclusion of the current Doha Round of global trade talks, which has as a top priority reducing rich country trade barriers, such as huge farm subsidies which depress the exports of poor countries.

Canadian officials said the leaders will discuss soaring oil prices and will underscore their commitment to the free market and transparency of supply and demand. There are no plans to discuss a regulatory scheme to control prices.

Other items on the agenda include Iraq, Iran, North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Chinese President Hu Jintao and the leaders of India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa will meet with the G8 on Thursday while leaders of several African countries will hold talks on Friday.

The United States is the only G8 country that has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, claiming it would hurt the economy.

Environmentalists say Blair should consider leaving his U.S. ally behind as he tries to unite the world's top democracies behind urgent action against global warming. Blair has called climate change "probably the most serious threat we face."

On Monday, Bush described climate change as a "significant" issue, but he called for shifting the debate away from limits on greenhouse gas emissions to new technology that would reduce environmental damage without restricting energy use.

A British official involved in the pre-summit talks said the G8 could reach an accord on global warming that recognizes the problem and the need to combat it.


Martin and others will be talking to a brick wall.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#41
Quote:

Bush's Nuclear Nonsense
Mark Hertsgaard
July 05, 2005


Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation's environment correspondent, is the author most recently of Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future and The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World.

The July 6-8 summit meeting of the Group of Eight industrial nations comes as humanity is drifting toward unparalleled catastrophe. Climate change, a prime focus of the summit, is on track to kill millions of people in the twenty-first century. The victims will die not in the sudden bang of radioactive explosions but in the gradual whimper of environmental collapse as soaring temperatures and rising seas submerge cities, parch farmlands, crash ecosystems and spread hunger, disease and chaos worldwide.

As summit host, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has lobbied the heads of government gathering in Scotland to take much stronger action against climate change, a problem his science adviser, Sir David King, has called the greatest danger civilization has faced in 5,000 years. Blair has been pointing out since 2002 that the Kyoto Protocol "is not radical enough." The protocol demands 5 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by industrial countries only. The United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change says a 50 to 70 percent reduction by humanity as a whole is needed. To bridge that ten-fold gap, Blair has urged the G8 nations, which are responsible for the majority of previous emissions, to endorse an ambitious program of strict timelines and emissions cuts.

But Blair has been unwilling to admit the obvious: His dream of a historic breakthrough on climate will come only if G8 leaders are willing to defy the Bush administration and plot their own course. George W. Bush has made it clear he's not interested in doing anything about climate change except study it. For Bush and his right-wing base, the non-existence of climate change is an article of faith, like the non-existence of evolution, and it doesn't matter what scientists say. Nevertheless, Blair insists the United States must be part of any climate accord, arguing, "if you simply exclude America from this equation, we'll never get it done." The result is, Bush gets a veto over the world's progress.

To counter Bush's objection that Kyoto excuses rising industrial powers from emissions reductions, Blair invited China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico to Scotland to entice commitments from them as well. Bush didn't budge. Three weeks before the summit, leaked drafts showed that US negotiators had demanded removal of all references to the urgency of climate change from the summit's final accord. No longer would the G8 leaders endorse "ambitious targets and timetables" for emissions reductions or fund alternative energy development. They wouldn't even acknowledge basic scientific findings that climate change has already begun and is due largely to human activity.

There is common ground between Bush and Blair, however, and it hints at the kind of deal that, unfortunately, might emerge from this summit. One year ago, Blair disclosed to a parliamentary committee that Washington was pressing Britain to support a new generation of nuclear reactors that were supposedly safer and cheaper. According to a report in The Guardian, Blair told the committee that "if you are serious about the issue of climate change," nuclear power must be part of the solution. Unlike coal, oil and natural gas combustion, nuclear fission produces no carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas.

Reviving nuclear power has been a priority for Bush since 2001, when the energy plan devised by vice president Dick Cheney urged construction of hundreds of nuclear plants. Bush's 2006 budget proposes reducing funding for the Energy Department by 2 percent even as nuclear funding increases 5 percent.

Watch, then, for the following deal at the summit, especially if other G8 leaders are unwilling to challenge Bush's intransigence. In their final accord the G8 leaders could agree to disagree about the definition of the problem—Is climate change an urgent danger or not?—but unite behind a shared solution: rapid development of zero-carbon energy sources that produce no greenhouse gases. The choice of which alternatives to emphasize—solar, wind, efficiency or nuclear—could be left up to each nation, though it's worth noting that the drafts U.S. negotiators altered specifically endorsed nuclear.

Such a deal would allow Blair, Bush and other G8 leaders to claim a face-saving diplomatic victory. It would also probably be applauded for its realism and flexibility by media outlets and corporate voices on both sides of the Atlantic. After all, the argument will go, even some environmentalists now accept that nuclear is part of the solution to climate change, assuming that safety concerns are addressed.

But investing in nuclear power would actually make the climate predicament worse. The reasons are economic: Nuclear is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than energy efficiency is, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. In other words, a dollar invested in insulating a drafty house displaces seven times more coal than a dollar invested in a nuclear power plant, mainly because of nuclear's immense capital costs. (Industry spokespeople like to brag that nuclear is cheaper than wind power, but they count only the cost of operating the plant, not of constructing it—a trick that would make a Rolls Royce cheap to drive, since the gasoline but not the purchase price would matter.) In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear would take funding away from the cheapest (and fastest) alternative-efficiency—thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels.

Alas, most environmentalists have failed to argue this angle (with the exception of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a tiny NGO that has been bird-dogging the industry since the 1970s). Environmentalists focus more on the safety problems that plague nuclear power, starting with the lack of a solution, despite sixty years of experience, to waste disposal. And while there have been no catastrophic accidents at western nuclear plants since Three Mile Island in 1979, a recent investigation by Time quotes many industry insiders warning that terrorists could easily overwhelm the safeguards at U.S. nuclear plants and trigger meltdowns that kill millions.

The idea that environmentalists are nonetheless warming up to nuclear power was promoted by a front-page story in the May 15 New York Times. But independent checking suggests that the article's claims were overstated. Of four environmentalists cited, only Stewart Brand truly supports nuclear, but Brand is a writer who speaks only for himself, not the environmental movement. Gus Speth, a board member of the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, told me the Times had omitted crucial context for their remarks; their actual position, in Lash's words, is that "energy efficiency and renewables options will come long, long before nukes." Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, did not reply to an interview request but was one of thirteen leaders of major environmental organizations who wrote to Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, reluctantly opposing their Climate Stewardship Act because it subsidized nuclear energy. Nevertheless, the myth of environmental support for nuclear is now sufficiently entrenched to provide cover for Bush's agenda, at least in the United States.

For the G8 to endorse Bush's agenda, however, would be not only wrongheaded but unnecessary. Blair is right that the United States, as the world's leading greenhouse gas emitter, must be part of the response to climate change. His mistake is to equate the United States with the Bush administration. Despite the latter's foot-dragging, other major American institutions have begun taking meaningful action on climate change. The U.S. Conference of Mayors voted unanimously in June to meet or exceed the Kyoto targets. New York and eight other states are establishing a carbon-trading system to reduce emissions. California has required cars to emit 30 percent less greenhouse gas (a move copied by six other states) and is joining eight states in suing electric utilities in a case that could become the greenhouse equivalent of the tobacco industry litigation. Institutions holding $3 trillion in investment assets have demanded that U.S. corporations hoping to borrow from them first demonstrate how they are reducing greenhouse emissions. Combined, these and other actions amount to real movement against climate change by a global powerhouse; after all, California alone ranks as the world's fifth-largest economy. Regardless of what Bush does, if the G8 would make common cause with these American states and institutions, together they could drive global climate policy.

It's too late to prevent climate change. But the G8 leaders could give humanity a better chance of surviving it if they have the courage to do the right thing in Scotland: endorse binding emissions cuts and early deadlines so corporate ingenuity and marketplace discipline can accelerate progress; subsidize smart zero-carbon energy sources, starting with efficiency, rather than waste money on the dead end of nuclear energy; and don't be afraid to leave Bush behind if he balks. It will be hard enough for humanity to defuse climate change if we do everything right; there's no time to wait for Godot.


seems that if bush wants to do his own thing......whatever that is.......his opinion on this should not matter. If the majority are in support of moving forward on this......more power to them....and bush can stay in his self created hell-hole. The basic dynamic must change now. The US is but one country on this planet....and currently the most destructive one. Gradually leave them out of the equation./ reduce their influence/ and strive to more independance from the US. it wants to isolate itself anyhow.........so there should be no problem helping them out in this goal. The US (G) may soon have to decide if it is a reasonable and fair player in the world community or go solo.
 
Extrafire
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Speaking of climate change, hows that Kyoto thingy going in Canada? Anybody have any updates?

Canadian emissions are increasing and will continue to increase. We will not meet our targets and will instead pay money to other countries.
 
Reverend Blair
#43
If people like Extrafire would get out of the way, we could meet our Kyoto targets. They are determined to make us fail though.

Say, does the immolation of cretinous life-forms count as a plus or a minus?
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

If people like Extrafire would get out of the way, we could meet our Kyoto targets. They are determined to make us fail though.

Say, does the immolation of cretinous life-forms count as a plus or a minus?

 
Extrafire
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

If people like Extrafire would get out of the way, we could meet our Kyoto targets. They are determined to make us fail though.

Say, does the immolation of cretinous life-forms count as a plus or a minus?

You live in a dream world.
 
Reverend Blair
#46
Actually I live in a house that was built out of materials stolen from the CN railyards. That was back in the 1940's. The story is that they even borrowed a CN flatbed truck to steal the stuff with. Cool, eh?
 
Extrafire
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Actually I live in a house that was built out of materials stolen from the CN railyards. That was back in the 1940's. The story is that they even borrowed a CN flatbed truck to steal the stuff with. Cool, eh?

Hmmm...my father was building houses in Winipeg in the early 40's,,,,I wonder,,,,,nah, he was scrupulously honest.

Hope the materials are wood so it floats if necessary....
 
mrmom2
#48
Explination please
 
Extrafire
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

Explination please

Seems simple to me. It's fairly well known that the antarctic ice sheet is growing. Some people believe that as the oceans warm, there's more evaporation, and therefore more snowfall resulting in the increase in ice.
 
mrmom2
#50
And this is Global warming Extra?
 
Jo Canadian
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

Explination please

Seems simple to me. It's fairly well known that the antarctic ice sheet is growing. Some people believe that as the oceans warm, there's more evaporation, and therefore more snowfall resulting in the increase in ice.

It's really going to suck to wait about 30 years to give you an "I told you so" Antarcticas Ice sheets are spreading, yeah. Into the Ocean. They are breaking up an moving quicker than in previous times. At least be glad you don't live in Florida...Shit now that I think of it, I better get off of PEI within a decade or two.
 
Extrafire
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

Explination please

Seems simple to me. It's fairly well known that the antarctic ice sheet is growing. Some people believe that as the oceans warm, there's more evaporation, and therefore more snowfall resulting in the increase in ice.

It's really going to suck to wait about 30 years to give you an "I told you so" Antarcticas Ice sheets are spreading, yeah. Into the Ocean. They are breaking up an moving quicker than in previous times. At least be glad you don't live in Florida...Shit now that I think of it, I better get off of PEI within a decade or two.

Antarctica's ice sheets are always moving into the ocean. That's where icebergs come from. Two things can speed up the process; meltwater under the ice, lubricating it's path, and heavier icepack upstream, putting more down pressure on.

By the way, did you read the link? It's one of several that I've seen over the last 5 years that say that it's growing.
 
Jo Canadian
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

Explination please

Seems simple to me. It's fairly well known that the antarctic ice sheet is growing. Some people believe that as the oceans warm, there's more evaporation, and therefore more snowfall resulting in the increase in ice.

It's really going to suck to wait about 30 years to give you an "I told you so" Antarcticas Ice sheets are spreading, yeah. Into the Ocean. They are breaking up an moving quicker than in previous times. At least be glad you don't live in Florida...Shit now that I think of it, I better get off of PEI within a decade or two.

Antarctica's ice sheets are always moving into the ocean. That's where icebergs come from. Two things can speed up the process; meltwater under the ice, lubricating it's path, and heavier icepack upstream, putting more down pressure on.

By the way, did you read the link? It's one of several that I've seen over the last 5 years that say that it's growing.

Yes, I've read the article before. What I did mention though is that ice is moving into the ocean is MORE than the norm and in larger chunks, not just the regular cycle. If you Can't afford to go to Antarctica to expierience things, I'd suggest going up to our own north and do some exploring there. The locals will be glad to tell you all of the unusual shit that's been happening for the last 15 years there.

I reccomend the Coppermine Inn, in Kugluktuk. Good food & People.
 
Extrafire
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

And this is Global warming Extra?

Could be. A lot of other people believe so. What do you think?
 
Extrafire
#55
Quote:

What I did mention though is that ice is moving into the ocean is MORE than the norm and in larger chunks, not just the regular cycle.

Yes, that's because of the increase in pressure from the growing mass if ice in the interior.
 
mrmom2
#56
I have no idea but when i think of Global Warming I wonder is this a great way to sell us all new cars washers fridges and so on and on I don't know but I do know media has an agenda to sell sell sell
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#57
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200...orld_warms.php

bush fiddles , diverts, digresses........while the earth warms.


(cudos to Blair for maintaining the focus at G-8. Bush's resistance , (lack of cooperation) not withstanding.

wondering what it would take to open his constricted mind , and for him to "declare" a "war on Climate change". Warmongers do have a certain "war" vernacular.---everything is a "war" to them.
 
Extrafire
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

I have no idea but when i think of Global Warming I wonder is this a great way to sell us all new cars washers fridges and so on and on I don't know but I do know media has an agenda to sell sell sell

You mean don't worry, be happy, things aren't so bad as we thought and we can just continue on as before? I don't think so. The media are generally left wing and definitely pro Kyoto, although their customers have an agenda to sell, sell, sell. But they generally tend to sell what the public demands, and right now the demand for eco-friendly cars is huge. Canadians are able to sell used Toyota Prius's across the line for more than the new price.

I think it's just one of those rare items that managed to leak out that support the idea that disaster isn't just around the corner. A little bit of common sense a la Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist).
 
mrmom2
#59
I'm still a little skeptical I don't believe everything I hear or read Extra Did the ever fix prius's Canadian problem?When they first came out they were terrible in the winter that little motor didn't generate enough heat to keep the interior warm
 
Extrafire
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

I'm still a little skeptical I don't believe everything I hear or read Extra Did the ever fix prius's Canadian problem?When they first came out they were terrible in the winter that little motor didn't generate enough heat to keep the interior warm

I didn't know about that, can't afford one myself and they're ugly. But my sister and her husband each have one (and they love them) but they didn't say anything about that. Mind you, they live down on the left coast so they don't experience real cold.
 

Similar Threads

30
Climate Change Debate
by Kreskin | Mar 26th, 2018
4
Climate Change 101- sensitivity
by Tonington | Sep 16th, 2009
3
Looking for Climate Change Info?
by Mulder | Apr 6th, 2006
29
Climate Change
by Gonzo | Oct 24th, 2005
6
Why not embrace climate change?
by Sy | Jul 8th, 2005