billvon 3,172 #26 February 18, 2005 >Are you willing to pay $10 per gallon for gas? Absolutely! If cars all got 100mpg, most people's bills would go down even if gas cost $10 a gallon. Less fuel usage, less CO2, less cost to consumers - everyone wins. Unless you work for Exxon, of course. >$500 per month for your electric bill? Naah. How about nothing? Would nothing be OK with you? That's what I pay, by using solar. >My question remains for you to answer: How much more do you >think we should be spending on pollution control, and from where >would you get the money? Same answer as before. Spend the same or less by getting rid of loopholes like the new source review. We spend less on government and get cleaner air to boot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,172 #27 February 18, 2005 > Make it so that everyone can still compete in the global market on >a fair and equal basis, and then you're more likely to get Bush in > favor of it. OK, how about this: Everyone can emit a given amount of CO2 based on their population. Period. The same for China, US, France etc. How could that get any more fair? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #28 February 18, 2005 "Everyone can emit a given amount of CO2 based on their population. Period. The same for China, US, France etc. How could that get any more fair? " To take this one step further, there is a better way of doing this, one that is about take off for those countries that have already signed up to Kyoto. Certain products and processes create more CO2 than others. Lets embark on the SC favourite pastime of creating a very simple analogy. Two countries exist side by side, country A is a nice clean country, their major product is writing software. Country B is more industrialised, their major product is power generation, and it supplies A with their electricity. Country A needs B's electricity to operate, bear with me Bill, lets assume that traditional oil/gas/coal is the only real and viable means of producing said electricity. You and I both know there are better uses for our resources, and better ways to generate zig zags. So what happens is each country is given CO2 'vouchers', based as you point out on their population. If country A wants to consume 'dirty' electricity, it has to pay money, and some of their CO2 vouchers to keep the lights on. So country B can still generate a relatively high proportion of CO2 per capita (beacause it gets more vouchers), but pressure will be on from B's customers to provide value for the vouchers. Of course if country A can get its electricity without using up its CO2 vouchers, it will go to that market, therefore it makes business sense to clean up country B's processes. Otherwise B's balance of trade suffers. Here's a real world example of the folks up in Archangel about to take advantage of the scheme... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4270921.stm The Russkies are going to use Kyoto to update their plants. This is good for everyone, and I reckon it will actually stimulate business in some areas. Even the likes of Halliburton benefit from this sort of plant upgrade, its what we specialise in here in Aberdeen, modernising and modifying 30+ year old plant (KBR). One other thing, I reckon the US will be part of this system before Dubbya's tenure is up. There is just too much pressure from the rest of the world not to be part of the scheme. Your balance of trade is already in the shitcan, just ask Kallend. People within this scheme will do business with each other, to the exclusion of those outwith it. Once the scheme gains momentum, those countries that haven't signed up will suffer. Some folks are saying jobs will be Dubbya's biggest challenge in the next 4 years, I reckon it will be addressing climate change issues, he just hasn't woken up to it yet.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #29 February 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteMe: Maybe you can't give a simple answer because you don't know it. You: Exactly that. As I am not the specialist on it, I see no other choice than trusting in all the folks trying to reduce pollion by whatever is needed. I do not mind what he said, your Big Chief. He simply is telling fine camouflaged lies like all politicians on irksome biz in order to avoid any losses in .. how to say ... making profit? We all know the statistics about pollution. These are facts printed black on white. Now that was an interesting response. You admit you don't know the details about the Koyoto protocol, yet you jump to the conclusion that the U.S. is wrong for not joining it. And you also jump to trust the people whose opinions fit your own, even though you've done no research to confirm their validity. And you automatically assume that Bush is lying for a profit motive, while once again accepting without question so-called statistical pollution facts. It's clear to me that your scientific method of analysis is lacking. All you're doing is believing in the things that you want to believe, and discarding everything else, regardless of facts. My reply referred to the "simple answer"-question, on that I do not have any a simple answer, nobody has as there is none. But feel free to read my answer however you like, do interpret as per your wish. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #30 February 18, 2005 QuoteThis is the two year olds argument - "they don't have to stand in the corner why should I?" Whats wrong with standing up and taking the lead on something that would beneficially affect everyone equally? It would not benefit everyone equally. 80% of the world would not have to follw the "rules". Anyone following the "rules" would be unable to compete in a global market. That would not be "equal". As I have said before, there is a balance between living in a shit hole due to polution, and being forced to live in a grass hut hunting with sharp sticks. You don't see that. QuoteSo we don't sign and watch with the other kids as other nations take a leading role in solving the worlds problems. Because it will create more problems for us, than them. You want clean air? Great we all do. However, I am not willing to run the US economy bankrupt to do that....You might be, I'm not. Im glad the President sees it more my way. We have PLENTY of things we can do to clean up the US. Why do we need to do it with other nations? Why can't we just do it ourselves, why do we have to be in a "club" to do it? And then even when we try to do better things, we get hit from our own side. Take Hybrid cars...CA wants you to get one, but they are now talking about taking you by the mile you drive, and not the gas you use? That makes no damn sense. What makes less sense is to have to join a "Club" to clean the environment....Particularly when the "club" has "rules" that will hurt our economy."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #31 February 18, 2005 Quote>Are you willing to pay $10 per gallon for gas? Absolutely! If cars all got 100mpg, most people's bills would go down even if gas cost $10 a gallon. Less fuel usage, less CO2, less cost to consumers - everyone wins. Unless you work for Exxon, of course. 1. Those cars do not exist yet. Are you willing to pay 10 for a gallon of gas till those cars are available? 2. What about those folks that can't afford those cars when they do come out? I can buy one, I bet you could too....But lets say I could not buy one...I drive 80 miles a DAY. I spend 75-100 bucks a week on gas. at 2.00 a gallon. That would be 500 bucks a week on gas. Now if I could not afford to pay that, and can't afford the new car, I am screwed. I bet there are more people who can't afford 10/gal gas or buy the new 100 MPG cars that there are folks that can. What about them? Welfare? Should the state buy them new cars?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #32 February 18, 2005 "Particularly when the "club" has "rules" that will hurt our economy. " The balance that you talk about is a good analogy Ron, its determining the right 'balance point' for your own economical conditions that is the tricky part. The concept of 'reasonable practicality' has to be applied. IE the cost of the mitigation must not outweigh the percieved benefits. Not being part of the 'club' could hurt you more in the long term, its certainly worth thinking about. Have a good one. Chat more next week, on a variety of subjects, no doubt....-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #33 February 18, 2005 QuoteParticularly when the "club" has "rules" that will hurt our economy. " The balance that you talk about is a good analogy Ron, its determining the right 'balance point' for your own economical conditions that is the tricky part. The concept of 'reasonable practicality' has to be applied. IE the cost of the mitigation must not outweigh the percieved benefits. Not being part of the 'club' could hurt you more in the long term, its certainly worth thinking about. I am sure that has been thought about...But I am also sure that it will be thought more about later. I don't see joining a group that does not have a single countries best interest at heart as a good thing. Free market will decide."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #34 February 18, 2005 I pay about $7 per gallon of 'gas'. I choose to drive a sports car that gets relatively poor mpg (about 35mph if I'm steady - yes that's considered poor in the UK). I could choose to drive a car which gets 80mph such as a Lupo. I could choose to drive a diesel and pay more like $4 per gallon. If I couldn't afford to pay $7 a gallon for 'gas' I'd either buy a vehicle that’s cheaper to run, drive less or take more public transport. The concept that Americans wouldn’t do the same is odd – it already happens all over the rest of the world. The reason the US didn't sign up to Kyoto is that things would have to change - people would have to stop polluting so badly. I can understand not wanting to change – it’s a pain in the arse and it’s nice not having to give a damn about the consequences of your actions. I don't want to change my life either – it's a perfectly understandable position to take. The only odd thing about it is the collective refusal to admit that the stance is going to have a negative effect on the other 6 billion people in the world. If the people simply said – "yeah it's gonna fuck up the rest of you, and we appreciate you all trying to limit pollution for the greater good of the planet as a whole, but frankly I really can't be arsed", at least then I could have a little respect for the position. Take for example my choice to drive a car which is more harmful to the environment than say Billvon's car. I'm quite happy to admit that I could be better... but I really like my car – fuck you! Now that’s a stance I can at least get on with; much better than fannying about by saying – "but, but American cars are worse" or "there's nothing I can do about it – I need a sports car to survive". Bollocks! Have your politicians stand up and tell the truth - the US pollutes because it suits it to and it doesn't give a damn about the consequenses; just like I polute by going skydiving and I don't give a damn if some tree hugger thinks I should stop. At least be open about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 February 18, 2005 QuoteIf I couldn't afford to pay $7 a gallon for 'gas' I'd either buy a vehicle that’s cheaper to run, drive less or take more public transport. The concept that Americans wouldn’t do the same is odd – it already happens all over the rest of the world. Part of that is population density. I live 40 miles from work. Where I live we have cows (and a DZ). I don't want to live in a city like NY, Philly, or London. I LIKE having grass around me, and where I can hear crickets. I COULD live closer, but the entire population living only in the cities creates more problems.... So Public Transportation will not work for me...It would take me 4 hours to get home from work. QuoteThe reason the US didn't sign up to Kyoto is that things would have to change Thats your opinion. Mine is that we don't want to join a group that will try and tell us how we can run our economy. They and maybe you are more for the ecology than the economy...Others are more for economy over ecology. There is a balance...The Kyoto treaty was not it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,172 #36 February 18, 2005 >1. Those cars do not exist yet. Are you willing to pay 10 for a gallon >of gas till those cars are available? Nope. But cars that get an average of 40mpg are now readily available, so until they are available, I'm fine with $4 a gallon. All we have to do is match BACT (best available commercial technology.) It's the standard the EPA currently uses when determining emissions limits. Once cars get to 100mpg, then I'm fine with $10 a gallon. >2. What about those folks that can't afford those cars when they do come > out? What about people who can't afford catalytic converters? They have PLATINUM in them! Hello! They must cost tens of thousands of dollars. If you require catalytic converters, only really rich people will be able to afford cars. What about people who can't afford computers in cars? Catalysts require computer control on cars, and everyone knows computers are hideously expensive. Requiring emissions controls will make cars so expensive that most people won't be able to afford them. What about people who can't afford airbags? If you mandate thousand-dollar safety systems no one will be able to afford cars. All those scary stories have been shown to be untrue, and were just arguments from car companies afraid of the future. And now here we are in 2005. All new cars have airbags, computers and catalysts. Americans own more cars than ever before. On a cost-adjusted basis, low end cars are cheaper than ever - even with all the new gadgets in them. 20 years from now, cars will get twice the mileage on average and be even more affordable. Maintenance costs will be lower since they won't have transmissions. The same thing will happen that has happened several times in the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,172 #37 February 18, 2005 >I LIKE having grass around me, and where I can hear crickets. That's great! But be aware that it is your choice, and the government has no obligation to support your choice by keeping gas prices low. >So Public Transportation will not work for me...It would take me 4 hours >to get home from work. I lived 55 miles from work when I worked in Manhattan. It took me about 80 minutes to get there by train. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,641 #38 February 18, 2005 Quotethe government has no obligation to support your choice by keeping gas prices low. Unfortunately, the "obligation" to current voters who buy gas is here now. Making the problem of cheap transportation an immediate one when gas doesn't HAVE to be expensive will be political suicide. Even if that means a far smaller long-term problem. Had Reagan not worked with Social Security in the 1980's we really would have had a crisis. But instead it's something to think about and keep on the radar. We're not in the same position with fossil fuels and pollution yet, but, well, we're getting there. And the sooner we do something that makes everyone sacrifice a little, the longer it will be before everything's irretrievably fucked up. Remember folks, we're talking about lifestyles in the US, and not lives. I'd rather do something a little painful now, than let it get worse. With our current set of politicians, that is unlikely. In too many places, short-term desires that will get votes are given a higher priority than longer-term needs that will hurt a little in the long run. And no, I don't like the thought of paying more for gas either. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #39 February 18, 2005 QuoteRemember folks, we're talking about lifestyles in the US, and not lives. so far... if things don't change our children will be talking lives though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #40 February 18, 2005 I LIKE having grass around me, and where I can hear crickets. Quote With the pollution produced by the US presently, how long do you expect to have (green) grass around you? QuoteThats your opinion. Mine is that we don't want to join a group that will try and tell us how we can run our economy.Quote Nice. And as the US never ever tried to control any other group of the world, leaving their mark on others BTW: You realize that we all are living on one planet, do you? Pollution s*** of the US is disturbing others, could that be? They and maybe you are more for the ecology than the economy...Others are more for economy over ecology. There is a balance...The Kyoto treaty was not it.Quote How short-sighted. One day, you will feet your prettly little cows with $$$ instead of fresh green grass? ROFLMAO I truly do believe that, in few simple words, you expressed the opinion of a nation regarding the(ir) environment, at least of nations Chefe. Scary. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #41 February 18, 2005 QuoteWhat about people who can't afford catalytic converters? They have PLATINUM in them! Hello! They must cost tens of thousands of dollars. If you require catalytic converters, only really rich people will be able to afford cars. There is a difference between the two things you are trying to compare. Requiring a catalitic converter was fazed in over years. And it DID NOT effect older cars. If gas prices jump from 2 to 10 dollars then those that have older cars will be punished. We did not make people with older cars go out and install CC on the cars. Your logic here is faulty. A comparison would have been possible if: A: You had an older car and had to go out and buy a CC and put it on. B: Only those that have the new cars have to pay 10 dollars a gallon for gas. But to make people with older cars buy the new gas...Does not make a comparison. Quote Once cars get to 100mpg, then I'm fine with $10 a gallon. Just because you are fine with it does not mean that everyone is. Quote20 years from now, cars will get twice the mileage on average and be even more affordable. Maintenance costs will be lower since they won't have transmissions. The same thing will happen that has happened several times in the past. And I am all FOR car companies getting better fuel economy and lower emissions. I am also for car companies making hybrid cars. I am a big fan of cars being more reliable and being worth more for the money. I am not a fan of someone other than the US making choices for the US. As I have said before...There is a balance. If the US citizens want better cars then free market or *US politics* will make it happen, I am not for International groups telling me how to run my life. I don't think they have my, or the US best interests at heart."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #42 February 18, 2005 QuoteHow short-sighted Short-sighted would be to sign the treaty and not think about the US's interests. Short-sighted would be to allow others to make the economic choices for the US. Short-sighted would be for the US to allow others to tell us how to run the US. QuoteOne day, you will feet your prettly little cows with $$$ instead of fresh green grass? ROFLMAO If we had followed the Kyoto treaty the cost of growning food would have gone up and many farmers would have gone out of business. I have a friend with a ranch. He has around 200 head of cattle, and 400 acres of Orange trees. I help him run the place, I fix fences, heard cattle to be de-wormed, taken to market, and help tend to the orange trees. Even with my FREE help he barely makes it. Oranges from Argentina are slowly running him out of business. He barely has enough to pay the taxes on the land every year. If it were not for some rental houses on the property and some billboards, he would have had to sell out years ago. If this treaty had been signed he would not have been able to continue to run the farm. He would have had to sell the land that has been in his family for 3 generations since he could not pay the taxes on it. This is the cost of allowing people outside the US to decide how the US run's it's business. Blindly going with the crowd would have been short-sighted. QuoteI truly do believe that, in few simple words, you expressed the opinion of a nation regarding the(ir) environment, at least of nations Chefe. Scary. You think its better to just go along with the crowd and ruin the economy? Do you think its OK for your kids to smoke since everyone else is doing it also?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,172 #43 February 18, 2005 >Requiring a catalitic converter was fazed in over years. And it DID NOT >effect older cars. If gas prices jump from 2 to 10 dollars then those that > have older cars will be punished. Not if it happened over 30 years. Cars don't last 30 years. (Unless you're a collector, and as any collector will tell you, collecting cars and keeping them running is an expensive proposition.) >If the US citizens want better cars then free market or *US politics* will > make it happen, I am not for International groups telling me how to run > my life. If a law was passed that said the new CAFE was 35mpg, why would you care if it came from the US or from the UN? Is it just that you hate the UN? That's a separate issue from how best to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. Also, as you are probably aware, if we did go with Kyoto, it would be because the US passes laws that enforce it. So fear not; even if we do implement Kyoto it will be US rather than UN laws you will be held to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #44 February 18, 2005 QuoteNot if it happened over 30 years. Cars don't last 30 years. (Unless you're a collector, and as any collector will tell you, collecting cars and keeping them running is an expensive proposition.) My brother has a nice 57 Chevy Belair, and a 69 Camero. I was looking at a 88 Porshe last year. For this to be the same, My brother would have had to but a CC on his cars, and I would have had to add airbags to the 9/11. I know something about classic cars...It does not cost that much. We are looking for a 57 Tbird for my Dads. Birthday. QuoteIf a law was passed that said the new CAFE was 35mpg, why would you care if it came from the US or from the UN? Is it just that you hate the UN? That's a separate issue from how best to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. I would care if it was the US deciding what is best for the US or someone else deciding what was best for them without respect to the impact it would have on the US. QuoteAlso, as you are probably aware, if we did go with Kyoto, it would be because the US passes laws that enforce it. So fear not; even if we do implement Kyoto it will be US rather than UN laws you will be held to. If it does not matter if we sign it...Then why bother? By agreeing to it then we are letting someone else make our choices. If we sign it, then don't do it, we look bad. If we don't sign it we look bad. If we don't sign it and we do it anyway you will find a way for us to look bad. I am all for tying to follow RECOMENDATIONS, but not allowing others to make our choices for us. My hatred of the UN is how they say do "X", but don't enforce it, and don't follow it themselves. A "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,172 #45 February 18, 2005 >If it does not matter if we sign it...Then why bother? Because agreeing voluntarily with other people to accomplish something is a good way to accomplish things. >By agreeing to it then we are letting someone else make our choices. No. We are agreeing voluntarily. The UN has not invaded us, or even threatened to invade us. It is our decision. >If we sign it, then don't do it, we look bad. If we don't sign it we look bad. > If we don't sign it and we do it anyway you will find a way for us to look bad. Nope! >My hatred of the UN is how they say do "X", but don't enforce it, and >don't follow it themselves. A "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. We say that torture and rape as political tools are bad, that you shouldn't support terrorism, that people shouldn't use WMD's against civilians. Yet we do (or have done) all those things. Would you have people judge us on them? Decide whether or not you want to support Kyoto (or any environmental proposal) based on the good it will do the world, not on your hatreds or your desire to destroy any countries/organizations. There is enough of that in the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #46 February 18, 2005 Quote>hatreds or your desire to destroy any countries/organizations. There is enough of that in the world. I think that both political parties in congress resoundingly voted to the effect that the Kyoto was considered exactly that - a desire by some countries to "hurt" the US specifically. (or at least get us to pay the tab for something all the countries should have pitched in on) Now the US could do the next step and make a counter-proposal instead of just step away from the table. I don't know if that happened or not. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #47 February 18, 2005 Quote>If it does not matter if we sign it...Then why bother? Because agreeing voluntarily with other people to accomplish something is a good way to accomplish things. It is not a better way than doing it on your own...There is nothing wrong with doing what you think it right without the approval of the UN. There is nothing wrong with ignoring the UN and doing what YOUR people want you to do. There IS something wrong with ignoring your people for what the UN wants. QuoteWe say that torture and rape as political tools are bad, that you shouldn't support terrorism, that people shouldn't use WMD's against civilians. Yet we do (or have done) all those things. Would you have people judge us on them? Sure! And they do already. Also soem of the "torture" you mention is use in Militray training. And the WMDs you speak of were 50 years ago to stop a war that was going to kill millions more if we had not used them. QuoteDecide whether or not you want to support Kyoto (or any environmental proposal) based on the good it will do the world, not on your hatreds or your desire to destroy any countries/organizations. There is enough of that in the world. How about we decide if we will support anything based on what WE as the UNITED STATES want, and not just accept anything the UN or anybody else wants? Just saying "The UN wnats it so it must be good" is very short-sighted. You think the UN cares about the US economy? Also notice that it was rejected by BOTH parties?...It did not get ONE vote. It clearly was not in the best interest of the US or SOMEONE in the US would have thought it a good idea and voted for it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,172 #48 February 18, 2005 >It is not a better way than doing it on your own . . . So it would be better for you to come up with a canopy-loading limit system, rather than USPA? After all, why should a DZ listen to USPA dictate what jumpers want to jump? >How about we decide if we will support anything based on what WE as >the UNITED STATES want . . . Because we are not that selfish. A great many people care what happens outside the US. Look at our response to the tsunami. We're starting to realize that there is a whole world outside our borders and that it affects us. We also realize that sometimes it's not OK to do damage to the rest of the world just to allow us to drive bigger vehicles, or burn trash. >Just saying "The UN wnats it so it must be good" is very short-sighted. Just as saying "anything the UN proposes must be to destroy the US" is short-sighted. A better approach would be to negotiate with the UN to get a proposal that does not unduly affect the US economy and still achieves the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. >You think the UN cares abotu the US economy? Since they get a lot of their money from us, and since we can veto proposals within the UN, I think they care a great deal indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #49 February 18, 2005 Quote>It is not a better way than doing it on your own . . . So it would be better for you to come up with a canopy-loading limit system, rather than USPA? After all, why should a DZ listen to USPA dictate what jumpers want to jump? Depends. We already have people coming up with their own systems... Again your logic is off. This would be like the USPA telling the DZO's that a 100 jump wonder can jump a 2.0 loaded Velocity, and the DZO having to let the guy jump cause the USPA said it was OK. But the DZO still has all the risk of a lawsuit, and none of the say so. BTW comparing the USPA to the UN is pretty good. Do you see much action from the USPA about canopy deaths? Do you think they are doing enough, or have the best answer? Why would the UN have the only way to approach polution? QuoteBecause we are not that selfish Bullshit. People inside the US should care about the US first. I would not want for the US to go to hell just to make the UN happy. Anyone that feels that way has a strange set of values. You have to take care of your family first. QuoteA great many people care what happens outside the US. Look at our response to the tsunami. OK, but that does not mean people in the US should do something that could have very bad effects in the US just to make the UN happy. Again your logic is off. You can care about the rest of the world, try to help the rest of the world and not allow the rest of the world to run your Country at the same time. The Kyoto treaty was bad for the US Senators agreed with that. QuoteWe're starting to realize that there is a whole world outside our borders and that it affects us. We have known about the rest of the world since before the Monroe Doctrine. Knowing about the rest of the world does not equal doing somthing that will hurt you to make the rest fo the world happy. Quote>Just saying "The UN wnats it so it must be good" is very short-sighted. Just as saying "anything the UN proposes must be to destroy the US" is short-sighted Stop trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that. It seems that US Senators agree with me that the Kyoto treaty was bad for the US. QuoteA better approach would be to negotiate with the UN to get a proposal that does not unduly affect the US economy and still achieves the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Give one reason the US needs the UN, or the Kyoto treaty to cut emissions. QuoteSince they get a lot of their money from us, and since we can veto proposals within the UN, I think they care a great deal indeed. Never seemed to shaw that yet. And many think the Kyoto treaty was a fiscal attack on the US."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #50 February 22, 2005 QuoteOK, how about this: Everyone can emit a given amount of CO2 based on their population. Period. The same for China, US, France etc. How could that get any more fair? That would be great for driving the modern world back into the stone age. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Ron 10 #41 February 18, 2005 QuoteWhat about people who can't afford catalytic converters? They have PLATINUM in them! Hello! They must cost tens of thousands of dollars. If you require catalytic converters, only really rich people will be able to afford cars. There is a difference between the two things you are trying to compare. Requiring a catalitic converter was fazed in over years. And it DID NOT effect older cars. If gas prices jump from 2 to 10 dollars then those that have older cars will be punished. We did not make people with older cars go out and install CC on the cars. Your logic here is faulty. A comparison would have been possible if: A: You had an older car and had to go out and buy a CC and put it on. B: Only those that have the new cars have to pay 10 dollars a gallon for gas. But to make people with older cars buy the new gas...Does not make a comparison. Quote Once cars get to 100mpg, then I'm fine with $10 a gallon. Just because you are fine with it does not mean that everyone is. Quote20 years from now, cars will get twice the mileage on average and be even more affordable. Maintenance costs will be lower since they won't have transmissions. The same thing will happen that has happened several times in the past. And I am all FOR car companies getting better fuel economy and lower emissions. I am also for car companies making hybrid cars. I am a big fan of cars being more reliable and being worth more for the money. I am not a fan of someone other than the US making choices for the US. As I have said before...There is a balance. If the US citizens want better cars then free market or *US politics* will make it happen, I am not for International groups telling me how to run my life. I don't think they have my, or the US best interests at heart."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #42 February 18, 2005 QuoteHow short-sighted Short-sighted would be to sign the treaty and not think about the US's interests. Short-sighted would be to allow others to make the economic choices for the US. Short-sighted would be for the US to allow others to tell us how to run the US. QuoteOne day, you will feet your prettly little cows with $$$ instead of fresh green grass? ROFLMAO If we had followed the Kyoto treaty the cost of growning food would have gone up and many farmers would have gone out of business. I have a friend with a ranch. He has around 200 head of cattle, and 400 acres of Orange trees. I help him run the place, I fix fences, heard cattle to be de-wormed, taken to market, and help tend to the orange trees. Even with my FREE help he barely makes it. Oranges from Argentina are slowly running him out of business. He barely has enough to pay the taxes on the land every year. If it were not for some rental houses on the property and some billboards, he would have had to sell out years ago. If this treaty had been signed he would not have been able to continue to run the farm. He would have had to sell the land that has been in his family for 3 generations since he could not pay the taxes on it. This is the cost of allowing people outside the US to decide how the US run's it's business. Blindly going with the crowd would have been short-sighted. QuoteI truly do believe that, in few simple words, you expressed the opinion of a nation regarding the(ir) environment, at least of nations Chefe. Scary. You think its better to just go along with the crowd and ruin the economy? Do you think its OK for your kids to smoke since everyone else is doing it also?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,172 #43 February 18, 2005 >Requiring a catalitic converter was fazed in over years. And it DID NOT >effect older cars. If gas prices jump from 2 to 10 dollars then those that > have older cars will be punished. Not if it happened over 30 years. Cars don't last 30 years. (Unless you're a collector, and as any collector will tell you, collecting cars and keeping them running is an expensive proposition.) >If the US citizens want better cars then free market or *US politics* will > make it happen, I am not for International groups telling me how to run > my life. If a law was passed that said the new CAFE was 35mpg, why would you care if it came from the US or from the UN? Is it just that you hate the UN? That's a separate issue from how best to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. Also, as you are probably aware, if we did go with Kyoto, it would be because the US passes laws that enforce it. So fear not; even if we do implement Kyoto it will be US rather than UN laws you will be held to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #44 February 18, 2005 QuoteNot if it happened over 30 years. Cars don't last 30 years. (Unless you're a collector, and as any collector will tell you, collecting cars and keeping them running is an expensive proposition.) My brother has a nice 57 Chevy Belair, and a 69 Camero. I was looking at a 88 Porshe last year. For this to be the same, My brother would have had to but a CC on his cars, and I would have had to add airbags to the 9/11. I know something about classic cars...It does not cost that much. We are looking for a 57 Tbird for my Dads. Birthday. QuoteIf a law was passed that said the new CAFE was 35mpg, why would you care if it came from the US or from the UN? Is it just that you hate the UN? That's a separate issue from how best to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. I would care if it was the US deciding what is best for the US or someone else deciding what was best for them without respect to the impact it would have on the US. QuoteAlso, as you are probably aware, if we did go with Kyoto, it would be because the US passes laws that enforce it. So fear not; even if we do implement Kyoto it will be US rather than UN laws you will be held to. If it does not matter if we sign it...Then why bother? By agreeing to it then we are letting someone else make our choices. If we sign it, then don't do it, we look bad. If we don't sign it we look bad. If we don't sign it and we do it anyway you will find a way for us to look bad. I am all for tying to follow RECOMENDATIONS, but not allowing others to make our choices for us. My hatred of the UN is how they say do "X", but don't enforce it, and don't follow it themselves. A "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,172 #45 February 18, 2005 >If it does not matter if we sign it...Then why bother? Because agreeing voluntarily with other people to accomplish something is a good way to accomplish things. >By agreeing to it then we are letting someone else make our choices. No. We are agreeing voluntarily. The UN has not invaded us, or even threatened to invade us. It is our decision. >If we sign it, then don't do it, we look bad. If we don't sign it we look bad. > If we don't sign it and we do it anyway you will find a way for us to look bad. Nope! >My hatred of the UN is how they say do "X", but don't enforce it, and >don't follow it themselves. A "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. We say that torture and rape as political tools are bad, that you shouldn't support terrorism, that people shouldn't use WMD's against civilians. Yet we do (or have done) all those things. Would you have people judge us on them? Decide whether or not you want to support Kyoto (or any environmental proposal) based on the good it will do the world, not on your hatreds or your desire to destroy any countries/organizations. There is enough of that in the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 February 18, 2005 Quote>hatreds or your desire to destroy any countries/organizations. There is enough of that in the world. I think that both political parties in congress resoundingly voted to the effect that the Kyoto was considered exactly that - a desire by some countries to "hurt" the US specifically. (or at least get us to pay the tab for something all the countries should have pitched in on) Now the US could do the next step and make a counter-proposal instead of just step away from the table. I don't know if that happened or not. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #47 February 18, 2005 Quote>If it does not matter if we sign it...Then why bother? Because agreeing voluntarily with other people to accomplish something is a good way to accomplish things. It is not a better way than doing it on your own...There is nothing wrong with doing what you think it right without the approval of the UN. There is nothing wrong with ignoring the UN and doing what YOUR people want you to do. There IS something wrong with ignoring your people for what the UN wants. QuoteWe say that torture and rape as political tools are bad, that you shouldn't support terrorism, that people shouldn't use WMD's against civilians. Yet we do (or have done) all those things. Would you have people judge us on them? Sure! And they do already. Also soem of the "torture" you mention is use in Militray training. And the WMDs you speak of were 50 years ago to stop a war that was going to kill millions more if we had not used them. QuoteDecide whether or not you want to support Kyoto (or any environmental proposal) based on the good it will do the world, not on your hatreds or your desire to destroy any countries/organizations. There is enough of that in the world. How about we decide if we will support anything based on what WE as the UNITED STATES want, and not just accept anything the UN or anybody else wants? Just saying "The UN wnats it so it must be good" is very short-sighted. You think the UN cares about the US economy? Also notice that it was rejected by BOTH parties?...It did not get ONE vote. It clearly was not in the best interest of the US or SOMEONE in the US would have thought it a good idea and voted for it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,172 #48 February 18, 2005 >It is not a better way than doing it on your own . . . So it would be better for you to come up with a canopy-loading limit system, rather than USPA? After all, why should a DZ listen to USPA dictate what jumpers want to jump? >How about we decide if we will support anything based on what WE as >the UNITED STATES want . . . Because we are not that selfish. A great many people care what happens outside the US. Look at our response to the tsunami. We're starting to realize that there is a whole world outside our borders and that it affects us. We also realize that sometimes it's not OK to do damage to the rest of the world just to allow us to drive bigger vehicles, or burn trash. >Just saying "The UN wnats it so it must be good" is very short-sighted. Just as saying "anything the UN proposes must be to destroy the US" is short-sighted. A better approach would be to negotiate with the UN to get a proposal that does not unduly affect the US economy and still achieves the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. >You think the UN cares abotu the US economy? Since they get a lot of their money from us, and since we can veto proposals within the UN, I think they care a great deal indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #49 February 18, 2005 Quote>It is not a better way than doing it on your own . . . So it would be better for you to come up with a canopy-loading limit system, rather than USPA? After all, why should a DZ listen to USPA dictate what jumpers want to jump? Depends. We already have people coming up with their own systems... Again your logic is off. This would be like the USPA telling the DZO's that a 100 jump wonder can jump a 2.0 loaded Velocity, and the DZO having to let the guy jump cause the USPA said it was OK. But the DZO still has all the risk of a lawsuit, and none of the say so. BTW comparing the USPA to the UN is pretty good. Do you see much action from the USPA about canopy deaths? Do you think they are doing enough, or have the best answer? Why would the UN have the only way to approach polution? QuoteBecause we are not that selfish Bullshit. People inside the US should care about the US first. I would not want for the US to go to hell just to make the UN happy. Anyone that feels that way has a strange set of values. You have to take care of your family first. QuoteA great many people care what happens outside the US. Look at our response to the tsunami. OK, but that does not mean people in the US should do something that could have very bad effects in the US just to make the UN happy. Again your logic is off. You can care about the rest of the world, try to help the rest of the world and not allow the rest of the world to run your Country at the same time. The Kyoto treaty was bad for the US Senators agreed with that. QuoteWe're starting to realize that there is a whole world outside our borders and that it affects us. We have known about the rest of the world since before the Monroe Doctrine. Knowing about the rest of the world does not equal doing somthing that will hurt you to make the rest fo the world happy. Quote>Just saying "The UN wnats it so it must be good" is very short-sighted. Just as saying "anything the UN proposes must be to destroy the US" is short-sighted Stop trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that. It seems that US Senators agree with me that the Kyoto treaty was bad for the US. QuoteA better approach would be to negotiate with the UN to get a proposal that does not unduly affect the US economy and still achieves the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Give one reason the US needs the UN, or the Kyoto treaty to cut emissions. QuoteSince they get a lot of their money from us, and since we can veto proposals within the UN, I think they care a great deal indeed. Never seemed to shaw that yet. And many think the Kyoto treaty was a fiscal attack on the US."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #50 February 22, 2005 QuoteOK, how about this: Everyone can emit a given amount of CO2 based on their population. Period. The same for China, US, France etc. How could that get any more fair? That would be great for driving the modern world back into the stone age. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
