Save the planet! For $25,000!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

AL GORE has a story he wants to tell the world. But it will cost you a thousand dollars to hear it.

In a passionate attack on the climate policies of Prime Minister John Howard and US President George Bush, the former US vice-president, addressing a very expensive lunch in Sydney yesterday, called Australia and the US "the Bonnie and Clyde" outlaws of the global environment for their failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr Gore called on Australia to change course on Kyoto and its climate policies, saying if it did "it would be impossible for the United States to withstand the pressure" to join the rest of the world in ratifying Kyoto.

Labor under Kevin Rudd has promised to ratify the protocol while Mr Howard is adamantly opposed to it and is backing Mr Bush's efforts to find a "post-Kyoto accord".

Mr Gore made his comments after reporters were asked to leave the lunch venue. Despite the cost, lunch in the 700-seat room at the Sydney Convention Centre was a sell-out, as is tomorrow's event in Melbourne. VIP packages, which included a spot close to Mr Gore and a meet-and-greet with him, cost $25,000.

With Liberal Party members allegedly warned off attending, yesterday's lunch was something of a Labor Party affair. Mr Gore paid tribute to two Labor Bobs present — Hawke and Carr — praising the former for the hole-in-one he hit while playing with Mr Gore earlier in the day, and the latter for his commitment to the environment.

Mr Gore earlier met NSW Premier Morris Iemma, who brought with him Maxine McKew, Labor's candidate in the federal seat of Bennelong, who also attended the lunch. Ms McKew said that Mr Gore was well informed about Australian politics and knew of her run for the Prime Minister's seat.

"He said to me, 'I've been talking to Bob Hawke about you, and I've been reading about you.' "

After his salutations, Mr Gore got down to business. The ballooning world population and the dizzying pace of technological change had helped turn mankind into an environmental "bull in a china shop", he said.

That the world's population had quadrupled in the past 100 years partly explained this. Technological change had also had a significant impact on "this shell of the environment that surrounds our planet".

He went on: "In the last three weeks, the amount of ice melting in the Arctic has been completely unprecedented. In only six days an area the size of the US state of Florida disappeared; in the week before that, an area almost twice the size of Britain disappeared.

"It's melting 10 times faster than previously recorded. Experts are now saying that if we don't act with urgency, the entire ice cap could be completely gone in less than 23 years."

Mr Gore said that despite all the scientific evidence about climate change, inaction still ruled among governments and business.

Raising his voice almost to a shout, he said climate change was not scientific, political or ideological.

"It's about survival."

What a crock! Does anybody even listen to this guy anymore? I wonder if he took his G-5 there to speak. If this Kyoto Accord is so damn good answer me this. Why is that India and China are not required to change there output of CO2 but everybody is up our ass to sign this thing.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[billvon 3,107]

>Why is that India and China are not required to change there output of
>CO2 but everybody is up our ass to sign this thing.

Because we emit far more than either of them do, and because we have options. Right now they don't - they burn coal or they freeze to death. That will change in the future, but right now we are capable of reducing our CO2 emissions, and they're not.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Because we emit far more than either of them do,

Have you ever been to Hong Kong and smelled that place. The air there make LA look like Disney World.

Quote

That will change in the future, but right now we are capable of reducing our CO2 emissions, and they're not.

Thats sounds like a cop out! They cant, or just told the rest of the world to F&$K OFF!

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[billvon 3,107]

>Have you ever been to Hong Kong and smelled that place. The air
>there make LA look like Disney World.

Yes, I have. Sounds like you are confusing CO2 with particulate pollution.

>They cant, or just told the rest of the world to F&$K OFF!

Have you ever been to rural China? If you had, you'd realize that the choices they are facing are not to buy the cheap or the more efficient air conditioner. It's burn coal or freeze.

[Para_Frog 1]

Even the Union of Concerned Scientists data (which is unquestionably politically biased) has China surpassing us by about 2012.

However,

Their current data cannot be validated due to the restrictions that exist within China to outside scientific observations.

Their data should reflect that variance.

If it did - I assure you China's output would already exceed ours (which has begun to stabilize).

Yet the US is universally attacked as the bad guy. That's bullshit. China is completely unregulated in every industry unless market forces dictate otherwise (Mattel).

I'm not excusing our responsibility, but we acknowledge it as a country. I just wish the left would pile on China for a change.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[Para_Frog 1]

You're penalizing us in the court of public opinion for being industrialized.

The reason rural China is so short on options is due to their opressive government. THAT could be changed if as many people spent time motivating political change in China as there are slamming the US.

They were "modern" before the US even existed.

Al should point his G-V East.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[billvon 3,107]

>Their current data cannot be validated due to the restrictions that
>exist within China to outside scientific observations.

We have the same restrictions, and no utility reports their CO2 emissions. So we estimate in both cases based on fuel burned. And in all cases we are emitting more than China.

>I'm not excusing our responsibility, but we acknowledge it as a country.

Nonsense. So far our response has been "fuck you, world!" whenever the issue comes up.

[billvon 3,107]

> You're penalizing us in the court of public opinion for being industrialized.

Nope. We should do what we can. We can do more than China.

>The reason rural China is so short on options is due to their
>opressive government.

And the reason we emit so much CO2 is that we have a shortsighted capitalist system that cares only about profit. But we like it that way.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Why is that India and China are not required to change there output of
>CO2 but everybody is up our ass to sign this thing.

Because we emit far more than either of them do, and because we have options. Right now they don't - they burn coal or they freeze to death. That will change in the future, but right now we are capable of reducing our CO2 emissions, and they're not.

China is believed to have already caught up with the US, so the "far more" bit is false.

Argue on the population delta if you like, but a solution that doesn't involve China (and its massive coal burning) is doomed to fail for practical and political reasons.

[billvon 3,107]

>China is believed to have already caught up with the US . . .

I think that's believed primarily by the anti-kyoto activists who are longing for someone else to blame! But I agree that China will someday pass us - and that will be a very happy day for the deniers.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>China is believed to have already caught up with the US . . .

I think that's believed primarily by the anti-kyoto activists who are longing for someone else to blame!

Given the rising middle class and the continued reliance of coal burning power plants, it's not surprising.

The other point stands - they must be part of the solution. They stand to be the #2 super power very soon.

[billvon 3,107]

>The other point stands - they must be part of the solution.

Right now they cannot be. In the future they will, once they have our ability to make changes to their energy sources.

If someone is struggling to survive, they will not have the luxury of deciding to forego coal and buy an electric heater (especially if they have no electricity.) If someone is buying a new house in a development, they have the choice whether or not to get a gas or oil furnace. Right now there are far more of the first type in China than there are here. That won't always be true, of course.