434 2 #1 December 14, 2007 "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress in Bali." The greatest nation when it comes to consume energy: It is time to get your head out of the sand! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7143613.stm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 December 14, 2007 "The U.N. estimates 47,000 tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants will be pumped into the atmosphere during the 12-day conference in Bali, mostly from plane flights but also from waste and electricity used by hotel air conditioners. If correct, Goodall said, that is equivalent to what a Western city of 1.5 million people, such as Marseilles, France, would emit in a day. But he believes the real figure will be twice that, more like 100,000 tons, close to what the African country of Chad churns out in a year." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/342281_bali05.html Wake up, indeed. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #3 December 14, 2007 The stable/declining population countries of Europe are all very smug in their willingness to commit to fixed reduction targets. For the US, Canada, and Australia (whether their new PM knows it or not) to do the same while third world competitors are not constrained is not feasible. I would be willing to see Canada commit to per capita reductions, but with the highest population growth in the first world we will otherwise have to limit immigration to those who bring their carbon credits with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #4 December 14, 2007 And there will be more meetings since there is no willingnes to come up with an agreement! This retoric is so typical for someone who is guilty! If their next meeting will be a cybermeeting I would aploud that ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 December 14, 2007 Oh, yes. A Cybermeeting. But then, how would you be able to travel to Bali? Or Valencia? Or Rio? Or Sydney? From the meeting in Bali - "Hey, guys. Let's meet in, um, Maui - so we can discuss climate change. Let's really hope we can make an agreement. Gentlemen from Japan? You have a suggestion?" "Yes. Manila! Lots of prostitutes!" "But we can get the same thing in Amsterdam - anything." "Okay. First Manila, but we mustn't agree. Then Amsterdam. We'll decide in Manila where to go next. Uh, Mr. Gore - is there a problem?" "No, good gentleman from Japan. I was concerned that my Gulfstream couldn't make it. But, Ron Burkle told me if I ever needed his 767 I could use that." "Then let it be agreed. Gentleman from the Bush admin. A comment?" "Why don't we web conference and save a bunch of money and time and energy?" "Shut up, Bushie! Global warming is your fault, anyway. We need to fix it in person!" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #6 December 14, 2007 If not run via video, these conferences should be held on a boat in the Artic... not in flash expensive hotels and conference centres. These junkets do not set the right and credible example for the rest of the world. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martin-o 0 #7 December 14, 2007 Does it really matter where they meet? You seem to be good at destructive arguing, wonder where you learned that? Can't we all try to lift the issue of the survival of human kind slightly above that level, please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #8 December 14, 2007 QuoteDoes it really matter where they meet? Yes, if the actual environmental cost of shipping the delegates and their entourage of sycophants costs as much as it does!! (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #9 December 14, 2007 Quote"The U.N. estimates 47,000 tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants will be pumped into the atmosphere during the 12-day conference in Bali, mostly from plane flights but also from waste and electricity used by hotel air conditioners. If correct, Goodall said, that is equivalent to what a Western city of 1.5 million people, such as Marseilles, France, would emit in a day. But he believes the real figure will be twice that, more like 100,000 tons, close to what the African country of Chad churns out in a year." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/342281_bali05.html Wake up, indeed. Approx. 1,000 tons of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere daily in Chicago alone, by cars waiting unnecessarily at red traffic lights when there is no traffic on the cross street. Ban traffic lights!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martin-o 0 #10 December 14, 2007 If you look deep into your soul, could the western world ever morally argue that we have the inherent right to use more resources in the future, just because we did so in the past? There might be some imperfections in the Kyoto protocol but at a truly moral level we in the west are taking more of the cake then we deserve. As usual. In this sense the Kyoto protocol is a steal for the US, but instead of seeing it as one the US choose to be the spoiled kid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #11 December 14, 2007 Ban all Mooneys! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #12 December 14, 2007 Carbon dioxide is a naturally occuring gas. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #13 December 14, 2007 Yes it is, and wait when China, India, europe, africa, australia etc consume as much as an american does! How much energy do Las Vegas consume in one day? We have to change now, and hope it is enough time left to do so! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #14 December 14, 2007 > If they consume CO2.. that could save the world (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #15 December 14, 2007 Quote > If they consume CO2.. that could save the world hehe for sure that would help alot, but god nows what they would let out instead! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #16 December 14, 2007 QuoteIf you look deep into your soul, could the western world ever morally argue that we have the inherent right to use more resources in the future, just because we did so in the past? There might be some imperfections in the Kyoto protocol but at a truly moral level we in the west are taking more of the cake then we deserve. As usual. In this sense the Kyoto protocol is a steal for the US, but instead of seeing it as one the US choose to be the spoiled kid. Here's a thought. We'll let the rest of the world tell us how much we can pollute our own country, and we'll adjust our food production accordingly. Look at all of the fuel we could save not using those tractors to grow food, those trucks to haul it to the ports, the ships to get it to other countries. How long before you think they would start crying 'foul'? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martin-o 0 #17 December 14, 2007 Thats an innovative argument: You must destroy the environment (everyones... not just yours) so that you can ship some burgers... it's for our own good. Hmm... Kind of far fetched don't you think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #18 December 14, 2007 >How long before you think they would start crying 'foul'? About a month after all the US farmers strung you up for putting them out of work! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #19 December 14, 2007 as long as the oil companies and their spin-off corporations run this country, nothing will change. TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 December 14, 2007 QuoteThats an innovative argument: You must destroy the environment (everyones... not just yours) so that you can ship some burgers... it's for our own good. Hmm... Kind of far fetched don't you think? No, you mustn't "destroy" it. "Damage" it? You bet. EVERYTHING is a give and take. Froe xample, ecological damage is increasing because of increased demand for ethanol. It turns out people are clearcutting jungles to plant palms. And her ein the US - planting more corn would be awesome, but we better find a way to get more water for it. Ther eis ALWAYS a give and take. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #21 December 14, 2007 >EVERYTHING is a give and take. Froe xample, ecological damage >is increasing because of increased demand for ethanol. It turns out people >are clearcutting jungles to plant palms. Palms aren't used for ethanol. Were you thinking sugarcane in Brazil? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 December 14, 2007 Sorry. I was thinking Palm il biodiesel. I've been having MANY of these little slips lately. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #23 December 14, 2007 > Sorry. I was thinking Palm il biodiesel. Ah, OK. Your underlying sentiment is still correct. There is no free lunch. (Other than solar, and that still requires the panels to begin with.) We have to be careful with any new technology, both so that we don't damage the environment irreparably and so that we don't put ourselves in exactly the same position we are in now. (Biodiesel would be great, but if it all comes from plantations in Venezuela, we haven't made much progress on energy independence.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martin-o 0 #24 December 14, 2007 I'm just arguing that the reason that the united states doesn't sign the Kyoto protocol is purely for selfish reasons. Trying to make the case that it is for the progression of the rest of the world is just silly. Just to clarify: I'm not trying to say that the rest of the world is morally superior. I'm simply saying that the previous argument is bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #25 December 14, 2007 QuoteI'm just arguing that the reason that the united states doesn't sign the Kyoto protocol is purely for selfish reasons. Or maybe we think the Kyoto isn't worth the paper it is written on. How much has things changed since they signed it? How much has it helped?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
