Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
UN beleives that natural disaters aren't natural; Blames America for them
Topic Started: Jan 21 2005, 02:41 PM (1,008 Views)
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Because it's about 5 degrees outside. :D
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Its colder than that here and my views are unchanged. Global warming is a misleading term in that people think everywhere is going to get warmer all of a sudden. What really happening is that global average temperatures are rising. That may mean it gets hotter where you live, it might mean that we see extreme heat events like the summer of 2003 in Europe, it might mean we get more severe and more frequent storms and extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts even extreme cold, because of the extra energy in the atmosphere and changing climate patterns.

I truely believe that if we do not do something about emissions we are going to have an event equal in history to the fall of the Roman Empire and the end of the classical period. ie Human civilisation will be set back a 1000 years.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
ds9074
Jan 22 2005, 03:30 PM
CV6 Enterprise
Jan 22 2005, 09:11 PM
somerled
Jan 22 2005, 01:38 AM
I like the idea of
Quote:
 
The end-game of the insurance industry, like that of the U.N. , is to be able to blame natural disasters on global warming so that it also can eventually seek compensation for its losses from U.S. businesses and taxpayers.
, now that would be a treat , and maybe, just maybe , changes in how these business and the USA's government behave might come about. Nothing like raiding the bank account to get someone's attention. Hey, just market forces at work there.

The United States has some of the lowest emmisions per person than anyother country. Why don't you harp on Mexico, or parts of Asia or Aferica? They polute much worse than the United States per person. You anti-Americanism is blinding you agian.

I'm sorry but your plain wrong. The USA has some of the HIGHEST emmissions per person than any other country.

METRIC TONS OF CO2 PER CAPITA (2000)
[selected countries numbers refer to ranks in full table]
(Source: Secretariat of the UNFCCC, http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi...7&fID=my&cgID=)

1. Qatar - 70.1
2. Netherlands Antilles - 46.2
3. Bahrain - 28.8
4. Kuwait - 21.34
5. UAE - 20.9
6. Aruba - 20.6
7. USA - 20.6
10. Canada - 18.71
11. Australia - 18.21
25. Netherlands - 10.91
27. Israel - 10.5
28. Germany - 10.41
31 Japan - 9.81
33. UK - 9.31
39. New Zealand - 8.11
50. South Africa - 7.4
72. Mexico - 4.3
100. China - 2.2

Your anti-UN feelings are blinding you again.

What about those six countries ahead of us? Why not have them cut emmisions?

One of the reasons that the US has such high emmisions, according to your chart, is because we have such a large industrial background. We also need cars. Unlike a lot of countries, we just can't hop on a trian or bus and go to the store. I had to drive twenty miles to school.

The reason we haven't signed on for Kyoto is because, as Americans, we don't like being told by organizations what to do. We happen to like our sovereignty. The United States is making steps to cut emmsions. Ford is, or has, come out with a gas/electric SUV (I think a version of the Explorer, I'm not sure) We have also been trying to build renewable energy sources. This one company wants to put a wind farm off the coast of Massachuses, but the liberals that live on the coast or vaction there, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, have put a stop to it. (but Kerry wanted to but one in Iowa, which I don't mind, it's a source of revenue, it just shows what Kerry thinks. That he wants it put in 'fly-over' country, but God no, not where anybody important lives) Some environmentists are also opposed to windmills because birds fly into them and get kill (To which I say, if they're dumb enough to fly into it, they deserve to die.) Solar panals warm up the surrounding area, so the environmentalist are against that. We can't build dams because fish can't flow freely. Can't build nuclear power plants because there is the slightest risk of radiation leaks. Can't even build new oil refineriers or power plants with the new emmision controls (For some reason, it seems like it's cheaper to build entirely new plants than upgrade older ones that are getting run down)

But the short of it is, we American's don't like subjecating our soveriegnty to someone else.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
DS,

I was joshing, as you must know. But as for your position, I submit that there is evidence on boths sides of the fence. It comes down to whose authority you (or I, or anyone) choose to believe. In other words, the data is not incontrovertible. For my own part, the data is unconvincing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Fesarius
Jan 22 2005, 03:48 PM
^^^
I was joshing, as you must know. But as for your position, I submit that there is evidence on boths sides of the fence. It comes down to whose authority you (or I, or anyone) choose to believe. In other words, the data is not incontrovertible. For my own part, the data is unconvincing.

exactly how I feel. (BTW, you might want to remove the ^^^'s ;) )
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I did--thanks. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I agree the data is case is not 100% proven but with each year that passes I believe it strengthens. Additionally the precautionary principle comes into play. Yes it will cost us to cut emissions, maybe we didnt need to, but if we dont and we did we could be looking at the end of civilisation as we know it.

Those 4 countries ahead of you should cut their emissions. Country 33 should cut its emissions. However as the largest single polluter in overall terms its crucial that the USA cuts its emissions as well. Why should we be doing our bit while you carry on polluting.

Quote:
 
One of the reasons that the US has such high emmisions, according to your chart, is because we have such a large industrial background. We also need cars. Unlike a lot of countries, we just can't hop on a trian or bus and go to the store. I had to drive twenty miles to school.


Other countries such as Japan, Germany and the UK have large industrial bases. They have lower emissions per capita. Yes lots of people need cars and cleaner car technology is very important. Also important is putting into place policies to reduce car use. So you do actually create public transit networks and take measures to promote cycling etc. If you look at any level of government in Britain you will see they have such policies, whether they are effective or not is something we debate, but they have them.

I'm afraid this is a global problem and this is GOING TO HAVE TO BE some intergovermental working on this. Carbon Dioxide emitted from a US factory doesnt reach the Canadian border and stop. Your actions are having an effect on me, as are mine on you, therefore this has to be tackled beyond the state level.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
let me throw something out - I don’t necessarily believe it or think its right.


If this issue is so important to the rest of the world, why do they not try to entice the US to adopt it? Lets not be naive, the reason the US does not want to adopt it while other countries do is because we have more to lose by its inception and with out irrefutable proof of its reason we are reluctant to take one of the biggest hits by it. Further not being naive, a lot of the push by other nations for the US to adopt it is because they want to see us take the hit, a hit for us is a gain for them. Now these other countries rightly or wrongly feel since the US is the supper power we should be willing take the hit with no or little compensation. We on the other hand find that to obviously be unfair.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
ds9074
Jan 22 2005, 03:59 PM
I agree the data is case is not 100% proven but with each year that passes I believe it strengthens. Additionally the precautionary principle comes into play. Yes it will cost us to cut emissions, maybe we didnt need to, but if we dont and we did we could be looking at the end of civilisation as we know it.

Those 4 countries ahead of you should cut their emissions. Country 33 should cut its emissions. However as the largest single polluter in overall terms its crucial that the USA cuts its emissions as well. Why should we be doing our bit while you carry on polluting.

Quote:
 
One of the reasons that the US has such high emmisions, according to your chart, is because we have such a large industrial background. We also need cars. Unlike a lot of countries, we just can't hop on a trian or bus and go to the store. I had to drive twenty miles to school.


Other countries such as Japan, Germany and the UK have large industrial bases. They have lower emissions per capita. Yes lots of people need cars and cleaner car technology is very important. Also important is putting into place policies to reduce car use. So you do actually create public transit networks and take measures to promote cycling etc. If you look at any level of government in Britain you will see they have such policies, whether they are effective or not is something we debate, but they have them.

I'm afraid this is a global problem and this is GOING TO HAVE TO BE some intergovermental working on this. Carbon Dioxide emitted from a US factory doesnt reach the Canadian border and stop. Your actions are having an effect on me, as are mine on you, therefore this has to be tackled beyond the state level.

The United States is doing stuff to cut emmsions. We just don't seem to be moving as quickly as the rest of the world would like. Lets face it, though, with a burracracy like our government, it takes time. We also don't like the government forcing industries to change habits by law. Instead, we give them incentives, like tax credits for upgrading thier plants. Some states, like Califorina, I think, give tax credits to those that buy hybrid cars. Not everyone in the U.S. can afford a brand new hybrid car. Just like not every company can afford to drasticly change their production ways overnight. Doing so could run them out of business, lay people off, and create a huge economic problem.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Dandandat
Jan 22 2005, 04:27 PM
let me throw something out - I don’t necessarily believe it or think its right.


If this issue is so important to the rest of the world, why do they not try to entice the US to adopt it? Lets not be naive, the reason the US does not want to adopt it while other countries do is because we have more to lose by its inception and with out irrefutable proof of its reason we are reluctant to take one of the biggest hits by it. Further not being naive, a lot of the push by other nations for the US to adopt it is because they want to see us take the hit, a hit for us is a gain for them. Now these other countries rightly or wrongly feel since the US is the supper power we should be willing take the hit with no or little compensation. We on the other hand find that to obviously be unfair.

I could agree with that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Why shouldnt the European Union be compensated for going ahead with emissions reductions when US firms are not going to be forced to comply with such strick rules? We also have a lot to loose, but we potentially have a lot more to loose by doing nothing.

As for the solution? I agree with James Lovelock a leading UK environmentalist. Renewables are not going to arrive quickly enough or supply enough power to solve the problem. Very very stringent limits on energy consumption will ruin our economies. THE ONLY solution we have readily avaliable which can provide enough power carbon free is nuclear. We have to start building nuclear stations and encouraging people to switch to electricity as a power source from these nuclear stations.

Lovelock himself recognises the hazards of nuclear but in his option the risk from global warming is far far greater.

The ONLY body that can shoulder the risk and massive startup capital of building a nuclear electricity grid is Government. The public sector must build the plants.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Fesarius
Jan 22 2005, 04:35 PM
^^^
Because it's about 5 degrees outside. :D

Brrrr.....

You can keep that ! I'll stick with our 30 degrees C and 95% humidity (we've just had some boom crash opera (don't often get a storm in the middle of the day , hail the size of peas and bigger), been building up since yesterday, was positively tropical last night (very steamy and sticky out and about).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
CV6 Enterprise
Jan 22 2005, 04:47 PM
ds9074
Jan 22 2005, 03:30 PM
CV6 Enterprise
Jan 22 2005, 09:11 PM
somerled
Jan 22 2005, 01:38 AM
I like the idea of
Quote:
 
The end-game of the insurance industry, like that of the U.N. , is to be able to blame natural disasters on global warming so that it also can eventually seek compensation for its losses from U.S. businesses and taxpayers.
, now that would be a treat , and maybe, just maybe , changes in how these business and the USA's government behave might come about. Nothing like raiding the bank account to get someone's attention. Hey, just market forces at work there.

The United States has some of the lowest emmisions per person than anyother country. Why don't you harp on Mexico, or parts of Asia or Aferica? They polute much worse than the United States per person. You anti-Americanism is blinding you agian.

I'm sorry but your plain wrong. The USA has some of the HIGHEST emmissions per person than any other country.

METRIC TONS OF CO2 PER CAPITA (2000)
[selected countries numbers refer to ranks in full table]
(Source: Secretariat of the UNFCCC, http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi...7&fID=my&cgID=)

1. Qatar - 70.1
2. Netherlands Antilles - 46.2
3. Bahrain - 28.8
4. Kuwait - 21.34
5. UAE - 20.9
6. Aruba - 20.6
7. USA - 20.6
10. Canada - 18.71
11. Australia - 18.21
25. Netherlands - 10.91
27. Israel - 10.5
28. Germany - 10.41
31 Japan - 9.81
33. UK - 9.31
39. New Zealand - 8.11
50. South Africa - 7.4
72. Mexico - 4.3
100. China - 2.2

Your anti-UN feelings are blinding you again.

What about those six countries ahead of us? Why not have them cut emmisions?

One of the reasons that the US has such high emmisions, according to your chart, is because we have such a large industrial background. We also need cars. Unlike a lot of countries, we just can't hop on a trian or bus and go to the store. I had to drive twenty miles to school.

The reason we haven't signed on for Kyoto is because, as Americans, we don't like being told by organizations what to do. We happen to like our sovereignty. The United States is making steps to cut emmsions. Ford is, or has, come out with a gas/electric SUV (I think a version of the Explorer, I'm not sure) We have also been trying to build renewable energy sources. This one company wants to put a wind farm off the coast of Massachuses, but the liberals that live on the coast or vaction there, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, have put a stop to it. (but Kerry wanted to but one in Iowa, which I don't mind, it's a source of revenue, it just shows what Kerry thinks. That he wants it put in 'fly-over' country, but God no, not where anybody important lives) Some environmentists are also opposed to windmills because birds fly into them and get kill (To which I say, if they're dumb enough to fly into it, they deserve to die.) Solar panals warm up the surrounding area, so the environmentalist are against that. We can't build dams because fish can't flow freely. Can't build nuclear power plants because there is the slightest risk of radiation leaks. Can't even build new oil refineriers or power plants with the new emmision controls (For some reason, it seems like it's cheaper to build entirely new plants than upgrade older ones that are getting run down)

But the short of it is, we American's don't like subjecating our soveriegnty to someone else.

Quote:
 

1. Qatar - 70.1 
2. Netherlands Antilles - 46.2
3. Bahrain - 28.8
4. Kuwait - 21.34
5. UAE - 20.9
6. Aruba - 20.6

1,3,4,5,6 and I suspect 2 are all massive oil exporters. In fact that is just about the only industry they have (though I believe UAE and Qatar have other industries such as some heavy industry ie iron and steel, aluminium , for their internal consumption).

Only way for them to cut back on their carbon emissions is for the bottom to drop out of the oil market, ie the west to stop using their oil and products that are derived from oil , ie kero, plastics, petrol, bunker oil and diesal. This is going to have to happen and so the reason why we see such high oil prices now, plus wars and industrial disputes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
What we know for certain is that we will have to stop using oil in the quantities we are. Personally I think as stocks begin to decline we will see the price of oil rise to such a high level that demand collapses and that shock will be what causes other energy sources to become economically viable.

Eventually I could see the US going down the nuclear electric route, it has the space to locate plants away from major urban areas, but it will only happen when conventional energy supplies become prohibitivley expensive.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
ds9074
Jan 23 2005, 02:07 PM
Eventually I could see the US going down the nuclear electric route, it has the space to locate plants away from major urban areas, but it will only happen when conventional energy supplies become prohibitivley expensive.

Actually, we're having all the prisioners that have life or long term setences ride staionary bike hooked up to generators :D
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus