European Floods- It's all my fault

[Caffeine Socialism]

Why should we not sign the Kyoto Protocol if it leaves out other polluters? Getting rid of ANY pollution is a good thing. Just because one nation is allowed to pollute more than another doesn't mean that everyone should pollute because of fairness. Can Bush be any more childish? I doubt it, but the future should prove me wrong.

 

[coastie]

That is not the only reason we didn't sign the Kyoto treaty.

The treaty itself was poorly written. The US may be one of the world's largest polluters, but it is also very proggressive in enviromental standards and research.

The absence of the US sheild on the treaty does not mean that US does not plan to take a very active role in the environmental issues of concern today.

The biggest problem is not Globalization but finding a way to attain a sustainable way of life.

While it is evident that the oil companies do have portions of congress and the house in a strangle hold, all sorts of research are under way to create a plan to at the very least control the Global Warming trend.

The World doesn't need a poorly written treaty to do that.

 

[Lacmeh]

coastie, you are aware of the fact, that the leader of the US blatantly denies , that Global warming occurs? How can USA be leading in research of alternative fuelled cars, when the leader of the nation denies global warming?
Are there any machines fuelled by alternative means in daily usage in agriculture for instance? Is using alternative fuel supported by government via i.e. tax grants to those, who chose this?
I see a very huge lack of absence of USA in environmental issues. Do you have catalysators for optimal burning in your cars? Do your cars use less than 10 litres in 100 kilometers? Do you have in the cities a viable tram, bus and underground transportation system? Or do you have to use the car if you want to go anywhere?

 

[coastie]

coastie, you are aware of the fact, that the leader of the US blatantly denies , that Global warming occurs? How can USA be leading in research of alternative fuelled cars, when the leader of the nation denies global warming?

I didn't say that the US is leading in the research, because I don't know if they are. But research is undeniable. Please read my previous posts in this thread. I did a lot of research for you.

Click here

Bush DOES acknowledge global warming.

Are there any machines fuelled by alternative means in daily usage in agriculture for instance? Is using alternative fuel supported by government via i.e. tax grants to those, who chose this?

Yes there are... there is some serious research out there to use fuels made from a form of proccessed corn, however, the fuel is not yet cost effective enough for wide spread use. But the research is underway.

I see a very huge lack of absence of USA in environmental issues.

Then you need to do a little more research.

Do you have catalysators for optimal burning in your cars?

Yes.

Do your cars use less than 10 litres in 100 kilometers?

I'm not familiar with metric units.

My wife's car gets 30 miles to the gallon and the newer hybrid cars which are getting more and more common can get somewhere around 70 miles to the gallon. I'm pretty sure that that is much better than 100 kilometers to 10 litres.

Do you have in the cities a viable tram, bus and underground transportation system?

New York has a subway which sees millions of riders a day.

San Diego has a Trolley and a huge network of busses that go all over town and all of the way to Mexico.

Seattle has a network of underground busses and is working on a plan to build an inner city train system.

San Francisco has the BART which is the major feeding train to almost every town and community in the Bay Area.

These are the only major American cities that I've been in, but most have some type of subway of train system.

Almost every small town in the US has has a bus system. My home town which only had around 14,000 people had it's own bus system.

Or do you have to use the car if you want to go anywhere?

You have to understand the number of people there are in this country. Many use cars simply because it's more comfortable, even though it costs much more to use. That's why the hybrid cars are getting so popular.

Currently Ford, Chevy, Honda, Toyota all have hybrid designs.

Pontiac, Kia and Oldsmobile are also currently working on the design and manufacture of these vehicles.

Also, almost every maker has desgined very fuel efficient vehicles that get anywhere from 28 to 40 miles per gallon of gasoline without the hybrid design.

I'd say that's pretty good.

PLEASE... I IMPLORE YOU... read my previous posts on the second page of this thread... I spent a lot of time researching this for you.

 

[coastie]

I did the conversion.

My wife's car gets 30 miles per gallon.

The ratio you gave me was 10l:100k

the equals 2.6 gallons to 62 miles.

My wife's car does a little better than that. And her car is relatively inexpensive and a very common sight on the highways.

 

[Lacmeh]

Well, then technology in Europe is far advanced, because biological diesel is already used in tractors and other agricultural machines.
Are catalysators optional or a must? I don´t have the time to wiggle through all the US laws, I have enough to do with the EU waste laws
Perhaps I am mistaken in this, but I have the impression, that the US is vastly lacking within the waste legislation. As far as I know, waste does in the eye of the law change ownership once given to a depositor in the US. This is a huge impediment to force companies to get rid of their waste properly and hold them accountable for proper disposition.

Bush´s comment to global warming: "Das ist unsinnig". Feel free to go to www.worldlingo.com and translate this sentence from German into English. You can look up the article at:
http://www.krone.at/index.php?[url].../archiv/nkz0208/20020821_viele_weltteile.html[/url]

 

[coastie]

Well, then technology in Europe is far advanced, because
biological diesel is already used in tractors and other agricultural machines.

great... the US bows to Europe's superiority.

Are catalysators optional or a must?

Called catalytic converters and yes they are required in order to pass smog tests.

I don´t have the time to wiggle through all the US laws, I have enough to do with the EU waste laws

Well then what's the point in discussing this if you aren't willing to do the research?

Perhaps I am mistaken in this, but I have the impression, that the US is vastly lacking within the waste legislation. As far as I know, waste does in the eye of the law change ownership once given to a depositor in the US. This is a huge impediment to force companies to get rid of their waste properly and hold them accountable for proper disposition.

What are you saying?

That the waste management companies are in capable to managing waste?

Who better can manage waste than a waste management company?

Every one has to pay to have their waste desposed of. It isn't free to anyone.

There are strigent rules in waste disposal in the US. I've been all over south America where companies just pretty much take their garbage out into the nearest body of water and dump it.

I think they are the ones you need to worry about, not the US where if a company tried to dispose of waste in that manner they'd end up with some extremely hefty fines not to mention law suits.

Bush´s comment to global warming: "Das ist unsinnig". Feel free to go to www.worldlingo.com and translate this sentence from German into English. You can look up the article at:

You must be kidding me... you seem to speak english just fine, you translate it to English or spanish if you want.

I'm not going to pay to have it translated.

Regardless, you didn't even read my link did you? It was a speach given by the President talking about global warming and steps on how to address the problem.

But I honestly do not think that it matters.

If you think that the US is full of huge polluting Trucks that coudln't even pass a smog check, and everyone just throws their garbage into one big hole in the outskirts of town and there are no trains and subways or busses, and we revel at the thought of depleting the ozone layer, and goff at the thought of some alien term called "global warming" then you really need to

1. come to the US and see for yourself or
2. do some research before making accusations.

otherwise... I see no point.

One thing about some Europeans and Americans alike is that they place themselves on this pedestal and look down on the rest of the world thinking that they are so superior.

Here's my question though... How do you know without doing the research?

 

[coastie]

i just wanted to point something out... Canada decided not to sign the Kyoto treaty too now.

The reason the Premier gave:

It's like getting a mortgage on a house when you don't even know where or what the house is.

 

[Lacmeh]

Well coastie, what research is there to do?
We already know, that the average temperature has risen over 1 degree Celsius in the last hundred years.
We already know, that Carbon Dioxide reflects the infrared light.
Now there are three opinions.
One:
The human generated Carbon Dioxide is causing the unproportional rising of average temperature.
Two:
Ther is so much Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere already, human generated has nothiung to do with it.
Three:
There is no global warming at all, all the measurements are pure bull...

No amount of research will be enough for people to swing to opinion one. There is nothing you can research upon. You only can measure the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the air, since it can only be done recently we have no reference how much there was 100 years ago. You can build comptuer models, but since weather is dependant on so many factors, well you aren´t able to build a real life model. Othwise the weather predictions would not err so often.

The point is, we all have only one earth. We can´t leave earth behind yet, to go to another planet. If the possibility exists, that our doings permanently upset the thing we are most dependant on, like the weather, common sense would dictate to stop doing harmful things asap. But then, when people fear to lose money common sense is the first thing, they shut down.
The Kyoto protocol would not harm any nation financially. It just would shift money out from the oil industry to alternative means of gaining energy for cars.

 

[coastie]

What you aren't understanding is that by research, it isn't meant scientific research on whether it does or does not occur, it's research into the cost effectiveness of signing the treaty.

I have given you plenty of reason why some nations believe that the treaty is ill-conceived and will end up wasting money.

Money can be better utilized by continuing funding current projects inplace to stop or curb global warming. Before we end up going in circles discussing something that seems to be terra ingonita for you, I believe that this discussion has run it's course.

 

[Lacmeh]

What incentive is there to fund alternative sources of energy?
oil is cheap, you know where to find it, how to work.
As long, as we don´t limit ourselves to the usage of oil in its current form, there will be no significant funding for alternative means.
The Kyoto treaty limits the usage of oil through output of exhaust gas. Which is the most sensible thing to do.
I se the Kyoto treaty as insurance for further generations. we have no way to prove or disprove, that we cause global warming and earth will keep getting warmer in the future. Likely there will be no fire in my flat. Nonethless I have an insurance covering that instance. I am paying for this kind of insurance. We have to make sure, that future generations will have the same living quality on thi splanet than us at least. But most people don´t see past their noses, when the effects of global warming will get worse, they will long be dead, so why should they limit themselves now?

It´s all about limiting the now for the future. Like in your own private little world, when you limit yourself to buy things for your kids, just on a grander scale.

 

[coastie]

Thanks for the lecture in environmental ethics...

But you are missing the point.
I agree that a new treaty needs to be drafted...it is important to have global cooperation, but the panel of legislative authors needs to be broadened for it to have a adequate cost-effectiveness.

 

[Lacmeh]

This is not environmental ethics, coastie.
Any corporation will do things the cheapest way. Customers will buy things, that are cheaper. I am the same. If you aren´t a millionaire, your budget is limited. Therefore you buy the things, that fit into it.
Beside that, for the years since industrial revolution the industrial states have leeched off the ones mining the natural ressources. We pay very low prices for the natural goods. That´s on what our wealth os built upon. No industrial nation must be complaining about how unfair it is, to limit themselves now more than the other nations. New technology is very expensive. Environmental protection is very expensive. Nations we leech upon can´t afford them. Now we rich nations demand that they buy and use the same technologies we do. Otherwise we won´t use them either. In the meantime, the nature´s balance is upset more and more.
One has to begin. Given history, IMO it should be us.

 

[Kiwi]

Lacmeh, I read some of your posts and they are very interesting and well thought through, you obviously have a good head on your shoulders. Keep it up.

 

[coastie]

Lacmeh,

What does any of what you just said have to do with the discussion?

Yes, I agree that global environmental conservation legislation is important, and I ABSOLUTELY agree that it can't be done without sacrafice.

But you are trying to convince me of something I already know. And it's a new argument. It's pointless, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

It's time to let it go.

Given history, IMO it should be us.

Us who?

I thought you weren't an American...

No, forget it... I don't care, this stuff never ends, I make a point and you'll pick something out of it to preach to me about, and I'll respond, then you'll find some other unwitting line of questioning to follow. I'm baffled.

You win by shear persistence... hats off to you.

 

[Lacmeh]

coasirte I am not American, I am an Europrean.
With us i mean the first world, especialyz the g8 nations, extended, the european union, USA, perhaps Russia and parts of China and India.