The environment

[Cloud No.9]

no it's a world wide reduction in co2 levels to 1990 levels, not just for first world countries.

it works like this. third world countries need to increase co2 levels right now as they are still having the industrial revolution and do not have the technology that we do to make the a clean process for them. so to make up for this we reduce our co2 levels by more than they increase their's thereby leaving us with a loss in co2 levels to the 1990 levels. this process is then continued and when the third world countries they too then drop co2 levels and everyone is happy. it's not an attack on america it's a fair way of not flooding and killing millions while letting developing countries develop. you may not like it because it sees your fat wallet go a little bit thinner and you may not be able to buy that new oversized tv. now that is a shame puts the great plight of little timmy the african boy who hasn't eaten for 8 days right in persepctive that does. never mind kyoto i've just realised how harsh this entire thing is for america.

and what "real threats" do you have which are more important than making this planet inhospitable?

america has horrific food wastage in both it's industry and homes. wasted food = wasted money = money that could have been spent not killing this planet off.

are you really in the mind set that kyoto will destroy your country? cripple you and put you on your knees?

this argument is not about harming the us it's about not destroying this planet which i guess will harm the us (which i'm all for when i realise how disregardent it is on matters such as this). so meh you're gonna be dameged what ever way you look at it i guess.

i live in a country that isn't the richest nation in the world and we are pulling it off nicely thank you very much. not on our knees with a crippled economy. noone has answered me why if scotland can manage it so effeciently why can't a nation as big, powerful and rich as america follow an example of a country as small as mine?

[ShunNakamura]

noone has answered me why if scotland can manage it so effeciently why can't a nation as big, powerful and rich as america follow an example of a country as small as mine?

Exactly... Wind power is not all that powerful, and while it works EXTREMELY well for countries with lower power usage it woudl be much much more difficult(even with our "bigger" wallets) in a large extremely power hungry country such as the US... just about the only thing that can really satisfy the power thirst the US has are what we currently have(and even then it isn't great) or a form of nuclear power.

I am personally for Nuclear Fusion... I don't care for pollution.. the lung damage that is possibly to be dealt from it is far from worth it. Not to mention any other effects pollution has.

[lordblazer]

Alaska is not the big thing to worry about, because it is just one of the consequences of a larger problem, as nikotine stated, and that is oil dependence. Through human history, we have been depending on renuwable substances, until now, where we have started absuing the use of fossil fuels, and well, the whole damn economy seems to depend on the lowering and rising of oil prices, because everything works under the use of this fuel. In class we were talking about how human culture has developed through times on the use of different types of natural resources, and about the whole paradoxes found in several ecological ethical theories, and anyway, the whole thing on the fossil fuel came up, obviously. One of my class comapanions said something like "Professor, I believe that even though the current situation is terrible, humans will end up being able to adapt to the dangers of this decadence, and that the market will obviously develop alternative energy sources as a way to keep itself away from his own destruction".

The teacher replied "It's not like I do not believe human intelligence exists, it's simply that I don't believe or trust the market".

Neither do I.

Well with that i think these oil companies are rising the gas prices in america mainly due to the fact that they are about to abandon oil completely and they're tryin to make money before that happens.In america i think we have had a prosperious period.We might just hit antoher depression but i might be saying too much.

[lordblazer]

the ozone layer is a layer of o3 in the atmosphere which is pretty damn good at stopping lots of nasty stuff like radaitiona and uv rays. also creates heat loss which is jolly nice for a planet which is heating up.

the greenhouse is totally unrelated and is caused mostly by carbon oxides. same kind of stuff you breath out. normally the cycle went like so. air expired- plants take it in-make new-oxygen-breath in some more.

worked well when all that was expelling co2 was animals not cars and power stations in huge amounts. also helped when you weren't busy destroying the rain forests. so it builds up sitting happily in the atmosphere reflecting back heat which was gonna escape. so the planet heats up. this is global warming.

there is also something known as global dimming which is when heat was blocked out by air pollution and things like jet exhaust trails. (sept 12-14 2001 showed a great upsurge in average temperatures across the world) this for a time slowed down global warming. but we decided to cut down on air pollution so got rid of global dimming and so global wamring is now much faster than predicted.

the sequence would work like this for the global warming. world slowly heats up and ice caps slowly melt, gulf stream is cut off, heat deprived to europe and it freezes. southern hemisphere though would continue to heat. at the bottom of the sea there is a material who's name can't quite come to mind (it was on panorama or horison for anyone who saw it). this material is very sensitive to temperature and at the point where the temperature of the earth reaches a consistent 5 degrees higher for a length of a few years these deposist will be expelled from the sea as gas into the atmosphere. the gas released is 100 times more effective at the greenhouse effect than co2 and there are a few million tons of the stuff down there. which is a bugger. at this point there is no turning back. plant life will die due to intense heat or cold. this won't be another ice age. that was slow. animals evolved. animals don't eveolve in 50 years. so with the planet fast heating up. billions upon billions of animals and plants dead what then?

we are doomed to this fate until you put down that bloody gas can. stop burning all that bloody coal and gas and do something about it. america's view on this is sickening. a constant reactionist soceity. i have two hopes in this, that either america in the next few years turns around, agrees to kyoto and drops it's co2 levels dramtically. or come 50 years it suffers immensly for it's crimes against this planet and rues the day when it says it would never happen.

and i'm not sure as to the claim of cfc's being hugely a part of volcano's as far as i am aware and was taught that human releaseof the gas far out weighed volcano eruptions same is true with co2 and sulphur.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

goes other the various gases released by volcanos.

all i can say on that is We survived an ice age before.WE can do it again.The last Ice Age changed how animals lived and really climate has a big effect on evolution.Heck our ancestors who experienced the ice age can be traced back a thousand generations. so really We are more advance I think we can pull off.OR abandon our cradle we call earthand go into space.Set up colonies.

side coment:you scare me you mad eit sound like its the end of all existence.

[Sasquatch]

I'm tired of the "you can afford it, so hand it over" mentality. There's a reason people are rich, there's a reason countries are rich. People/countries should not be forced to give things up just because they can. Not only is there a public outcry to tax the working (and thus, higher class) people in this country, there's an international outcry to rob the richest countries.

In short, if you can't do something yourself, you might appreciate help. You might even expect it. But don't bitch about it when you don't get as much as you want, because nobody has to help you.

[Cloud No.9]

sasqutch - so america should roll it's fat ass around in it's wealth while the rest of the world starve? you lack any kind of compassion in the slightest you would happily watch millions die so you can line your wallet.

global warning is a far greater problem than the ice age because of the speed it is developing, before animals could survive as it was pregressional, evolve slightly and we got used to it as it wasn't a dramatci change. gloabal warming will not work as the ice age did, the ice age was a cyclic event which happens very slowly global warming will change this earth in less than 50 years. that is why it is such a huge problem and can not just be said to be "one of those things".

ShunNakamura - america may have a larger population and so more enegery demands but it also has more land space, more money and better technology and investment for such things. it would just need to be done on a bigger scale for a bigger nation.

i skimmed through this thread again and noticed someone claiming coal power releases more radiation than nuclear power. the burning of hyderocarbons produces 3 things energy, carbon and water. neither of which (carbon can become radioactive in various isotopes but such ones are rare)

what america is doing right now instead of walking past the begger on the street and not saying anything, he is now stopping and giving him a good quick kicks in the face, stealing his money and spitting on him for being a dirty old begger. find some charity in your god forsaken souls and country and stop suffering from short arms and deep pockets and do something for the good of mankind and this planet for once.

[lordblazer]

sasqutch - so america should roll it's fat ass around in it's wealth while the rest of the world starve? you lack any kind of compassion in the slightest you would happily watch millions die so you can line your wallet.

global warning is a far greater problem than the ice age because of the speed it is developing, before animals could survive as it was pregressional, evolve slightly and we got used to it as it wasn't a dramatci change. gloabal warming will not work as the ice age did, the ice age was a cyclic event which happens very slowly global warming will change this earth in less than 50 years. that is why it is such a huge problem and can not just be said to be "one of those things".

ShunNakamura - america may have a larger population and so more enegery demands but it also has more land space, more money and better technology and investment for such things. it would just need to be done on a bigger scale for a bigger nation.

i skimmed through this thread again and noticed someone claiming coal power releases more radiation than nuclear power. the burning of hyderocarbons produces 3 things energy, carbon and water. neither of which (carbon can become radioactive in various isotopes but such ones are rare)

what america is doing right now instead of walking past the begger on the street and not saying anything, he is now stopping and giving him a good quick kicks in the face, stealing his money and spitting on him for being a dirty old begger. find some charity in your god forsaken souls and country and stop suffering from short arms and deep pockets and do something for the good of mankind and this planet for once.

First of all cloud No.9 your immature get out of this discussion now is my advice.First of all how the hell are you gonna stereotype a country and its inhabitants?I'm not fat but im american and im not stupid.Argue over the enviroment not a "bash on americans because I'm british".I hate people like that and they are ignorant fools who really can't debate on it,but can show a lot of passion.I means thats like me blaming the UK because the industrial revolution started there.Please refrain from bashing a country because even though america does emit the most polution doesnt mean every part of the country is polluted or doesnt mean its our fault.All 1st world countries have to accept responsibility.If anything you need to be blaming OPEC.Do you know what they do?They inflate the market and get as much cash out of it as possible.Its very very expensive for a company that was in natural resources to start getting into alternative fuel.Why you ask? Because in America and in a lot of other countries people have this mentallity of getting something thats cheaper.When alternative fuels first start off its gonna be very expensive and next to no one will buy into it.Alternative fuels is too risky of a investment.Companies who do it as you can see how gas prices has risen well i think these oil companies are gonna use there extra cash to invest a little bit into alternative fuels. But right now investing in alternative fuels is very risky.Mainly because of how the World Market operates.

[Skogs]

I think that Clould No. 9 has a point. Being the richest country, America does have a responsibility to set an example. It'll be a test of the nation's character as to what kind of example it wants to present. It's seems a pretty lousy attitude to think that, 'well, everyone else is polluting, so why shouldn't we?'.

Part of the problem with environmental politics is that environmental policy is a long-term strategy, whereas governments never stay in power very long. A true environmental policy looks decades down the line, not just until the next election.

And with regards to renewables, they will run out. It may be in 50 years, it may be in 500. It's basic chemistry - hydrocarbons take millenea to form - we're burning them at a far raster rate that that at which they form. But when they do, it'll be the country that has cut its dependance on them that's going to have the upper hand.

And with regards to the ozone and the greenhouse effect, yes, they are different. And as for the ozone layer hole, why do you think it formed after the use of CFCs were introduced? And now that they're banned's its reducing in size, but it'll take years to close - estimate in 2050.

The thing about CFCs, is that even at low concentrations, they can have drastic effects. They don't get degraded (they act as catalysts) when they disrupt the ozone/oxygen cycle, so they just hang around, causing havoc in the stratosphere.

And on top of that, it has 6000-7000 times the capacity to cause global warming than carbon dioxide.

Here's a graph of the size of the ozone hole, spanning the years from 1979-2003


The people who want to believe that we are not having an adverse effect on the environment remind me of cancer patients who've noticed a lump, but are too scared to go see the doctor. Sure, reducing our dependance on pollutiong technologies may hurt a bit. But surely avoiding the potential consequences of pollution is worth the cost? To me, it seems irresponsible, and really just plain stupid.

[Sasquatch]

I think that Clould No. 9 has a point. Being the richest country, America does have a responsibility to set an example. It'll be a test of the nation's character as to what kind of example it wants to present. It's seems a pretty lousy attitude to think that, 'well, everyone else is polluting, so why shouldn't we?'.

So we should think, "Well, we're one of the highest manufacturing countries, but we should have the lowest pollution, thus lowering our profits, losing jobs, and worsening the economy, while other countries pollute all they want?" Of pollution was so big of an issue, why are some countries allowed to pollute while others aren't?

The purpose of the Kyoto treaty wasn't to reduce pollution, it was to reduce manufacturing, especially in America.

[lordblazer]

I'm siding with Sas on this one.The economy in the USA is next to crap the only job in a lot of rural towns is walmart or some factory.Farmers go through a cycle of debt.There are homeless people some of whom who has a PHD and jsut can't get a job in urban areas.REally to find a job besides a fast food resturant is literally a true bless in USA right now.To tell us to lower manufacturing while other countries can pollute all they want is kinda dumb.Now if it involved all industrial countries then i'm for it.No one hasnt even mentioned how polluted China is. I mean heck most of there rivers dont even go out into the ocean they are either dried up or some color it shouldn't be.There is toxic dust storms in its capital.But hey lets all bash USA for all the world's problem with the enviroment.

[Sasquatch]

I'm siding with Sas on this one.The economy in the USA is next to crap the only job in a lot of rural towns is walmart or some factory.Farmers go through a cycle of debt.There are homeless people some of whom who has a PHD and jsut can't get a job in urban areas.REally to find a job besides a fast food resturant is literally a true bless in USA right now.To tell us to lower manufacturing while other countries can pollute all they want is kinda dumb.Now if it involved all industrial countries then i'm for it.No one hasnt even mentioned how polluted China is. I mean heck most of there rivers dont even go out into the ocean they are either dried up or some color it shouldn't be.There is toxic dust storms in its capital.But hey lets all bash USA for all the world's problem with the enviroment.

Well thanks for the agreement, but I would definitely have to disagree with the first part of that post. In America, there is no excuse for somebody to stay poor and jobless, not one.

Other'n that, in reference to the fact that Kyoto would have only hurt the U.S. economy and more people would lose jobs, there is no reason that stricter guidelines should be placed on the United States industry than on any other.

[edczxcvbnm]

Other'n that, in reference to the fact that Kyoto would have only hurt the U.S. economy and more people would lose jobs, there is no reason that stricter guidelines should be placed on the United States industry than on any other.

It would hurt the USA more than any other country but the USA also pollutes more than any other country but leaps and bounds. The guide lines are the same. It just ends up hurting more because the USA got out of control.

[Cloud No.9]

i'm sorry but how would renenewable energy casue jobs loses? wind tubines, tidal power generators, solar panels, wave power generators, dams, they all build and run themselves? renewable energy is a new industry to replace one that has to die anyway and renewable energy possibly requires more people. kyoto doesn't encourage less manufacturing it encourages cleaner manufacturing and to make it cleaner you need technology and someone to build that so there#s some more jobs for you there.

lordblazer personal snide comments are not allowed on this forum so politely do stop it, it's not the first time you are guilty of this. i'm not stereotyping american by calling it fat. it is. highest rate of obesity in the world. compared to all other countries throughout the globe america is fat.

as the world's only super power is not right that it should have an obligation to do more than scotland, or even ethiopia to protect this earth?

[lordblazer]

I'm siding with Sas on this one.The economy in the USA is next to crap the only job in a lot of rural towns is walmart or some factory.Farmers go through a cycle of debt.There are homeless people some of whom who has a PHD and jsut can't get a job in urban areas.REally to find a job besides a fast food resturant is literally a true bless in USA right now.To tell us to lower manufacturing while other countries can pollute all they want is kinda dumb.Now if it involved all industrial countries then i'm for it.No one hasnt even mentioned how polluted China is. I mean heck most of there rivers dont even go out into the ocean they are either dried up or some color it shouldn't be.There is toxic dust storms in its capital.But hey lets all bash USA for all the world's problem with the enviroment.

Well thanks for the agreement, but I would definitely have to disagree with the first part of that post. In America, there is no excuse for somebody to stay poor and jobless, not one.

Other'n that, in reference to the fact that Kyoto would have only hurt the U.S. economy and more people would lose jobs, there is no reason that stricter guidelines should be placed on the United States industry than on any other.

actually sas i was with you even in the first statement.I was stating the problems we have in america right now.Which i meant if USA was to slow down manufatctoring we might go into a minor depression.

and Cloud yes im saying as america is the world's only remaing super power we shouldn't have to do double the work the UK has to do in protecting the enviroment.I mean we are already doing a lot right now.AOver a dozen comapnies has invested in alternative energy sources and even a few big energy companies has done this. OGE has been investing in windmill and solar power for quite a long time(OGE is a local energy company in my area).People are dooing we like your country is are busting there butts over this.And your asking for us to just cut a lot of things.These cuts will screw up our economy.I'm sorry but im 17 about ot turn 18 and im not getting screwed over byt he economy before i even had a chance at the markets.

[Cloud No.9]

i'm sory but i'm still missing how creating a new exportable and lasting industry which would create thousands of jobs is in anyway bad for the economy or the people.