So what does that say when we produce more greenhouse gases than anyone else?
No China with it’s 1.3 BILLION people. Not India with it’s 1 BILLION people. The good old USA with “only 330 million”.
By gosh, you must be right! Until they hold up their end of the bargain and produce 4 and 3 times respectively more than we do, let’s blame them! :roll:
So we should damage our economy first then, is that it?
Of course them when our economy is toast who will China an India sell too? Hmmmm.
Then when the worlld economy crashes we’ll all be burning wood to keep warm and then the trees will be gone
and then who will be able to afford to clean up the mess?
This is what my computer model says will happen.:p:p
China is putting on line one new coal fired power plant a week.
They are a rapidly expanding economy hungry for power generation. “True believers” should demand China be part of any proposed “solution”. (Still looks anti-West to me)
Why are they so quite on this issue?
Who caused the global warming that ended the ice age? The United States?
Aren’t you Republicans telling us, ad naseum, that the economy is the strongest it’s been in years? Surely the good old Republican, look out for big business, economic policies can deal with a little thing like a reduction in greenhouse gases. After all, with the billions US corporations are saving by shipping US jobs and manufacturing overseas, it should be easy to institute some reforms. Right?
Once again, with over 4 times our population, we are still the #1 producer of greenhouse gases. Spout what China is doing all you like, but until they produce even equivalent amounts as the USA, that argument doesn’t hold water.
Nope. Does that mean we are not helping it right along now?
No substance hear only raw emotion, hate and contempt.
Please so the math. Jeffrey. Your agreement with the proposed “solutions” will not do anyone any good if they are followed and will harm untold millions.
The warming and cooling of the earth will happen with or without us. Who is to say that the present climate conditions are normal, or optimum?
Can’t have it both ways. “Economy Strong” when trumpeting your economic policies. “Economy Fragile” when denigrating the opposing parties policies. It’s one or the other. Can’t be both.
1.3 Billion = More than 300 Million
Largest producer of greenhouse gases = More than any country that produces less
Seems like pretty simple math to me.
Not I. But lots of people much smarter than me seem to think it’s an issue. And since I’m not willing to gamble my grandchildren or great-grandchildrens lives to find out, I guess I’ll go along with what they say.
Let’s see if this is clearer-The ecomomy is strong but it won’t be if we do what Al Gore and his acholytes want us to do. It’s really that simple.
That will be but a memory if we do what Al Gore wants us to do. Again, it’s really that simple.
I also am not willing to gamble my grandchildren’s lives on insufficient evidence. Again, It’s really that simple. When the science is confirmed, provable and devoid of political motivation and it can be demonstrated that we can have a positive effect by changing our energy use then we will have something to talk about. Resist the call for immediate action and the dire warnings of catastrophe. The sky is not falling and we have time to figure out the best course of action IF it’s needed.
What is Gore proposing to do that’s going to break this robust economy? I’m all ears…enlighten me!
I understand the current administrations opposition to a call for alternatives to oil. I’d call a complete opposition to alternatives a conflict of interest in regards to our current administration, but I’m just a silly liberal. What do I know?
Taxing CO2 emissions? Seems to work well for Norway. Their oil industry seems to have managed quite well to cut their emissions to avoid the tax penalty.
Rewarding innovation in technology? I’d think the Right would love this. After all, it creates jobs and industry. Real jobs. Not $8.00/Hr service jobs.
Once again, enquiring minds want to know!
How is doing nothing, gambling a thing?
Well, things are certainly heating up in the UK:
“Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.
In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”…”
This was reported in 2002 and is part of a much longer article:
[size=2]ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE POLICY DEBATE Science is the primary tool to understand human-caused global warming. But economic consequences of policies meant to cut greenhouse gas emissions also enter the policy debate.
Kyoto-type greenhouse gas emission cuts are expected to make little impact on the forecast rise in temperature, according to the computer simulations (which seem to give exaggerated warming trends, as discussed). One forecast, from the UK Meteorological Office, underscores the point. Without Kyoto, that model predicts a rise in globally averaged temperature of just about 1 degree Centigrade by the year 2050. Implementing Kyoto, according to that model, would result in a slightly but insignificantly lower temperature trend. The temperature rise avoided by the year 2050–the difference between the two trends–is six-hundredths of a degree. That is insignificant in the course of natural variability of the climate. Another way to look at the averted warming is that the temperature rise expected to occur by 2050 is projected to occur by 2053 if the emission cuts are enacted.
The conclusion is that one Kyoto-type cut in greenhouse gas emissions averts no meaningful temperature rise, as projected by the models. In order to avoid entirely the projected warming, British researchers estimate that 40 Kyoto-type cuts in greenhouse gas emission would be required.
The cost of implementing one Kyoto-type cut is enormous. Fossil fuels supply approximately 85 percent of energy needs in the United States; worldwide the fraction is about 80 percent. International policy discussions propose expensive solutions centered on sharp fossil fuel use cuts and a massive increase in solar and wind power. A cost-effective solution that does not stunt energy use and energy growth is to shut down coal plants, extend the licenses of the 100 nuclear power plants in the United States, and build about 800 more. However, that is not under serious discussion as a solution to what is often described as the most pressing crisis facing the earth.
Renewable energy sources like solar and wind are not only expensive but also environmentally damaging in their vast land coverage. Those renewable energy sources are not foreseen as seriously meeting projected energy and economic growth. For economic growth, fossil fuels will be relied on for the next decade or two.
The cost of engaging in one Kyoto-type greenhouse gas emission cut ranges between $100 billion and $400 billion of lost GDP annually in the United States. For comparison, consider that the Social Security Trustees estimated $407 billion was transferred to retirees in 2001. The $400 billion annual loss in GDP is approximately numerically equal to the total amount of public and private primary and secondary education spending in the United States.
A recent study from Yale University says that over the next 10 years, Kyoto-type cuts would cost about $2.7 trillion in lost GDP in the U.S.
Those costs must be increased if the target of greenhouse gas emission cuts is not one Kyoto-type agreement but 40.
[/size]
So you really believe your own statement? Please read the recent state of the Union Message from GW.
Below is an an excerpt with the full address HERE
*"Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America’s economy running and America’s environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists – who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy. *
I decline to answer.:shock:
Please provide information if there has been an update to what’s below.
The oil industry left out of the early quota system 08.11.2004 13:39
The Government is not including the oil industry in the national quota system for greenhouse gas emissions. The draft quota act was presented today, and the installations on the Norwegian Shelf and installations that currently pay CO2 tax were left out. “For the environment, this is far from optimum. The oil industry wants to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in a global context, and contribute to ensuring that Norway achieves its emission goals. A quota trading system that includes the industry would have been a much more effective policy instrument,” says Elizabeth Baumann Ofstad, project manager for the external environment in the Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF).
Liberal mantra!
The profit motive and appropriate tax incentives(tax cuts) should be more than enough to foster inovation in these areas.
Nothing for now UNTIL it’s proved we can have an effect IF NEEDED.
WOW! Are they NACHI members?
So the swindle film is a swindle, go figure.
And what is Al Gores “Inconvenient Truth”?
Maichael as much fun it is to answer all of your questions, I think it is time that you form some opinions on your own.
I have to fill my 1100/cc/2-stroke/jet ski with fuel.:twisted:
Glad you enjoy it.
What leads you to believe I haven’t formed my own opinions?
I hope they let you keep it.
Now now, I won’t compare us to china if you don’t compare us to Norway or Canada. They each have less than 33 million people and are not considered large industrialized nations. Just like comparing Columbia’s use of ethanol to the US. We’ve got more cars in Los Angeles than they’ve got in all of Columbia. Let’s also stick with comparing standards of living. I don’t want to the US to end up being a starvation driven third world nation. Each time you increase more environmental restrictions on companies in the US you drive more business out of the country. Look at the manufacturing facilites in Mexico, dirty water, dirty air, contaminated soil, etc. We loose the jobs and how exactly does the planet benefit?
What jobs in Mexico, Will, would you like to see back in the US?
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/jobs-energy-fuel-economy.html
Using technology to reduce energy consumption will create jobs and make our economy stronger and more efficient.
Yea. It was environmental restrictions that caused them to move out.
Had nothing to do with the fact you can pay a Mexican factory worker $1.50/hour or that you can have all the benefits of being an American corporation but none of the responsibilities.
After all, if you leave behind 50 admin people in the corporate headquarters in Detroit, you can still get government contracts and corporate tax breaks but can announce record profits because you moved 2000 manufacturing jobs out of Flint and relocated them to Mexicali.
Of course, since it IS Mexico, or China, or India, and they don’t care one way or another, you can pollute like back in the good old days. Water? Dump in that mercury. Air? Who needs it? Respirators work.
Cool follow up is you can say things like “Why should we worry about global warming, after all, China’s doing it to!”
Tell me again how it was the evil liberals wanting clean air that forced these honest, hard-working corporations to reluctantly head overseas. Maybe if you say it 100 times, it might actually make it true.
(Just like Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It’s true. After all, I heard it 100 times right?)