So what?
They start the treaty in a handicap, why do people shout this out like they are making a valid point not to do it altogether?
I'm not sure what belief you are inserting to that statement, but please share how this is a relevant case against Kyoto?
In a handicap, wtf does that mean?
After the US gives literally BILLIONS of dollars towards this protocol AND spends BILLIONS in researching/restructuring an alternative energy sources, what happens a few yrs later when China nor India choose to join this protocol? What kind of financial impact will that have on our country as two other countries continue to get stronger? What then?
Quote:
In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.
However, critics of Kyoto argue that China, India, and other developing countries will soon be the top contributors to greenhouse gases. Also, without Kyoto restrictions on these countries, industries in developed countries will be driven towards these non-restricted countries, thus there is no net reduction in carbon.
You guys talk about global warming like it is hype not be listened to, then you say let everyone make their own decisions about it, all the while you are fighting tooth and nail to convince people it's not real.
When your logic reaches this point, its a good indicator that crack kills brain cells. Still putting words in ppl's mouthes I see.
Where did he ever say it's NOT REAL you freakin lunatic?
actually gentlemen , the original debate has gotten obscured . Very few deny the planet is warming slowly, it is . But is man the chief source, was my original thread topic . On that, pretty much everything rests. However, there's evidence in the ice cores to prove normal solar oscillation is the current cause. The planet Mars is warming too. I'm sure it's not us doing ithat.
actually gentlemen , the original debate has gotten obscured
No shit?
It usually does when ppl (cutter) resort to LYING over and over again.
It's a toss up on who lies and/or makes shit up more often, cutter or le kiwi.
I think you probably have the upper hand over us, here XFBO. Your reality lobes seem to have been damaged...
So, here's my position, if you hadn't already guessed;
I think industrialised Human activity over the last 200 years has considerably enhanced a natural cycle and phenomena to the point where it has become a potential threat to all life on the planet, and I believe that it would be a good thing to work together to understand and act where ever possible to reduce or at least prepare for it's effects.
I am also fully aware of the potential for using GW as a political agenda, but find the VAST majority of the people who are convinced that there is a real and immediate problem are altruistic, and not especially anti-capitalist or anti-American.
Frustrated by American citizen and it's mumbo government apathy and complacence ? Yeah, they probably are, but this issue is not a "left or right" wing-ding.
I believe that everyone should have access to the facts, from as many peer-reviewed professionals as possible, in order to make up their own minds, if they still have one...
If you want to continue chucking beer cans into the ocean, and drivin' the Hummer 1 mile to get another 6-pack, and are fully aware of your impact on the planet, thats your choice. I may not agree, but thats my choice. All I ask is that people assume their responsabilities and get informed. What's so hard about that ?
All I ask is that people assume their responsabilities and get informed. What's so hard about that ?
I don't believe it for a second. You want us to sign Kyoto and take my manufacturing jobs to China without benefiting the environment in any way. You want us to enact carbon taxes or some other nonsense that will make me pay $7/gallon for gas like you do, without benefiting the environment in any way.
And I believe that if Gore and his people were correct, two things would be different. 1) He wouldn't have to lie and exaggerate and scare people into believing - he could just present the facts. 2) He wouldn't be such a hypocrite. He's been passionate about this topic for over 20 years, but you would need your own personal fleet of volcanoes to catch up to him in terms of environmental damage (assuming his theories are true and he is damaging the environment).
I don't believe for one second that Gore wants to educate me so that I can make better decisions. He wants to scare me so that he can make decisions for me. And it will probably work - if they just show that movie to every kid in high school, he'll have a whole generation of brainwashed voters ready to roll over and accept whatever goofy legislation makes them feel good.
And it will probably work - if they just show that movie to every kid in high school, he'll have a whole generation of brainwashed voters ready to roll over and accept whatever goofy legislation makes them feel good.
Dude, its BEEN working! Unfortunately, there are still a lot of ppl in this country who dont really know who stands for what and believes whatever the media tells them. Then the whole Hollywood political stance seems to wooo some ppl into taking their side cuz apparantly some ppl worship elitism and value their opinions. The reason why Gore and his political ilk is so loved by Hollywood is cuz they (liberals) dont judge [out loud anyway] their screwed up lifestyles. Nor do either side seem to cast stones at one another for being HYPOCRITS!!!
Cuz they all want peace and they all want the feel good (and unproven) policies to move forward no matter what impact it'll have yrs down the road. All these nutjobs who call themselves GREEN have abused the environment more than anyone of us could possibly dream of but yet no one calls them out on it. And if a conservative does, he's a crazy neo-con. LOL!
No one realized the effects of those dope smoking hippies from the 60's were gonna have on politics/society 30-40 yrs later........we're seeing it now.
I don't believe it for a second. You want us to sign Kyoto and take my manufacturing jobs to China without benefiting the environment in any way. You want us to enact carbon taxes or some other nonsense that will make me pay $7/gallon for gas like you do, without benefiting the environment in any way.
And I believe that if Gore and his people were correct, two things would be different. 1) He wouldn't have to lie and exaggerate and scare people into believing - he could just present the facts. 2) He wouldn't be such a hypocrite. He's been passionate about this topic for over 20 years, but you would need your own personal fleet of volcanoes to catch up to him in terms of environmental damage (assuming his theories are true and he is damaging the environment).
I don't believe for one second that Gore wants to educate me so that I can make better decisions. He wants to scare me so that he can make decisions for me. And it will probably work - if they just show that movie to every kid in high school, he'll have a whole generation of brainwashed voters ready to roll over and accept whatever goofy legislation makes them feel good.
Dude, you haven't signed Kyoto, and your manufacturing jobs are ALREADY gone to China......
I don't believe it for a second. You want us to sign Kyoto and take my manufacturing jobs to China without benefiting the environment in any way. You want us to enact carbon taxes or some other nonsense that will make me pay $7/gallon for gas like you do, without benefiting the environment in any way.
And I believe that if Gore and his people were correct, two things would be different. 1) He wouldn't have to lie and exaggerate and scare people into believing - he could just present the facts. 2) He wouldn't be such a hypocrite. He's been passionate about this topic for over 20 years, but you would need your own personal fleet of volcanoes to catch up to him in terms of environmental damage (assuming his theories are true and he is damaging the environment).
I don't believe for one second that Gore wants to educate me so that I can make better decisions. He wants to scare me so that he can make decisions for me. And it will probably work - if they just show that movie to every kid in high school, he'll have a whole generation of brainwashed voters ready to roll over and accept whatever goofy legislation makes them feel good.
Is this the word of the week for you or did you just learn how to use it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutter
Carbon tax heh?
Did you just make that one up?
Lets see a link, or is it just whimsical paranoia haunting your diluted mind?
For starters, I wasnt suggesting it's happening already [everywhere]**see below**.....however, if we sign up for that brilliant well thought out program......there is no doubt we'll see it imposed. If you get your way in '08....trust me, you'll be back pedalling again saying, "well, I dont have a problem with that tax cuz its for a good cause."
Quote:
**** BOULDER, Colo., Nov. 14 — Voters in this liberal college town have approved what environmentalists say may be the nation’s first “carbon tax,” intended to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/us...f3bd09&ei=5088
Let Them Eat Tofu!
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.
Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."
Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.
There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.
They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)
Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.
There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.
Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.
Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.
Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?
"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.
Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.
But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.
Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.
If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.
"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.
It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.
That article is just as stupidly sensational as 'the other sides'.
Fact: Over population is the real problem, compounded by the fact that we do not live alongside the our environment but take from it.
Fact: We could produce energy more environmentally friendly. Yeah sure it will cost more, but there is always a price.
Currently we have set 'everything' up using an economic model. IMO this has to change, as it is not the right way to indicate whether a country is moving in the right direction (whatever that is?) or not, whether it's people are happy, etc.
Get rid of profit is everything and we have a chance in making a better place for our children's children ... heck I'd rather live now where busting my @rse to make a profit is not the only reason I go to work. How about putting back into the community for one ... instead of company profits going overseas, etc.
Economics is everything and over population is the root cause of our problems.
An example is the industrialization of farming that Ann Coulter discussed. All that has done is removed jobs from many people and found a less energy efficient way of producing food*. But ofcourse more profits can be made because we are 'taking' energy from our environment instead of living in balance. Basically the true cost of fossil fuels as our energy source has never been fully calculated.
Pete * - Think of the differences to unemployment and sharing wealth around and the true cost of the rich getting richer, ie. taxes, etc. People's happiness too.
__________________
'97 Suzuki GS500E
'90 Suzuki GN250 - Sold 57000 km's later. Cost less than 12c per km to run ...
Grumpy Kiwi.
Why fly when ya can make a lot of noise
Your reality lobes seem to have been damaged...
Linear Mode
