NationStates Jolt Archive

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

This is a headline from an Observer article that was written due to a leak of a report from the Pentagon that believes global strife is ahead in under 20 years.

"· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism"

"Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. "

What are people's views? Is this false? Is the Pentagon exaggerating? Are the experts lying?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

Considering the cumlative (sp?) chemicals attacking our atmosphere, it is....sadly....possible.


Great, now I'm depressed.

BUMP

This was released a while ago, even the Pentagon said that it was made by non-climatologists who were putting out an extreme scenario.

Aren't there already two threads about this movie on the forum? :lol:

This was released a while ago, even the Pentagon said that it was made by non-climatologists who were putting out an extreme scenario.

Well, I guess we will wait and see. :?

If it is as you say then why are my friend's Geoscience/Environmental Chemistry lecturers saying that this is a distinct possibility?

This was released a while ago, even the Pentagon said that it was made by non-climatologists who were putting out an extreme scenario.

Well, I guess we will wait and see. :?

If it is as you say then why are my friend's Geoscience/Environmental Chemistry lecturers saying that this is a distinct possibility?

Because, depending on which information they use and who they believe, people can draw wildly different conclusions on global warming.

This was released a while ago, even the Pentagon said that it was made by non-climatologists who were putting out an extreme scenario.

Well, I guess we will wait and see. :?

If it is as you say then why are my friend's Geoscience/Environmental Chemistry lecturers saying that this is a distinct possibility?

Because, depending on which information they use and who they believe, people can draw wildly different conclusions on global warming.Yeah, the same people who scream about global warming are the ones warning about another ice age. So, which is it?? Are we getting too hot or too cold??

October 25 2002

The United States has firmly rejected signing the Kyoto protocol on global warming, saying the damage the treaty would cause to its economy would also hurt developing countries.

"It will have the impact of doing significant harm to our economy. We will not sign an agreement just to say that we signed it," Harlan Watson, the senior US climate change negotiator, said on the sidelines of a UN conference in India on global warming yesterda.

"There is a very tight linkage between growth in the developed world and the developing world. Every time the US economy is depressed, our imports are also depressed," Watson told reporters.

Under the 1997 Kyoto agreement, rich industrialised countries would be committed to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases by a timeframe of 2008-2012.

Kyoto is likely to go into effect next year if it is ratified by Russia. The treaty needs to be signed by countries that accounted for 55 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions in 1990.

US President George W Bush, who leads the world's largest polluter, walked away from the pact after he took office last year, sparking widespread criticism.

http://www.campusfundraising.com/images/hand.jpg

Lets see now, damage the environment or damage the economy. Life choices versus money. I see a picture of George Bush with a fist full of dollars, wheezing and coughing as he yells...."from my cold dead hands" :shock:

Be quiet, CanuckHeaven. The Kyoto Protocol was nothing BUT a treaty designed to destroy the US economy. Under the moronic protocol, the USA couldn't use its extremely clean technology while nations such as China and India could pump out copious amounts of pollution because they're classified as "Third World" countries. Tell the Chinese and such to upgrade their damned 1950s technology, otherwise nothing the USA does is going to make a difference.

I'm sorry, but I really can't take that report seriously. The thought of cities drowning across Europe in less than 10 years is quite ridiculous, because even though our planet is warming, I don't think *that* much change could happen in such a quick time frame. And isn't the Pentagon supposed to analyze worst-case scenarios?

Be quiet, CanuckHeaven. The Kyoto Protocol was nothing BUT a treaty designed to destroy the US economy. Under the moronic protocol, the USA couldn't use its extremely clean technology while nations such as China and India could pump out copious amounts of pollution because they're classified as "Third World" countries. Tell the Chinese and such to upgrade their damned 1950s technology, otherwise nothing the USA does is going to make a difference.Why exactly can't the US use clean technology while China and India use dirtier technology? What you mean to say is that the US won't use it, for what are in my opinion ridiculous reasons. The fact is that the energy companies have buddies in the Bush administration--they donate millions of dollars to his campaigns and he takes care of them by pulling out of Kyoto, stripping the EPA of funding and oversight ability, and having his Justice Department drop lawsuits brought by previous administrations dealing with new source review issues.

Be quiet, CanuckHeaven. The Kyoto Protocol was nothing BUT a treaty designed to destroy the US economy. Under the moronic protocol, the USA couldn't use its extremely clean technology while nations such as China and India could pump out copious amounts of pollution because they're classified as "Third World" countries. Tell the Chinese and such to upgrade their damned 1950s technology, otherwise nothing the USA does is going to make a difference.Why exactly can't the US use clean technology while China and India use dirtier technology? What you mean to say is that the US won't use it, for what are in my opinion ridiculous reasons. The fact is that the energy companies have buddies in the Bush administration--they donate millions of dollars to his campaigns and he takes care of them by pulling out of Kyoto, stripping the EPA of funding and oversight ability, and having his Justice Department drop lawsuits brought by previous administrations dealing with new source review issues.
WTF are you on about? The USA uses the cleanest technology yet developed. The Indians and Chinese pump out copious amounts of pollution because they're using technology developed in the 1940s and '50s. The USA generates a lot of pollution simply because the USA has more industry than all other First World nations, we can't reduce emissions without reducing industrial activity, which would destroy the economy, so piss off.

We may be the cleanest, but we're not as clean as our own laws say we have to be. New source review deals with the regulation that requires any old plants that are refurbished to be brought up to new environmental standards. The Bush EPA has basically tossed that regulation out the window and is no longer enforcing it.

But don't take my word for it--just do any basic search on new source review and the Bush administration and see what comes up. The Bush administration is horrid on pollution policy, and there's no other way to describe it.

And by the way, I've been cordial with you, but if you want to get into an insult throwing contest, I'm perfectly capable. If you'd rather dial it back a bit and actually defend your position, I'm cool with that too.

With the results of greenhouse gases showing themselves more and more, it is becoming tempting to certain nations to try to use military force to fix the problems.

No matter what we do now, the human race is doomed.

We think we've conquered infectious disease? No problem: enter AIDS, a disease transmitted by the one activity that humans will never stop, that has an incubation period of months or years, and that is fatal in 100% of cases.

We think we've improved general health and living standards? Think again: the development achieved in countries like Indonesia and India is rapidly being undone, fertility rates are dropping in most countries, and genetic diseases like multiple sclerosis are on the increase.

No matter what humans do, nature has an answer. No matter how fast humans run, nature will catch them in the end.

This was released a while ago, even the Pentagon said that it was made by non-climatologists who were putting out an extreme scenario.

Well, I guess we will wait and see. :?

If it is as you say then why are my friend's Geoscience/Environmental Chemistry lecturers saying that this is a distinct possibility?

Because, depending on which information they use and who they believe, people can draw wildly different conclusions on global warming.Yeah, the same people who scream about global warming are the ones warning about another ice age. So, which is it?? Are we getting too hot or too cold??
Its complicated. The northern nations will experience a new ice age but the ones at the equator will become deserts.

October 25 2002

The United States has firmly rejected signing the Kyoto protocol on global warming, saying the damage the treaty would cause to its economy would also hurt developing countries.

"It will have the impact of doing significant harm to our economy. We will not sign an agreement just to say that we signed it," Harlan Watson, the senior US climate change negotiator, said on the sidelines of a UN conference in India on global warming yesterda.

"There is a very tight linkage between growth in the developed world and the developing world. Every time the US economy is depressed, our imports are also depressed," Watson told reporters.

Under the 1997 Kyoto agreement, rich industrialised countries would be committed to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases by a timeframe of 2008-2012.

Kyoto is likely to go into effect next year if it is ratified by Russia. The treaty needs to be signed by countries that accounted for 55 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions in 1990.

US President George W Bush, who leads the world's largest polluter, walked away from the pact after he took office last year, sparking widespread criticism.

http://www.campusfundraising.com/images/hand.jpg

Lets see now, damage the environment or damage the economy. Life choices versus money. I see a picture of George Bush with a fist full of dollars, wheezing and coughing as he yells...."from my cold dead hands" :shock:
Just so you know, both Russia and Japan have since rejected Kyoto.

hey everybody; i'd just like to say that global warming is a total crock of shit m'kay?

I'm sorry, but I really can't take that report seriously. The thought of cities drowning across Europe in less than 10 years is quite ridiculous, because even though our planet is warming, I don't think *that* much change could happen in such a quick time frame. And isn't the Pentagon supposed to analyze worst-case scenarios?
Well I don't know about cities being submerged in less than ten years but I do know that huge chunks of both the artic ice sheet and antartica have broken off in the last 5 years. One of these chunks being the size of the state of Massachussettes. But since then, the worlds oceans have only risen a few inches on average around the world.

Be quiet, CanuckHeaven. The Kyoto Protocol was nothing BUT a treaty designed to destroy the US economy. Under the moronic protocol, the USA couldn't use its extremely clean technology while nations such as China and India could pump out copious amounts of pollution because they're classified as "Third World" countries. Tell the Chinese and such to upgrade their damned 1950s technology, otherwise nothing the USA does is going to make a difference.Why exactly can't the US use clean technology while China and India use dirtier technology? What you mean to say is that the US won't use it, for what are in my opinion ridiculous reasons. The fact is that the energy companies have buddies in the Bush administration--they donate millions of dollars to his campaigns and he takes care of them by pulling out of Kyoto, stripping the EPA of funding and oversight ability, and having his Justice Department drop lawsuits brought by previous administrations dealing with new source review issues.
The US would not be able to do that cause it is up to individual US companie to do it on their own. The constitution prohibits forceing them to do it.

(i havent read any of this past the first post)

why hasnt anyone brought up the fact that china's emissions will surpass those of the US in less than five years?

Actually if you look at the statistics, the third world puts out more pollution than the first world and is doing 70% of the damage.

(i havent read any of this past the first post)

why hasnt anyone brought up the fact that china's emissions will surpass those of the US in less than five years?Both China's and Indias.

(i havent read any of this past the first post)

why hasnt anyone brought up the fact that china's emissions will surpass those of the US in less than five years?Both China's and Indias.

yeah yeah, AND they are also exempt from the fucking kyoto protocol because they're supposedly developing nations. what a crock of shit :roll:

(i havent read any of this past the first post)

why hasnt anyone brought up the fact that china's emissions will surpass those of the US in less than five years?Both China's and Indias.

yeah yeah, AND they are also exempt from the f--- kyoto protocol because they're supposedly developing nations. what a crock of shit :roll:
And they account for most of the pollution that's messing up the world's climate.

so you mean you're going to discount all the emissions the US has made in the past 200 hundred years just because China and India are doing the same?

don't point the finger to anybody else when you yourself aren't doing so much better. :roll:

so you mean you're going to discount all the emissions the US has made in the past 200 hundred years just because China and India are doing the same?

don't point the finger to anybody else when you yourself aren't doing so much better. :roll:
Excuse me, but you can't blame the US even though you would like to.
America only accounts for 25% of pollutants attacking the atmosphere. America is the only nation on earth that uses clean technologies to any significant degrees that would actually have an impact.
Also, it takes China and India just one year to churn out the amount of pollutants for the US to put out all together during that 200 year period you are talking about. It wasn't even 200 years. The industrial revolution didnt occur until a couple decades after independence.

so you mean you're going to discount all the emissions the US has made in the past 200 hundred years just because China and India are doing the same?

don't point the finger to anybody else when you yourself aren't doing so much better. :roll:
Excuse me, but you can't blame the US even though you would like to.
America only accounts for 25% of pollutants attacking the atmosphere. America is the only nation on earth that uses clean technologies to any significant degrees that would actually have an impact.
Also, it takes China and India just one year to churn out the amount of pollutants for the US to put out all together during that 200 year period you are talking about. It wasn't even 200 years. The industrial revolution didnt occur until a couple decades after independence.

ok well, 25% carbon emissions for such a small percentage of the world's population. don't you think that's too much? india and china combined has about 20% of the world's population. logically they should produce the most. and it's mostly MNCs from the First World that are going into these countries to invest and polluting. although that counts into the country's emissions it is really the First World who are ignoring envionrmental standards.

so you mean you're going to discount all the emissions the US has made in the past 200 hundred years just because China and India are doing the same?

don't point the finger to anybody else when you yourself aren't doing so much better. :roll:
Excuse me, but you can't blame the US even though you would like to.
America only accounts for 25% of pollutants attacking the atmosphere. America is the only nation on earth that uses clean technologies to any significant degrees that would actually have an impact.
Also, it takes China and India just one year to churn out the amount of pollutants for the US to put out all together during that 200 year period you are talking about. It wasn't even 200 years. The industrial revolution didnt occur until a couple decades after independence.

ok well, 25% carbon emissions for such a small percentage of the world's population. don't you think that's too much? india and china combined has about 20% of the world's population. logically they should produce the most. and it's mostly MNCs from the First World that are going into these countries to invest and polluting. although that counts into the country's emissions it is really the First World who are ignoring envionrmental standards.
There are 6 billion people on earth, china has half of that with 3 billion and India a has billion something. The US only has 250 million people.
India and China make up more than half the world's population.
nO it is the third world that is ignoring the crises cause unlike AMeriica, CHina doesn't have any laws to protect the environment.
And the MNC's go to China and India cause they know those nations have no labor laws and their officials take bribes so that MNC's don't even have to pay taxes in those nations let alone abide by workplace safety regulations.

so you mean you're going to discount all the emissions the US has made in the past 200 hundred years just because China and India are doing the same?

don't point the finger to anybody else when you yourself aren't doing so much better. :roll:
Excuse me, but you can't blame the US even though you would like to.
America only accounts for 25% of pollutants attacking the atmosphere. America is the only nation on earth that uses clean technologies to any significant degrees that would actually have an impact.
Also, it takes China and India just one year to churn out the amount of pollutants for the US to put out all together during that 200 year period you are talking about. It wasn't even 200 years. The industrial revolution didnt occur until a couple decades after independence.

ok well, 25% carbon emissions for such a small percentage of the world's population. don't you think that's too much? india and china combined has about 20% of the world's population. logically they should produce the most. and it's mostly MNCs from the First World that are going into these countries to invest and polluting. although that counts into the country's emissions it is really the First World who are ignoring envionrmental standards.
There are 6 billion people on earth, china has half of that with 3 billion and India a has billion something. The US only has 250 million people.
India and China make up more than half the world's population.
nO it is the third world that is ignoring the crises cause unlike AMeriica, CHina doesn't have any laws to protect the environment.
And the MNC's go to China and India cause they know those nations have no labor laws and their officials take bribes so that MNC's don't even have to pay taxes in those nations let alone abide by workplace safety regulations.

China and India combined don't make half the world's population...yet :roll: MNCs also exploit the lack of environmental laws, mind you, as if exploiting labour is not bad enough. :x

so you mean you're going to discount all the emissions the US has made in the past 200 hundred years just because China and India are doing the same?

don't point the finger to anybody else when you yourself aren't doing so much better. :roll:
Excuse me, but you can't blame the US even though you would like to.
America only accounts for 25% of pollutants attacking the atmosphere. America is the only nation on earth that uses clean technologies to any significant degrees that would actually have an impact.
Also, it takes China and India just one year to churn out the amount of pollutants for the US to put out all together during that 200 year period you are talking about. It wasn't even 200 years. The industrial revolution didnt occur until a couple decades after independence.

ok well, 25% carbon emissions for such a small percentage of the world's population. don't you think that's too much? india and china combined has about 20% of the world's population. logically they should produce the most. and it's mostly MNCs from the First World that are going into these countries to invest and polluting. although that counts into the country's emissions it is really the First World who are ignoring envionrmental standards.
There are 6 billion people on earth, china has half of that with 3 billion and India a has billion something. The US only has 250 million people.
India and China make up more than half the world's population.
nO it is the third world that is ignoring the crises cause unlike AMeriica, CHina doesn't have any laws to protect the environment.
And the MNC's go to China and India cause they know those nations have no labor laws and their officials take bribes so that MNC's don't even have to pay taxes in those nations let alone abide by workplace safety regulations.

China and India combined don't make half the world's population...yet :roll: MNCs also exploit the lack of environmental laws, mind you, as if exploiting labour is not bad enough. :x

MNCs also exploit the lack of environmental laws
I already said that.
India's population= 1.049 billion
China's population= 1.286 billion
America's population=290 million

ok, fair enuf

290 million out of 60 billion = 25% of the world's emission
30 billion out of 60 billion = *enter percentage here*, but mostly from the irresponsible MNCs of the First World.

Combined, the First World is making a hellotta CO2. :roll:

ok, fair enuf

290 million out of 60 billion = 25% of the world's emission
30 billion out of 60 billion = *enter percentage here*, but mostly from the irresponsible MNCs of the First World.

Combined, the First World is making a hellotta CO2. :roll:
I am not understanding where you get 60 billion from.
Unless you mean 6 billion.
I do agree that the MNC's bear more responsibility than anyone else for damage to the global environment. They do this by moving to nations that don't have environmental laws. And if a nation does get such laws, the MNC packs up everything and leaves for one that does not have them.
The worst thing is that the world's governments are almost powerless to do anthing about the MNC's. though california tries.

sorry. :oops: i do mean 6 billion. these mistakes are common, since i have three different counting systems to deal with at the same time all the time. :cry:

EVILS MNCS!

unless i chair one. :wink:

sorry. :oops: i do mean 6 billion. these mistakes are common, since i have three different counting systems to deal with at the same time all the time. :cry:

EVILS MNCS!

unless i chair one. :wink:
All the MNC chairpersons I know are completely clueless about how their MNC is impacting the environment or local peoples. I mean some of these people have IQs of 75 and I've seen them behave like they were children.

the objective of a firm is to maximise profit, therefore by ignoring laws they can lower costs. it's logical enough, but also absolutely inhumane.

October 25 2002

The United States has firmly rejected signing the Kyoto protocol on global warming, saying the damage the treaty would cause to its economy would also hurt developing countries.

"It will have the impact of doing significant harm to our economy. We will not sign an agreement just to say that we signed it," Harlan Watson, the senior US climate change negotiator, said on the sidelines of a UN conference in India on global warming yesterda.

"There is a very tight linkage between growth in the developed world and the developing world. Every time the US economy is depressed, our imports are also depressed," Watson told reporters.

Under the 1997 Kyoto agreement, rich industrialised countries would be committed to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases by a timeframe of 2008-2012.

Kyoto is likely to go into effect next year if it is ratified by Russia. The treaty needs to be signed by countries that accounted for 55 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions in 1990.

US President George W Bush, who leads the world's largest polluter, walked away from the pact after he took office last year, sparking widespread criticism.

http://www.campusfundraising.com/images/hand.jpg

Lets see now, damage the environment or damage the economy. Life choices versus money. I see a picture of George Bush with a fist full of dollars, wheezing and coughing as he yells...."from my cold dead hands" :shock:
Just so you know, both Russia and Japan have since rejected Kyoto.
REUTERS , MOSCOW
Sunday, May 23, 2004,Page 6

Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised the world Friday by throwing the UN's Kyoto protocol on climate change a lifeline, disregarding official advice to kill it off.

The UN and many environmentalists hailed Putin's decision, which revives the 1997 protocol as the main plan to reduce gases that cause global warming. The protocol stalled after the US pulled out of the deal in 2001 but Russia's support would enable it to take effect anyway.

Looks like it is a GO!! :lol:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/05/23/2003156630

Be quiet, CanuckHeaven. The Kyoto Protocol was nothing BUT a treaty designed to destroy the US economy. Under the moronic protocol, the USA couldn't use its extremely clean technology while nations such as China and India could pump out copious amounts of pollution because they're classified as "Third World" countries. Tell the Chinese and such to upgrade their damned 1950s technology, otherwise nothing the USA does is going to make a difference.
Well it can't be that clean with these stats?

USA is the world's biggest polluter

Widely known as the world's largest polluter, America has recently not backed pollution treaties to reduce car emissions or petrol consumption. The US alone accounted for 36.1% of worldwide greenhouse emissions in 1990

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html#Pollution

Another web site I was into the other day, said that the US was responsible for 34%. So the above is in the ball park.

Be quiet, CanuckHeaven. The Kyoto Protocol was nothing BUT a treaty designed to destroy the US economy. Under the moronic protocol, the USA couldn't use its extremely clean technology while nations such as China and India could pump out copious amounts of pollution because they're classified as "Third World" countries. Tell the Chinese and such to upgrade their damned 1950s technology, otherwise nothing the USA does is going to make a difference.

Just because the other countries aren't doing too good doesn't give the United States an excuse to follow suit. It's like, there's a rogue thief on the street who stole. Would you think: oh, he stole and got away with it, so if i steal i should get away with it too!

that's a pathetic argument.

Results of global warming are already visible. Just remember Haiti several days ago. More than 2000 people died in floods and in landslides. There were great floods in Central Europe (Germany, Poland, Czech Republic...) two years ago while there is a drought in Africa and Australia. USA is affected also. El nino is now almost annual. There is no country rich enough to rebuild itself after weather catastrophes. Maybe once or twice but not time after time.
Third world countries would be affected much more than First world countries. People from these countries would like to immigrate to Europe and USA and their citizens would be against it. They would became virtual fortresses. These are some previsons i saw on discovery channel. Show was named In year 2050.

hey everybody; i'd just like to say that global warming is a total crock of shit m'kay?

so you thing pumping thousands of tonnes of gasses into an ecosystem which cannot adapt to them isnt going to change anything? riiiight.

The US would not be able to do that cause it is up to individual US companie to do it on their own. The constitution prohibits forceing them to do it.The US Constitution does no such thing. You really ought to try reading it some time before you make such ludicrous statements.

hey everybody; i'd just like to say that global warming is a total crock of shit m'kay?
And of course all the world's experts don't know as much as you do?

Why can't we just accept the real problem and deal with it, to enable our children and grandchildren a clean environment in which to live.

The US would not be able to do that cause it is up to individual US companie to do it on their own. The constitution prohibits forceing them to do it.The US Constitution does no such thing. You really ought to try reading it some time before you make such ludicrous statements.Actually it does prevent that.
You are the one who needs to reread it.
Its called property rights.

As I said before, the USA produces the amounts of pollution that it does because it's so heavily industrialized. Since we're already using the cleanest technology available, the only way we can reduce emissions is by reducing industrial activity, which would unnecessarily hamstring and destroy our economy. Case closed. As for Russia, well, it doesn't really matter whether or not they follow the Kyoto Protocol, because their emission limits are set at 1990 levels, when the huge Soviet industrial machine was still operating. Enacting the Kyoto protocol wouldn't do anything to Russian industry, as their industrial activity is already far, far below the limits set by Kyoto.

The USA is getting progressively cleaner, ON ITS OWN ACCORD. Compare Los Angeles and other cities circa 1975 to how they are now.

And of course all the world's experts don't know as much as you do?


Right, ALL of the world's experts agree about global warming, right? In reality (not your world, obviously), many so-called experts disagree with the party line.

Anyhow, if you people are so adamant about reducing emissions, push for nuclear power.

Los Angeles is cleaner than Biejing, Bombay, Paris, London and even New York.

As I said before, the USA produces the amounts of pollution that it does because it's so heavily industrialized. Since we're already using the cleanest technology available, the only way we can reduce emissions is by reducing industrial activity, which would unnecessarily hamstring and destroy our economy. Case closed. As for Russia, well, it doesn't really matter whether or not they follow the Kyoto Protocol, because their emission limits are set at 1990 levels, when the huge Soviet industrial machine was still operating. Enacting the Kyoto protocol wouldn't do anything to Russian industry, as their industrial activity is already far, far below the limits set by Kyoto.

The USA is getting progressively cleaner, ON ITS OWN ACCORD. Compare Los Angeles and other cities circa 1975 to how they are now.

And of course all the world's experts don't know as much as you do?

Right, ALL of the world's experts agree about global warming, right? In reality (not your world, obviously), many so-called experts disagree with the party line.
Well in my real world, there was enough concern that most of the countries in MY world actually signed the Kyoto Protocol, including the US. I guess that would be a slight hint that there is a problem?

Anyhow, if you people are so adamant about reducing emissions, push for nuclear power.
We have nuclear power plants in Canada and lots more hydro electric plants. Nuclear is the way to go. Get rid of the coal fired plants which our Province is doing.

Also time to get into alternative fuel vehicles. The technology is there, the savings are there, but BIG money still have their arms wrapped around the oil barrel.

It is no secret that for us to prevent global warming all nations of the world must forgo their industrial lifestyle to a large extent. Yes it will harm all nations' economies if we signifcantly reduce carbon emissions, but think of the results if we don't. By the time we feel the effects of Climate Change it may already be too late and by one way or another our lifestyle will change.
If we do forgo our heavy industry and our cars to an extent that will prevent Global Warming at least we'll still be able to rebuild. Efforts must be taken to replace existing fossil fuel usage with cleaner, renewable methods. I've heard hydrogen fuel cells could power cars in the future - they're 4 times more efficient than petrol and their waste product is water, of all things, which can then be reused. And how do we get this Hydrogen? Algae floating on water which releases Hydrogen. Unfortunately you can't just tell these petroleum contries that they have to step down and let others take to the stand. It requires clear government initiative.

Just to note: The effects shown on movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" are the absolute extreme. Also rising sea levels are mainly caused by the expansion of the water in the oceans due to heating, not polar melting.

It is no secret that for us to prevent global warming all nations of the world must forgo their industrial lifestyle to a large extent.
Your moronic idea would literally destroy modern civilization. We can't just give up every innovation of the past 200 years. :roll:

Yes it will harm all nations' economies if we signifcantly reduce carbon emissions, but think of the results if we don't. By the time we feel the effects of Climate Change it may already be too late and by one way or another our lifestyle will change. It hasn't even been proven that humans even contribute significantly to climate change. Perhaps you ought to think before you espouse ideas that would destroy our great civilization.


Efforts must be taken to replace existing fossil fuel usage with cleaner, renewable methods. I've heard hydrogen fuel cells could power cars in the future - they're 4 times more efficient than petrol and their waste product is water, of all things, which can then be reused. And how do we get this Hydrogen? Algae floating on water which releases Hydrogen.
More lies, hydrogen can't be acquired on the needed scale by gathering hydrogen released by algae. The only realistic option is electrolysis of water with electricity produced by nuclear power.

Well in my real world, there was enough concern that most of the countries in MY world actually signed the Kyoto Protocol, including the US. I guess that would be a slight hint that there is a problem?
Too bad the Kyoto Protocol was designed specifically to destroy the economies of First World nations, not to abate "global warming". There's a huge difference between that scrap of toilet paper being signed and it being ratified by higher legislative bodies. The Japanese smartly rejected it, as it would destroy their economy, and the Russians are merely giving lip service to it so as to gain political clout.

We have nuclear power plants in Canada and lots more hydro electric plants. Nuclear is the way to go. Get rid of the coal fired plants which our Province is doing.
Our self-styled environmentalist friends oppose nuclear power at every turn, then they oppose hydroelectric power because "it harms the fish". They oppose wind power because it mars their views and "harms birds", but at the same time, they constantly drone on about "alternative energy". :roll: All of these scum suckers should either be ignored, or shot for the good of humanity.

The USA NEEDS to follow Canada, France, and Japan in properly exploiting nuclear power. It is imperative to the future of our great culture that we fully exploit this technology. Unfortunately, special-interest groups and fools have stopped us at every opportunity from doing such.

Also time to get into alternative fuel vehicles. The technology is there, the savings are there, but BIG money still have their arms wrapped around the oil barrel.
See above. Using hydrogen as an energy medium results in a large net energy loss, nuclear power is the only way to make it feasible on the needed scale. Unfortunately, nuclear power is still widely believed to be some magical, evil force, rather than just a powerful tool. We won't see real progress in energy policy until public attitude changes, or until a politician comes along that can force the USA and world on the correct path regardless of public opinion.

Firstly, Global Warming is a GLOBAL problem. Surprise, surprise? That means that each and every individual of this planet has the obligation to keep the world from that. It's not a "comparative" thing, saying that, "oh, since the others are doing it badly, we don't have to do it well because we're still better than them". this is one big flawed argument, at least for Global Warming.

Secondly, some argue against protection against Global Warming because of the economy. However, if you think about it, once the Earth becomes inhabitable, the economy loses forever. What the world needs is sustainable development, not rapid development to the brink of obliteration and leave the matters for future generations.

BTW, it's 30C and the air-con's not on. simple things like these can help save the globe AND train yourself to do so.

Threat to the world is greater than terrorism"

That's not very hard, now is it? Terrorism is only a threat in the heads of people, and that's what makes it dangerous.

NAFTA panel: North American pollution drops
Levels decline 10 percent over three years, commission finds
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:51 p.m. ET June 02, 2004

WASHINGTON - Pollution in North America fell 10 percent over three years, but coal-burning power plants are lagging in improvements among industrial sources fouling the air, it was reported Wednesday.

advertisement
The 10 percent drop occurred from 1998 to 2001, said the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a three-nation panel established by the United States, Canada and Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In 2001, the latest year for which figures were available, the total amount of pollution released or transferred elsewhere in North America was 3.25 million tons, the commission said in a study. Of the total, nearly 1 million tons went to recycling operations and more than 600,000 tons was sent to treatment, energy recovery or disposal facilities.

“We’re still pumping more chemicals into the air than all other methods of release combined,” said William Kennedy, executive director of the Montreal-based commission.

Chemical pollutants released into the air from all industrial sources decreased 18 percent over the three years, falling to 832,000 tons in 2001. But chemical pollutants from power plants fell only 9 percent, to 376,000 tons, the study said.

All but four of the top 50 air polluters in North America were coal-burning power plants.

A deadly top 10
Chemical manufacturers, smelters and steel mills, electric utilities and waste managers were the biggest polluters. The 10 pollutants released into the environment or transferred offsite in the most quantities were copper, zinc, hydrochloric acid, methanol, nitric acid and nitrate compounds, manganese, toluene, xylenes, chromium and nickel.

Almost 13 percent of the total pollution was in the form of chemicals such as chromium and its compounds, nickel and its compounds, dichloromethane, styrene and formaldehyde that are known or suspected carcinogens, the study said.

Industrial polluters in just three states — Texas, Ohio and Michigan — and Canada’s Ontario province accounted for 28 percent of the continent’s pollutants, the study found.

The five biggest polluting facilities were operated by ASARCO Inc. in Hayden, Ariz.; US Ecology Idaho Inc. in Grand View, Idaho; Zinc Corp. of America in Monaca, Pa.; Steel Dynamics Inc. in Butler, Ind.; and Kennecott Utah Copper in Magna, Utah, the study said.

The study compared only those chemicals and industries that have consistently reported their pollution each year. It covers most industry in the United States and Canada. Companies in Mexico art just starting to voluntarily report figures, the study said.

The US would not be able to do that cause it is up to individual US companie to do it on their own. The constitution prohibits forceing them to do it.The US Constitution does no such thing. You really ought to try reading it some time before you make such ludicrous statements.Actually it does prevent that.
You are the one who needs to reread it.
Its called property rights.The Congress has all the authority it needs to regulate industry under the Commerce Clause. I have read it, and a damn sight more lucidly than you have apparently.

The US would not be able to do that cause it is up to individual US companie to do it on their own. The constitution prohibits forceing them to do it.The US Constitution does no such thing. You really ought to try reading it some time before you make such ludicrous statements.Actually it does prevent that.
You are the one who needs to reread it.
Its called property rights.The Congress has all the authority it needs to regulate industry under the Commerce Clause. I have read it, and a damn sight more lucidly than you have apparently.
IF you did, you would know it says that congress can only regulate interstate commerce.

IF you did, you would know it says that congress can only regulate interstate commerce.Name an energy company that doesn't cross state lines or deal with transmission of energy across state lines. In the terms of the discussion that has been going on here, Congress regulates because energy production and distribution is by definition an interstate transaction. Congress has all the authority it needs to regulate this industry--period.

IF you did, you would know it says that congress can only regulate interstate commerce.Name an energy company that doesn't cross state lines or deal with transmission of energy across state lines. In the terms of the discussion that has been going on here, Congress regulates because energy production and distribution is by definition an interstate transaction. Congress has all the authority it needs to regulate this industry--period.
Energy distribution yes. Energy production no, cause then you're violating state soveringty.

IF you did, you would know it says that congress can only regulate interstate commerce.Name an energy company that doesn't cross state lines or deal with transmission of energy across state lines. In the terms of the discussion that has been going on here, Congress regulates because energy production and distribution is by definition an interstate transaction. Congress has all the authority it needs to regulate this industry--period.
Energy distribution yes. Energy production no, cause then you're violating state soveringty.Sorry, but you're mistaken--the two are inextricably linked, and thus come under the Commerce clause. Look--the Commerce clause has been stretched even farther than this type of thing. Civil rights legislation is based on Congress' authority under the commerce clause. If the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to that interpretation, then energy companies are certainly held under that interpretation. Don't like it? Take it up with the Supreme Court.

IF you did, you would know it says that congress can only regulate interstate commerce.Name an energy company that doesn't cross state lines or deal with transmission of energy across state lines. In the terms of the discussion that has been going on here, Congress regulates because energy production and distribution is by definition an interstate transaction. Congress has all the authority it needs to regulate this industry--period.
Energy distribution yes. Energy production no, cause then you're violating state soveringty.Sorry, but you're mistaken--the two are inextricably linked, and thus come under the Commerce clause. Look--the Commerce clause has been stretched even farther than this type of thing. Civil rights legislation is based on Congress' authority under the commerce clause. If the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to that interpretation, then energy companies are certainly held under that interpretation. Don't like it? Take it up with the Supreme Court.
The supreme court has already reverese itself on several of those cases.

The supreme court has already reverese itself on several of those cases.Got citations? Case names? I'd love to read them.

But considering that any court decision that effectively overturned the reading of the Commerce Clause would instantly nullify the EPA and the Department of Energy, I don't think we're as near to that day as you might think or hope.

The supreme court has already reverese itself on several of those cases.Got citations? Case names? I'd love to read them.

But considering that any court decision that effectively overturned the reading of the Commerce Clause would instantly nullify the EPA and the Department of Energy, I don't think we're as near to that day as you might think or hope.
There aren't any that I know of (would have to go back to the site and check) that deal with the issue of pollution but their have been a couple dealing with civil rights where the court said the federal government overstepped its constitutional boundaries.
As for nullifying the EPA, such a decision would not affect it. Cause just as energy distribution crosses boundaries, so does pollution.
And it is only because pollution itself crosses state borders, that the Congress has authority, under the clause of regulating relations between states and under the commerce clause you state earlier.
If you had used this, your case would have been stronger.
Instead of saying the commerce clause gives congress power to do what ever they want, cause the supreme court has said it doesn't.
The job of the department is to regulate energy transmission. So it would not be affected either.
And also the constitution requires the feds to provide for the common security of persons and their ability to pursue happiness. Neither of which can exist with severe levels of pollution.

So in other words, you're admitting that, in essence, I'm right, that the Commerce clause gives the Congress the power to regulate energy production companies as well as energy distribution companies because their effects are felt across state borders and thus constitute interstate commerce. How have you knocked a hole in what I claimed originally? I stated a shorthand form of what you just posted.

If it makes you feel superior somehow to think that you've bested me in this discussion, by all means, go ahead. But my initial claim still stands.

So in other words, you're admitting that, in essence, I'm right, that the Commerce clause gives the Congress the power to regulate energy production companies as well as energy distribution companies because their effects are felt across state borders and thus constitute interstate commerce. How have you knocked a hole in what I claimed originally? I stated a shorthand form of what you just posted.

If it makes you feel superior somehow to think that you've bested me in this discussion, by all means, go ahead. But my initial claim still stands.
You were saying that the commerce clause gave congress the power to do absolutely whatever they wanted. Even the Patriot Act is supposedly authorized by the commerce clause and they used it to strip americans of their rights.