Too many votes against Kyoto Even Britain's Blair has given up on targets, Dec. 6, 2005. 01:00 AM GWYNNE DYER
If the world were run by scientists, by the time the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Montreal ends on Friday we would have global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 or 30 per cent in the follow-on period to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.
But it won't happen: The Bush blockade and the absence of China and India were probably enough to block agreement anyway, and now there is also the Blair Switch.
The original Kyoto accord, negotiated in the mid-1990s when climate change seemed a much less urgent problem, mandated average cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of less than 6 per cent from the 1990 level by 2012, and only obliged industrial countries to comply. It was really only meant to serve as a precedent for later agreements that would impose deeper cuts and bring in developing countries like China and India, whose economies had only recently begun to grow rapidly.
By the turn of the century, it was clear that those countries were becoming a much bigger part of the problem: China now opens a new coal-burning power station every two weeks, and will overtake the United States to become the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide by 2025.
International financial incentives might have persuaded the newly industrializing countries to invest in low-carbon alternatives, but the Bush administration's defection from the Kyoto agreement in 2001 scuppered that possibility.
The Bush administration's hatred of internationally mandated emission limits is largely ideological. It insists they would destroy the American economy, but in fact the U.S. has a relatively energy-efficient economy whose greenhouse gas emissions only grew 13.3 per cent between 1990 and 2003. It would have considerably less trouble in complying with the Kyoto rules than Canada, whose emissions grew by 24.4 per cent in the same period.
The accord finally came into effect early this year after Russia ratified it, and only America and Australia remain outside it among the industrialized countries. It was already high time to start negotiating the next round of cuts and bring the big developing countries into the treaty, for climate change was moving much faster than anticipated.
Arctic sea ice, which normally covers an area about the size of Australia, has shrunk by almost 20 per cent over the past quarter-century, and the rate of loss is accelerating. Tropical storms have doubled in destructive potential over the past 30 years because of ocean warming, according to a recent article in Nature by Kerry Emmanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And the steady rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues, from 270 parts per million in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm today and 400 ppm by 2015.
At 500 ppm, which we will reach by 2060 at the present rate and far sooner if the newly industrializing countries don't accept emission targets, the Greenland ice cap melts and all the world's coastal cities drown. As Lord Ron Oxburgh, the geologist who recently retired as chairman of Shell Oil, said in June: "If we start now, not in 10 or 15 years' time, we have a chance of hitting those targets. But we've got to start now. We have no time to lose."
We are not going to start now.
In August, the Bush administration persuaded China, India, Australia, Japan and South Korea to sign up for a rival pact, the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, that fixes no emission targets and talks only of encouraging private industry to develop low-emission technologies and transfer them to industrializing countries. But if there are no targets, where's the incentive?
Now even Tony Blair, long the main champion for Kyoto among the G-8 leaders, has effectively declared the treaty dead. In September, sitting on a platform with Condoleezza Rice, he announced that he was "changing my thinking about this," and no longer wanted the world's nations to negotiate international treaties on climate change.
"The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in light of a long-term environmental problem," he said. The only hope, Blair concluded, lay in new science and technology.
Given these grave new blows to the basic Kyoto notion that emission limits and new technologies go hand in hand, it's probably pointless to expect the Montreal conference to be more than a holding operation. Nobody will be aiming at 30 per cent cuts in carbon dioxide emissions in 2012-2020.
Just agree to meet again in a year or two, and wait for more environmental disasters to change people's minds.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist based in London.
> Too many votes against Kyoto > Even Britain's Blair has given up on targets, > Dec. 6, 2005. 01:00 AM > GWYNNE DYER
> If the world were run by scientists, by the time the United Nations > Conference on Climate Change in Montreal ends on Friday we would have > global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 or 30 per cent in > the follow-on period to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.
> But it won't happen: The Bush blockade and the absence of China and India > were probably enough to block agreement anyway, and now there is also the > Blair Switch.
> The original Kyoto accord, negotiated in the mid-1990s when climate change > seemed a much less urgent problem, mandated average cuts in greenhouse gas > emissions of less than 6 per cent from the 1990 level by 2012, and only > obliged industrial countries to comply. It was really only meant to serve > as a precedent for later agreements that would impose deeper cuts and bring > in developing countries like China and India, whose economies had only > recently begun to grow rapidly.
> By the turn of the century, it was clear that those countries were becoming > a much bigger part of the problem: China now opens a new coal-burning power > station every two weeks, and will overtake the United States to become the > world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide by 2025.
> International financial incentives might have persuaded the newly > industrializing countries to invest in low-carbon alternatives, but the > Bush administration's defection from the Kyoto agreement in 2001 scuppered > that possibility.
> The Bush administration's hatred of internationally mandated emission > limits is largely ideological. It insists they would destroy the American > economy, but in fact the U.S. has a relatively energy-efficient economy > whose greenhouse gas emissions only grew 13.3 per cent between 1990 and > 2003. It would have considerably less trouble in complying with the Kyoto > rules than Canada, whose emissions grew by 24.4 per cent in the same > period.
> The accord finally came into effect early this year after Russia ratified > it, and only America and Australia remain outside it among the > industrialized countries. It was already high time to start negotiating the > next round of cuts and bring the big developing countries into the treaty, > for climate change was moving much faster than anticipated.
> Arctic sea ice, which normally covers an area about the size of Australia, > has shrunk by almost 20 per cent over the past quarter-century, and the > rate of loss is accelerating. Tropical storms have doubled in destructive > potential over the past 30 years because of ocean warming, according to a > recent article in Nature by Kerry Emmanuel of the Massachusetts Institute > of Technology. And the steady rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere > continues, from 270 parts per million in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm > today and 400 ppm by 2015.
> At 500 ppm, which we will reach by 2060 at the present rate and far sooner > if the newly industrializing countries don't accept emission targets, the > Greenland ice cap melts and all the world's coastal cities drown. As Lord > Ron Oxburgh, the geologist who recently retired as chairman of Shell Oil, > said in June: "If we start now, not in 10 or 15 years' time, we have a > chance of hitting those targets. But we've got to start now. We have no > time to lose."
> We are not going to start now.
> In August, the Bush administration persuaded China, India, Australia, Japan > and South Korea to sign up for a rival pact, the Asia-Pacific Partnership > for Clean Development and Climate, that fixes no emission targets and talks > only of encouraging private industry to develop low-emission technologies > and transfer them to industrializing countries. But if there are no > targets, where's the incentive?
> Now even Tony Blair, long the main champion for Kyoto among the G-8 > leaders, has effectively declared the treaty dead. In September, sitting on > a platform with Condoleezza Rice, he announced that he was "changing my > thinking about this," and no longer wanted the world's nations to negotiate > international treaties on climate change.
> "The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption > substantially in light of a long-term environmental problem," he said. The > only hope, Blair concluded, lay in new science and technology.
> Given these grave new blows to the basic Kyoto notion that emission limits > and new technologies go hand in hand, it's probably pointless to expect the > Montreal conference to be more than a holding operation. Nobody will be > aiming at 30 per cent cuts in carbon dioxide emissions in 2012-2020.
> Just agree to meet again in a year or two, and wait for more environmental > disasters to change people's minds.
> Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist based in London.
# The planet Earth is "a closed system"; hence we can't do anything without it impinging on something else. Nature knows of no such thing as "waste"; everything is re-cycled. But then Nature doesn't make value-judgements. We humans think that once "waste" gases are discharged into the atmosphere, we have got rid of them, solved the problem, and can forget about it. Same with discharging useless products into the ocean. However, unless our wastes are "bio-degradable" or can otherwise be processed by Nature (ie. non-human Nature), they'll return to haunt us - with possibly lethal effect. The aim should be to eliminate waste, as such; reduce it to zero. Everything should be re-cycled. The trouble with "the environment" is, that it is, as the word implies, somewhat peripheral to our daily activities, or so we think. But it is closing in on us. Is the species Homo Sapiens headed for extinction? - and at an accelerating rate?
I think you mean the carbon cycle is a closed system.
> hence we can't do anything without > it impinging on something else.
and exactly what that something else is is unknown. It could be plant growth, it could be marine growth or it could remain in the atmosphere and absorb infrared radiation.
> Nature knows of no such thing as "waste"; > everything is re-cycled.
If by recycled you mean going into plant growth etc. then no nature does not always recycle. Volcanic eruptions which emit carbon dioxide could go into any number of things, including plant growth etc.. but which could also include remaining in the atmosphere.
> But then Nature doesn't make value-judgements. We > humans think that once "waste" gases are discharged into the atmosphere, we > have got rid of them, solved the problem, and can forget about it. Same > with discharging useless products into the ocean.
No it isn't the same. Plants etc can absorb (and even rely on) carbon dioxide. I don't know of any marine life that feeds on plastic bags.
> However, unless our > wastes are "bio-degradable" or can otherwise be processed by Nature (ie. > non-human Nature)
Such as plants.
>, they'll return to haunt us - with possibly lethal effect. > The aim should be to eliminate waste, as such; reduce it to zero. > Everything should be re-cycled.
An unobtainable goal, but we should try to recycle as much as possible.
> The trouble with "the environment" is, that it is, as the word implies, > somewhat peripheral to our daily activities, or so we think. But it is > closing in on us.
It has always been this way. We never controlled the environment nor did we have a perfect environment set up for us by a benevolent supernatural creator. We have to learn to adapt to the environment.
> Is the species Homo Sapiens headed for extinction? - and at an > accelerating rate?
Perhaps. I'm sure there is a gigantic rock accelerating towards us right now.
On 7 Dec 2005 13:30:49 -0800, mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>Don H wrote:
>> Everything should be re-cycled.
>You mean like this trash you write, its been recycled a zillion times >by mystic anti-human life morons like you for years.
huh? you mean the marxite/stalinists/eco-morons.
>> Is the species Homo Sapiens headed for extinction? - and at an >> accelerating rate?
>A world population that has gone from 2 billion to 6 billion in less >than 70 years is hardly the evidence that the human race is head for >extinction.
one point here boy: the human pop will settle at around 8 b. we cal all get along. just wait.
we are head for stinktion. but first, we need some volunteers. you go frist. my kids need the air.
--- wrote: > Too many votes against Kyoto > Even Britain's Blair has given up on targets, > Dec. 6, 2005. 01:00 AM > GWYNNE DYER
> If the world were run by scientists, by the time the United Nations > Conference on Climate Change in Montreal ends on Friday we would have > global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 or 30 per cent in > the follow-on period to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.
> But it won't happen: The Bush blockade
The Bush blockade???? If people are going to mouth off about our government, they should at least know something about it.
The President can sign a treaty, but the Senate has to ratify it. Kyoto was put to our Senate, and promptly crushed. There's no way Bush could cajole enough Senators into voting for that treaty. So Bush can sign it; he can put on lipstick and give it a sloppy kiss, but without the Senate, we can't agree to it.
Btw, are we the only frigging country in the world? You act like Kyoto is dead because we won't do it, but what about all the other countries on God's green earth? Have they no contribution to make in the struggle against climate change? We are _one_ country. One. Yes, we're big, but so are Canada, Russia, China, India, etc. If we won't sign, why can't you just move on to the next country?
[...]
> The Bush administration's hatred of internationally mandated emission > limits is largely ideological. It insists they would destroy the American > economy, but in fact the U.S. has a relatively energy-efficient economy
Oh my word. You threw us a bone. You said something about the US that wasn't bad. If I hadn't read it myself, I wouldn't believe it.
[...]
> The accord finally came into effect early this year after Russia ratified
Yeah, check their compliance. It's much easier to ratify a treaty and shake hands than to actually cut emmissions.
[...]
> In August, the Bush administration persuaded China, India, Australia, Japan > and South Korea to sign up for a rival pact, the Asia-Pacific Partnership > for Clean Development and Climate, that fixes no emission targets and talks > only of encouraging private industry to develop low-emission technologies > and transfer them to industrializing countries. But if there are no > targets, where's the incentive?
Where's Kyoto's incentive? What will they do if Russia doesn't meet the target? Write an insulting email?
greg1...@yahoo.com wrote: >The President can sign a treaty, but the Senate has to ratify it. >Kyoto was put to our Senate, and promptly crushed. There's no way Bush >could cajole enough Senators into voting for that treaty. So Bush can >sign it; he can put on lipstick and give it a sloppy kiss, but without >the Senate, we can't agree to it.
But he's right, Bush doesn't want it so it doesn't matter what your Senate does. Why are you pretending that this has anything to do with the US Senate when it doesn't. Gwynn Dwyer is a well informed journalist whose been at it for 30 or more years and it appears that he knows more about the situation than you do for the aforementioned reasons.
As for the balance of your comments, it seems that you failed to comprehend the article by Dwyer because your questions were already answered there.
Callaghan) wrote: >On 7 Dec 2005 13:30:49 -0800, mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>>Don H wrote:
>>> Everything should be re-cycled.
>>You mean like this trash you write, its been recycled a zillion times >>by mystic anti-human life morons like you for years.
>huh? you mean the marxite/stalinists/eco-morons.
>>> Is the species Homo Sapiens headed for extinction? - and at an >>> accelerating rate?
>>A world population that has gone from 2 billion to 6 billion in less >>than 70 years is hardly the evidence that the human race is head for >>extinction.
>one point here boy: the human pop will settle at around 8 b. we cal >all get along. just wait.
>we are head for stinktion. but first, we need some volunteers. you go >frist. my kids need the air.
Yes kids need clean air. But taxing the Life blood out of the economy in New Zealand is not the answer
> I think you mean the carbon cycle is a closed system.
> > hence we can't do anything without > > it impinging on something else.
> and exactly what that something else is is unknown. It could be plant > growth, it could be marine growth or it could remain in the atmosphere > and absorb infrared radiation.
> > Nature knows of no such thing as "waste"; > > everything is re-cycled.
> If by recycled you mean going into plant growth etc. then no nature > does not always recycle. Volcanic eruptions which emit carbon dioxide > could go into any number of things, including plant growth etc.. but > which could also include remaining in the atmosphere.
> > But then Nature doesn't make value-judgements. We > > humans think that once "waste" gases are discharged into the atmosphere, we > > have got rid of them, solved the problem, and can forget about it. Same > > with discharging useless products into the ocean.
> No it isn't the same. Plants etc can absorb (and even rely on) carbon > dioxide. I don't know of any marine life that feeds on plastic bags.
> > However, unless our > > wastes are "bio-degradable" or can otherwise be processed by Nature (ie. > > non-human Nature)
> Such as plants.
> >, they'll return to haunt us - with possibly lethal effect. > > The aim should be to eliminate waste, as such; reduce it to zero. > > Everything should be re-cycled.
> An unobtainable goal, but we should try to recycle as much as possible.
before we even look at recycling our collective goal should be to reduce and reuse and only then recycle. Reduce, lets just do with less of the rubbish. Reuse, lets use it over and over and cut out the need to produce more. Only then recycle. Plastic bags as an example, use less plastic bags. Reuse your bags more than once. Only recycle if we need to.
Roger wrote: > On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:42:12 GMT, leo_callag...@telus.net (Leo J > Callaghan) wrote:
>>On 7 Dec 2005 13:30:49 -0800, mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>>>Don H wrote:
>>>>Everything should be re-cycled.
>>>You mean like this trash you write, its been recycled a zillion times >>>by mystic anti-human life morons like you for years.
>>huh? you mean the marxite/stalinists/eco-morons.
>>>> Is the species Homo Sapiens headed for extinction? - and at an >>>>accelerating rate?
>>>A world population that has gone from 2 billion to 6 billion in less >>>than 70 years is hardly the evidence that the human race is head for >>>extinction.
>>one point here boy: the human pop will settle at around 8 b. we cal >>all get along. just wait.
>>we are head for stinktion. but first, we need some volunteers. you go >>frist. my kids need the air.
> Yes kids need clean air. > But taxing the Life blood out of the economy in New Zealand > is not the answer
> Roger
If it means kids get to breathe, yes it does. If you cant breathe who will give a flying *&^&* about the economy.
WD wrote: >># The planet Earth is "a closed system";
> I think you mean the carbon cycle is a closed system.
No he menas the world is a closed eco-system. The only thing that escapes earth is some space kit and radiation....everything else just gets moved about...
m...@you.net (---) wrote: >Too many votes against Kyoto >Even Britain's Blair has given up on targets, >Dec. 6, 2005. 01:00 AM >GWYNNE DYER >If the world were run by scientists, by the time the United Nations >Conference on Climate Change in Montreal ends on Friday we would have >global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 or 30 per cent in >the follow-on period to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.
<snip> Ok, that's enough. Dyer can't even complete a sentence without lying. If scientists ran the world we would not be bothering with the AGW scam at all, never mind the Kyoto scam. Scientists do NOT support the idea that it's all due to man's emissions.
>Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist based in London.
Gwynne Dyer is a lefty propagandist with no loyalty to any cause other than that prescribed by the Standard Total Academic Viewpoint. -- ): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :( (: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
> Is the species Homo Sapiens headed for extinction? - and at an >accelerating rate?
Are navel-gazing fools like you part of the solution? NO! In fact you don't even understand the problem. Hint: the "A" part of AGW is nonsense. -- ): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :( (: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
--- wrote: > Too many votes against Kyoto > Even Britain's Blair has given up on targets, > Dec. 6, 2005. 01:00 AM > GWYNNE DYER
> If the world were run by scientists, by the time the United Nations > Conference on Climate Change in Montreal ends on Friday we would have > global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 or 30 per cent in > the follow-on period to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.
> But it won't happen: The Bush blockade and the absence of China and India > were probably enough to block agreement anyway, and now there is also the > Blair Switch.
> The original Kyoto accord, negotiated in the mid-1990s when climate change > seemed a much less urgent problem, mandated average cuts in greenhouse gas > emissions of less than 6 per cent from the 1990 level by 2012, and only > obliged industrial countries to comply. It was really only meant to serve > as a precedent for later agreements that would impose deeper cuts and bring > in developing countries like China and India, whose economies had only > recently begun to grow rapidly.
> By the turn of the century, it was clear that those countries were becoming > a much bigger part of the problem: China now opens a new coal-burning power > station every two weeks, and will overtake the United States to become the > world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide by 2025.
> International financial incentives might have persuaded the newly > industrializing countries to invest in low-carbon alternatives, but the > Bush administration's defection from the Kyoto agreement in 2001 scuppered > that possibility.
> The Bush administration's hatred of internationally mandated emission > limits is largely ideological. It insists they would destroy the American > economy, but in fact the U.S. has a relatively energy-efficient economy > whose greenhouse gas emissions only grew 13.3 per cent between 1990 and > 2003. It would have considerably less trouble in complying with the Kyoto > rules than Canada, whose emissions grew by 24.4 per cent in the same > period.
> The accord finally came into effect early this year after Russia ratified > it, and only America and Australia remain outside it among the > industrialized countries. It was already high time to start negotiating the > next round of cuts and bring the big developing countries into the treaty, > for climate change was moving much faster than anticipated.
> Arctic sea ice, which normally covers an area about the size of Australia, > has shrunk by almost 20 per cent over the past quarter-century, and the > rate of loss is accelerating. Tropical storms have doubled in destructive > potential over the past 30 years because of ocean warming, according to a > recent article in Nature by Kerry Emmanuel of the Massachusetts Institute > of Technology. And the steady rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere > continues, from 270 parts per million in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm > today and 400 ppm by 2015.
> At 500 ppm, which we will reach by 2060 at the present rate and far sooner > if the newly industrializing countries don't accept emission targets, the > Greenland ice cap melts and all the world's coastal cities drown. As Lord > Ron Oxburgh, the geologist who recently retired as chairman of Shell Oil, > said in June: "If we start now, not in 10 or 15 years' time, we have a > chance of hitting those targets. But we've got to start now. We have no > time to lose."
> We are not going to start now.
> In August, the Bush administration persuaded China, India, Australia, Japan > and South Korea to sign up for a rival pact, the Asia-Pacific Partnership > for Clean Development and Climate, that fixes no emission targets and talks > only of encouraging private industry to develop low-emission technologies > and transfer them to industrializing countries. But if there are no > targets, where's the incentive?
> Now even Tony Blair, long the main champion for Kyoto among the G-8 > leaders, has effectively declared the treaty dead. In September, sitting on > a platform with Condoleezza Rice, he announced that he was "changing my > thinking about this," and no longer wanted the world's nations to negotiate > international treaties on climate change.
> "The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption > substantially in light of a long-term environmental problem," he said. The > only hope, Blair concluded, lay in new science and technology.
> Given these grave new blows to the basic Kyoto notion that emission limits > and new technologies go hand in hand, it's probably pointless to expect the > Montreal conference to be more than a holding operation. Nobody will be > aiming at 30 per cent cuts in carbon dioxide emissions in 2012-2020.
> Just agree to meet again in a year or two, and wait for more environmental > disasters to change people's minds.
> Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist based in London.
There is more than enough blame to go round.
Paul Martin can be criticized for his miserable failure to live up to our Kyoto commitments and George Bush should be excoriated for trying to scuttle any global deal on this issue just because he did not want to play along. I notice conservatives are quietly drifting away both from the George Will position that denies the existence of global warming altogether and even from the idea that collapsing glaciers are all part of some mysterious long-term natural cycle that has nothing to do with human activity. There is surely some hope when BP starts to talk about carbon footprints; in the end, though, America, China and India will decide what happens to global climate. And the signs are not encouraging.
thingy wrote: > WD wrote: > >># The planet Earth is "a closed system";
> > I think you mean the carbon cycle is a closed system.
> No he menas the world is a closed eco-system. The only thing that > escapes earth is some space kit and radiation....everything else just > gets moved about...
Most helium and hydrogen is able to escape the Earth's atmosphere (fortunately).
Anyway radiation isn't a minor consideration given the topic of climate change or the Earth's eco-system. It can be the difference between ice ages and melting polar caps. While all the carbon may remain on Earth, the difference is in what state it remains. At different times throughout Earth's history there has been a lot of life and at other times they have died out due to events which affect Earth from the outside.
While I agree that in many ways the Earth is a "closed system" in some ways it isn't. In a debate such as this it is a bit misleading to categorically label the Earth as a closed system.
Well Done wrote: > m...@you.net (---) wrote: > >Too many votes against Kyoto > >Even Britain's Blair has given up on targets, > >Dec. 6, 2005. 01:00 AM >GWYNNE DYER > >If the world were run by scientists, by the time the United Nations > >Conference on Climate Change in Montreal ends on Friday we would have > >global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 or 30 per cent in > >the follow-on period to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012. > <snip> > Ok, that's enough. Dyer can't even complete a sentence without lying. > If scientists ran the world we would not be bothering with the AGW > scam at all, never mind the Kyoto scam. Scientists do NOT support the > idea that it's all due to man's emissions.
Not true. Many scientists do support the theory of AGW. The problem is that the ones who do support AGW try to ignore those who don't. They speak of a consensus and basically label scientists such as Richard Lindzen as cranks. Though it's probably worth considering the fact that many "scientists" who agree with AGW are often biologists, chemists, physicists etc. and not climatologists. The AGW theory should be left to be promoted by those qualified climatologists who agree with it. Both sides seem to have a tendency to rush around trying to find any old scientist who will sign some sort of petition to agree with their position.
thingy wrote: > Roger wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:42:12 GMT, leo_callag...@telus.net (Leo J > > Callaghan) wrote:
> >>On 7 Dec 2005 13:30:49 -0800, mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >>>Don H wrote:
> >>>>Everything should be re-cycled.
> >>>You mean like this trash you write, its been recycled a zillion times > >>>by mystic anti-human life morons like you for years.
> >>huh? you mean the marxite/stalinists/eco-morons.
> >>>> Is the species Homo Sapiens headed for extinction? - and at an > >>>>accelerating rate?
> >>>A world population that has gone from 2 billion to 6 billion in less > >>>than 70 years is hardly the evidence that the human race is head for > >>>extinction.
> >>one point here boy: the human pop will settle at around 8 b. we cal > >>all get along. just wait.
> >>we are head for stinktion. but first, we need some volunteers. you go > >>frist. my kids need the air.
> > Yes kids need clean air. > > But taxing the Life blood out of the economy in New Zealand > > is not the answer
> > Roger
> If it means kids get to breathe, yes it does. If you cant breathe who > will give a flying *&^&* about the economy.
What does reducing carbon emissions have to do with kids being able to breathe in the future? CO2 is only dangerous when inhaled in high concentrations.
>>>Yes kids need clean air. >>>But taxing the Life blood out of the economy in New Zealand is not the >>>answer Roger
>>If it means kids get to breathe, yes it does. If you cant breathe who will >>give a flying *&^&* about the economy.
> Do you *really* think NZ could be able, ever, to impact the global ecosystem > to the point where it would be hard to breathe?
No but all the countries of the world might be able to, the odd few nukes could easily.
Pollution is killing people with asthma right now, on a smaller scale.
If we seriously bugger up the planet we have no where to go but live in it, some legacy we could be leaving our children/grand children.
All the signs are there that the next 50 years is going to be a time of great upheavel. We have just about used all the cheap, plentiful energy sources over the last 100 years, what are the generations living in the next going to use?
If you look at the civilisations produced in the last 5000 years, none have come this far as the present one. We have a true global civilisation but to get to where we are has taken all the easy to get at energy resources the world has to offer, so quite concievably this is the lst great civilisation this world will see.....the next one(s) wont get much past the mud hut stages.
We are consuming at an un-susteanable rate for things we often dont need, that is just screwy.
> >>>Yes kids need clean air. > >>>But taxing the Life blood out of the economy in New Zealand is not the > >>>answer Roger
> >>If it means kids get to breathe, yes it does. If you cant breathe who will > >>give a flying *&^&* about the economy.
> > Do you *really* think NZ could be able, ever, to impact the global ecosystem > > to the point where it would be hard to breathe?
> No but all the countries of the world might be able to, the odd few > nukes could easily.
> Pollution is killing people with asthma right now, on a smaller scale.
> If we seriously bugger up the planet we have no where to go but live in > it, some legacy we could be leaving our children/grand children.
You seem to be confusing local pollution with global pollution. The use of fossil fuels has increased yet the kind of pollution you're reffering to has decreased in places - such as the United States - that have tackled the problem. Los Angeles today for instance has cleaner air than it did a quarter of a century ago.
> All the signs are there that the next 50 years is going to be a time of > great upheavel. We have just about used all the cheap, plentiful energy > sources over the last 100 years, what are the generations living in the > next going to use?
You could apply that same argument to future generations.. If they use it what are their kids going to use? It is up to each generation to use what they have available and I'm pretty confident they'll have a lot more available to them than we do, just as we have more available to ourselves than our ancestors.
I find it a very pessimistic attitude that we have achieved, technologically, all that we are ever going to achieve.
> If you look at the civilisations produced in the last 5000 years, none > have come this far as the present one. We have a true global > civilisation but to get to where we are has taken all the easy to get at > energy resources the world has to offer, so quite concievably this is > the lst great civilisation this world will see.....the next one(s) wont > get much past the mud hut stages.
Oh geez.. the end is nigh!
> We are consuming at an un-susteanable rate for things we often dont > need, that is just screwy.
Yeah.. who needs modern homes and appliances and home theatre. Lets go live in mud huts! After all.. that's the only decent way to live because it doesn't involve taking all of earths resources which are there for future generations.
>> Do you *really* think NZ could be able, ever, to impact the global >> ecosystem to the point where it would be hard to breathe?
> No but all the countries of the world might be able to, the odd few nukes > could easily.
Hmmmm... years of atmospheric weapons testing didn't do that - how many is an "odd few"?
> Pollution is killing people with asthma right now, on a smaller scale.
It sure is. However, I believe that there is more to it than simply pollution.
Eg, Islanders, at home, don't suffer a lot of asthma. Islanders who move to NZ don't get a lot of asthma. Islander children born in NZ have *very* high rates of asthma.
There is more happening than simple pollution.
> If we seriously bugger up the planet we have no where to go but live in > it, some legacy we could be leaving our children/grand children.
> All the signs are there that the next 50 years is going to be a time of > great upheavel. We have just about used all the cheap, plentiful energy > sources over the last 100 years, what are the generations living in the > next going to use?
Their brains - just like everyone else in history. When oil is gone, something else will be found. We are addicted to cheap, portable energy. Someone will make it happen.
> If you look at the civilisations produced in the last 5000 years, none > have come this far as the present one. We have a true global civilisation > but to get to where we are has taken all the easy to get at energy > resources the world has to offer, so quite concievably this is the lst > great civilisation this world will see.....the next one(s) wont get much > past the mud hut stages.
> We are consuming at an un-susteanable rate for things we often dont need, > that is just screwy.
I really disagree.
Human history is full of example of people creating something new where nothing existed previously.
|
