|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 7, 2005 8:16:35 GMT -6
Jake, come on now, Bush himself is so cliche, how can you not use them on him?
Why, if not making the big companies happy, is he doing the following:
The Bush administration's energy plan, which to date remains stalled in Congress, calls for altering laws to boost oil and gas development, mining, and spur the creation of more nuclear power plants. Yet how this plan was drafted under Vice President Dick Cheney's leadership remains obfuscated because the White House has fought to hide internal records and memos from public view. In Spring 2002, the Bush administration was court-ordered to release some internal records. The National Resource Defense Council reviewed these documents and reported that the energy plan was developed with direct input from the National Coal Council, Chevron, General Motors, and the National Mining Council, among other companies and industry groups. Congressperson Henry Waxman (D-CA) has charged that Cheney's proposed energy plan includes 17 provisions matching requests by the now-bankrupt Texas company, Enron; Enron was President Bush's largest political donor up to January 2002, reports the Associated Press.
Furthermore, during the last three years industry groups have been challenging U.S. environmental laws in court and winning from this Administration very generous court settlements that weaken environmental protections-before any judge rules-a pattern that has prompted environmental advocates, and even CBS News Online (April 19, 2003, "Lawsuits, Not Lawmakers, Make Policy") to wonder if Bush and company are using the settlement process to enshrine new law while avoiding the checks-and-balances of Congress and federal rule-making.
EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman tells reporters that the Bush administration has “no interest in implementing” the Kyoto Protocol. [BBC, 3/28/2001; Associated Press, 3/28/2001; Environmental News Network (EIN), 3/28/2001; CBS News, 3/28/2001; CNN, 3/29/2001] The treaty would require 39 industrialized nations to cut emissions of six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride—to an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. The US would be required to reduce its emissions by about 7 percent. The protocol will not go into effect until it has been ratified by countries that were responsible for at least 55 percent of the world's carbon emissions in 1990. [BBC, 3/29/2001; BBC, 9/29/2001] The United States is the world's largest polluter and therefore its refusal to support the treaty represents a significant setback. In 1990, the US was responsible for 36.1% of greenhouse emissions. [BBC, 6/4/2004] The Bush administration complains that the treaty would harm US economic interests and that it unfairly puts too much of the burden on industrialized nations while not seeking to limit pollution from developing nations.
to be Continued..............
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 7, 2005 8:32:16 GMT -6
Eric Schaeffer, 47, head of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, sends his letter of resignation to EPA administrator Christine Whitman. In the letter he says that he and his colleagues have been “fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules that [EPA employees] are trying to enforce.” He complains that the administration is crippling the EPA's enforcement divisions with budget cuts and that the White House is working with energy-industry lobbyists to weaken the New Source Review provision of the Clean Air Act which requires older coal power plants to install pollution controls when upgrading plant equipment (see August 27, 2003). [Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/1/2002; Washington Monthly, July/August 2002; New York Times, 1/5/2004; MSNBC, 4/20/2004 Sources: Eric Schaeffer's Letter of Resignation, February 27, 2002] People and organizations involved: Environmental Protection Agency, Eric Schaeffer, Bush administration
and then
The National Park Service (NPS) announces a plan to reverse a Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The NPS proposal would limit the number of snowmobiles permitted in the parks per day to 1,100 by December 2003. However, beginning with the 2004-2005 winter season, there would be no restrictions on the number of snowmobiles permitted in the parks. [Contra Costa Times, 11/10/2002; The Washington Post, 11/12/2002; League of Conservation Voters, n.d.] The proposal is made despite the National Park Service having received some 360,000 emails and letters on the issue, eighty percent of which were in support of the ban. [Contra Costa Times, 11/10/2002] Lifting the ban on snowmobiles would have a considerable impact given that according to the EPA's own figures, the emissions from a single snowmobile can equal that of 100 automobiles. [National Park Service, 5/2000; Environmental Protection Agency, 2001; Blue Water Network, 1999] The EPA had recommended in 1999 that snowmobiles be barred from the two parks in order to provide the “best available protection” for air quality, wildlife and the health of people visiting and working in the park. After coming to office, the Bush administration ordered a review of the policy as part of a settlement with snowmobile manufacturers who had challenged the ban. [The Washington Post, 11/12/2002] People and organizations involved: Grand Teton National Park, National Park Service (NPS), Yellowstone National Park, Environmental Protection Agency, Bush administration
and On the day before Thanksgiving, the Bush administration releases proposed rule ch-ch-changes that would lead to increased logging of federal forests for commercial or recreational activities by giving local forest managers the authority to open up the forests to development without requiring environmental impact assessments and without specific standards to maintain local fish and wildlife populations. Administration officials claim the ch-ch-changes are needed because existing rules—approved by the Clinton administration two months before Bush took office—are unclear, in addition to being costly and difficult to implement. Critics charge the ch-ch-changes are aimed at pleasing the timber industry at the expense of forest ecosystems. The proposed ch-ch-changes would affect roughly 192 million acres of US forests and grasslands. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 11/27/2002; CBS News, 11/27/2002; League of Conservation Voters, n.d.] The proposal closely follows the timber industry's wish list—a “coincidence” according to the Forest Service. [Native Forest, 11/27/2002; League of Conservation Voters, n.d.] People and organizations involved: US Forest Service (USFS), Bush administration
The Environmental Protection Agency withdraws a Clinton era rule that imposes total pollution limits for all water bodies and requires federal oversight on the clean-up of nearly 300,000 miles of rivers and 5 million acres of lakes. The move will make it easier for states to remove waterways from the clean-up list and more difficult for other waterways to be added. [Natural Resources Defense Council, 1/2003, pgs 17-18; League of Conservation Voters, n.d.; Environmental Defense, 1/13/2003] People and organizations involved: Environmental Protection Agency, Bush administration
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 7, 2005 8:37:55 GMT -6
Man on man, he keeps on removing those Clinton "problems", eh?
The Bush administration quietly announces plans to create a federal rule giving state governors increased control over the national forests in their states by allowing them to apply to the federal government for exemptions from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule on a case-by-case basis. The Roadless Rule, introduced by Clinton in January 2001, banned the construction of roads in 58. 5 million acres, or nearly one-third, of the nation's forests. The federal rule proposal will not be formally announced until July 13, 2004 (see July 12, 2004) [League of Conservation Voters, n.d.; Wilderness Society, n.d.; Sierra Club, n.d.] People and organizations involved: Bush administration
it goes on
Upon inauguration, he sought to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, even though the U.S. Geological Service reports that the amount of oil that could be recovered economically is only roughly 3.2 billion barrels, and it would take 10 years for that oil to reach the pump. And when production is at its highest, in 2027, the refuge would produce less than 2 percent of Americans expected oil consumption that year. What a fucking waste.
I can go on and on and on, better than that damn pink rabbit can do anyday..You want facts and reality Jake? How can you say these aren't?
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Feb 7, 2005 9:48:32 GMT -6
Tex, funnily enough we have experienced the summer weather in Texas that you mentioned. We actually missed the record temperatures during the UK's heatwave in the summer of 2003 because at the time we were in Texas, and being told how lucky we were that the weather was so unusually cool.
Global warming is a fact. It's the human contribution to the trend that is in question. As Gordon said, it's a theory but whilst we can neither prove, nor disprove it, there is sufficient weight of scientific opinion behind the theory that C02 emissions are the cause, or are worsening an otherwise natural event, that we ignore it at our peril.
I agree that Kyoto protocol appears flawed in not addressing the issue in Asia, in particular China and India. And the targets it lays out fall far short of the estimated figures that are needed to really address the problem, but it's a starting point and it has brought the issue in front of politicians around the world, many of whom see Kyoto as setting out a framework for future negotiations and a long-term process of more extensive measures. As for Asia, I don't believe that we can set out our stall by waving a finger at developing countries and telling them what they can and cannot do, and deprive them of the industrial freedoms we have enjoyed, until we have our own houses in order.
Whilst Europe is a driving force behind Kyoto, other key countries include Russia, Japan, Iceland, New Zealand, Canada. The French are only a small part of the process and American antipathy towards them is misplaced on this issue. The French dislike just about everybody, and in the UK we gave up paying attention to some of their more outrageous and French-obsessed rhetoric a long time ago. It's far easier to just let them get on with it rather than loosing any sleep over what they have to say. As the Italians say "France is a beautiful country spoilt only by the French". As for the rest of Europe, it seems they are sadly misjudged, and likely misunderstood, if American attitudes to them are as you describe.
I think the tragedy, and I'm not trying to politicize this and would say the same thing whoever was in the Whitehouse, is that George Bush walked away from the treaty without instead trying to use the USA's considerable international influence to produce a solution that was acceptable to America. What he did however say at the time was "My administration takes the issue of global climate ch-ch-change very seriously" and "We'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases" As America has only 4 to 6 percent of the world's population but produces around 25 to 30 percent of all greenhouse gases, if he truly means this then he has taken on an obligation to propose an alternative plan or process and turn his words into actions.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 7, 2005 11:25:43 GMT -6
I find it curiously interesting that those who either deny the existance of global warming or wish to discredit those who in any way accept the preponderance of scientific evidense that point to its existance, pull out the 1975 Newsweek article like it is some sort of SILVER BULLET that completely negates the validity of HUNDREDS of studie since then (plus they NEVER acknowledge that the authors of the study that article is based on HAVE RETRACTED SUPPORT for their own study). They got it wrong 30 years ago, and they admit it. The Earth IS ROUND, and IS NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.
Tex, you made no comment on the citations that I presented. You are obviously an intellegent individual, and cited ice core studies yourself... What do you think of the correlations that are presented between CO2 and global temps over the past 160,000 years ??
Also... Liberals DIDNT KILL the nuclear power industry in the US... the nuclear power industry was poised for HUGE expansion in the US until a little event called Three Mile Island happened. EVERYONE WENT RUNNING FOR THE DOOR to get away from association with them (the nuclear industry). And about the time the industry was getting back on its feet, Chernobyl came around (while the plant designs between Soviet and US were radically different, guilt by association applied in the minds of most North Americans).
While I am flattered that conservatives think that liberals are powerful enough to have killed an entire industry, especially during a time when we were losing all sorts of political power in DC and state capitals, I think that MOST Americans realized on there own that the risk/benefit ratio was WAY TOO HIGH and called a technological timeout to reassess. Perhaps its time to rethink this... I think it might not be a bad idea... but I dont here much of anything coming from the MOST CONSERVATIVE US administration in decades in this area. REASONS ANYONE??
Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 7, 2005 18:25:17 GMT -6
I certainly can't address why others might reference the Newsweek article (which didn't appear in a vacuum, BTW, but rather described a widespread movement which had gained considerable support in the academic and scientific community of the day) but one point that I wanted to make with it was that the authors had since done a 180, as Gordon pointed out. Never mind that they were just as urgent about the need to deal with global cooling at the time as they are about the need to deal with global warming today. Never mind that if we had heeded their advice then and set about melting the polar ice caps as they told us was so urgently needed that Houston and New Orleans (and lots of other places) would be underwater today. Talk about the need to take a technological time out. Maybe now is a good time for everyone to breath into a paper bag for a few minutes and take some deep breaths.
Speaking of the left and nuclear power, no they didn't get it outlawed, but they did get legislation passed which made it so expensive that it was not viable and destroyed the industry that way, taking the bond market out with it when the WPSS (Washington Public Power Supply) bonds defaulted as a result.
Back to Global Warming: as Gordon mentioned, the historical correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels, while not 100%, is discernable. This tells you two things:
1) global temperatures have varied a great deal in the past 2) global CO2 levels have varied a great deal in the past
both, I might add, without any help from human interference.
When most of the Europeans speak of global warming, they are lobbying for Kyoto, which does not reduce or even stablilize global CO2 levels, but would have the effect of killing not one US industry, but sending whole classes of industries to Asia. The incentives under Kyoto also encourage the developing Asian economies to ramp up their CO2 outputs as high as possible (which they are damn sure doing) so that their baselines will be very high if and when their emissions are curtailed. The net effect of Kyoto on global CO2 emissions is to increase them.
The US, IMHO, wastes a great deal of fuel and in doing so, emits unnecessary CO2 into the air. Actually, our industrial sector and buildings are fairly efficient, but not our motor transport sector. I am not convinced that global warming due to manmade CO2 emissions is real and/or serious. I am also not convinced that it is not serious either. I am willing to be convinced either way by the scientific evidence and IMHO, the jury is still out.
Kyoto is a loser either way. If it is determined beyond a reasonable doubt that excessive manmade CO2 commissions are indeed having a serious negative effect on the global climate, then some mechanism should be implemented that would stabilize or actually reduce the emissions, rather than just use the CO2 emissions as a methodology the redistribute world wealth. If new technologies cannot achieve the necessary reductions then I would suggest looking at something like the tradeable pollution credits in the US.
They would work something like this:
Suppose an industry in Cleveland needed to reduce CO2 emissions by one unit and would have to spend $10 million to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 unit. Say an industry in Shanghai (that was already within its allowable limits) with cruder equipment could spend only $150,000 and achive the same reduction. The industry in Shanghai could spend the $150,000, then sell the credit on the free market to the industry in Cleveland who could then emit the unit of CO2. This would allow compliance worldwide with the lowest cost to industry.
A problem with any such arrangement is that there is no well trusted worldwide honest broker to administer any such program. The UN has been in disrepute and is now ass deep in the Oil-for-Food scandal and coverup and the corruption and perception of corruption will have bad fallout for international cooperation through that body for years.
To those who are convinced that global warming is real and that the need to reduce CO2 emissions is urgent, I would suggest acting like you really believe it instead of promoting the wealth transfer scam that is the Kyoto Protocol.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 7, 2005 19:10:58 GMT -6
Tex
You are referring to the "free market approach" to CO2 reduction, and (believe me) I think that this method is MUCH more doable than the Kyoto Protocol. I seriously think that is would work for most other forms of pollutants also. If we start to think of these waste products as a 'resource' (albeit a 'negative resource' that we are trying to get rid of, rather than a 'positive resource' we are trying to distribute), something akin to a global Pollution Merchantile Exchange would offer some real potential... With one HUGE caveat.
Presumably, if we are trying to slowly work down a pollutant, lets just call it "A" in an orderly fashion over a long period of time. Who will call the shots in terms of how much of Pollutant "A" is available for the market to bid on, and who will monitor compliance (would the US and its corporations accept some sort of global commission coming around sticking their heads down our smokestacks and up our drain pipes), and who would enforce the law against violators and under what venue (World Court).
I dont have an answer for that. BUT the US wont take a leadership roll on these issues. The current administration has dismissed Kyoto, but not offered any real alternative to replace it. Starting a discussion on the "free market approach" would be a great start, but we have to take the lead, if we want the idea promoted.
I dont see how the third world countries (let alone Europe and developed Asian countries) will be pursuaded to join in. That leaves Kyoto, flawed as it is, as the only game in town.
Inaction is in effect a definate action.
Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 7, 2005 19:40:11 GMT -6
Tex The current administration has dismissed Kyoto, but not offered any real alternative to replace it...I dont see how the third world countries (let alone Europe and developed Asian countries) will be pursuaded to join in. That leaves Kyoto, flawed as it is, as the only game in town. Inaction is in effect a definate action. Gordon Look, Kyoto has two problems: 1) It doesn't reduce worldwide emissions, in fact it is an incentive for the developing Asian economies to increase their emissions. 2) It would cause a huge shift of industry from the US, where it is clean and efficient, to Asian developing countries, where there is zero incentive to invest huge sums of capital necessary to clean up the processes and the industries are profitable nonetheless due to cheap labor, no safety standards, no emission standards, and no litigation. We have already seen quite a bit of this shift already without Kyoto forcing it. Cheap inefficient, high polluting refineries and petrochemical plants (known as teakettles in the industry) are springing up in Asia and are viable because they can hire engineers for $150 a month and operators for $60 and pollute as much as you please. Amounts paid as death benefits if you kill a worker vary from country to country but for example, in Thailand, would be a little over $5,000 US.
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 7, 2005 19:46:52 GMT -6
nuclear power industry in the US... the nuclear power industry was poised for HUGE expansion in the US until a little event called Three Mile Island happened. EVERYONE WENT RUNNING FOR THE DOOR to get away from association with them (the nuclear industry). I'm gonna respectfully disagree. Something about Jane Fonda and the China Syndrome come to mind. Of course, I'm more tha willing to say Jane is FULL OF SHIT! Anyone who has flown on a jet from NY to LAX received more radiation than ANYONE around 3 Mile Island. The scientific evidence was then, and is now, that nuclear energy here in the US is safe and effective, and had it not been for lib'rul HIGHJINX, we might have much more of it today and MUCH LESS reliance on fossil fuels. You just can please some folks! ............Bob
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 7, 2005 19:50:16 GMT -6
The National Park Service (NPS) announces a plan to reverse a Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Oh BABY!! You don't know JUST how you touched a button! If 24 wasn't coming on, I'd tell you just how WRONG you are about snowmobiles. THAT subject is something I know a wee bit about, and Clinton was FULL OF SHIT lookin' to become some kinda' Environmental KING when he put through THIS shit! I PROMISE more later! .................Bob
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 8, 2005 6:27:33 GMT -6
Anyone who has flown on a jet from NY to LAX received more radiation than ANYONE around 3 Mile Island. The scientific evidence was then, and is now, that nuclear energy here in the US is safe and effective, and had it not been for lib'rul HIGHJINX, we might have much more of it today and MUCH LESS reliance on fossil fuels. Well maybe... www.tmia.com/images/wingmap3.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 8, 2005 6:31:55 GMT -6
Oh BABY!! You don't know JUST how you touched a button! If 24 wasn't coming on, I'd tell you just how WRONG you are about snowmobiles. THAT subject is something I know a wee bit about, and Clinton was FULL OF SHIT lookin' to become some kinda' Environmental KING when he put through THIS shit! I PROMISE more later! .................Bob We know a lot about snowmobiles too... some day I will post a picture of the blue haze that hangs over the town on a Saturday morning when a couple hundred of them are idling in the parking lots of local motels... AND wait theres more... I will post, for free, a recording of the 100 dB whine of the fleet deploying. (Not to mention that most of the crime in town in winter are related to out of town snowmobilers, mostly property crimes) Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 8, 2005 8:47:43 GMT -6
Bob, All I can say is THANK GOD (whichever god you chose) that someone out there wants to be environmental king. Someone has to look out for that which can't look out for itself. How can you say snowmobiling doesn't cause damage? Even if the emissions weren't a problem (and they are) then the noise and action itself does great harm to the animal and land in the parks. It's no different than putting in a dirt bike path. However, I will be glad to post some information for you on the damages that snowmobiles do cause: Exposure to air pollutants is associated with numerous effects on human health, including increased respiratory symptoms or decreased lung function, hospitalization for heart or lung diseases, or premature death. Recent studies conducted by the National Park Service, Air Quality Division, and other scientists have highlighted the potential effects on human health from exposure to air pollutants, specifically snowmobile emissions. A 2000 study showed that mechanics, toll booth workers, and patrol rangers were exposed to levels of benzene exceeding both the acute and intermediate Minimal Risk Level established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Exposure levels for toluene and fine particulate matter were also high enough to cause potential long-term health risks. As of 2001, the effect of snowmobiles on water quality has not been as well-studied as air quality impacts, but snowpack samples near heavily traveled snowmobile trails have been correlated with elevated levels of ammonium, sulfate, benzene, and other carbon compounds from gasoline combustion, raising concerns about water quality. Studies in 1999-2000 showed that kiosk workers and patrol rangers in Yellowstone were subjected to noise levels exceeding OSHA standards. Excessive noise levels can result in permanent hearing loss and can also raise blood pressure. Studies have shown hearing loss for persons subjected to 73 decibels of noise for 8 hours per day for 40 years, or when subjected to 85 decibels over a shorter number of years. Kiosk workers have been exposed to average noise levels of 88 decibels over an 8-hour work day, and a February 2000 study showed patrol rangers exposed to 93 decibel levels. Now, I am sure it will be your opinion that snowmobiles aren't harmful, but please back it up with fact ...not huff and puff. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 8, 2005 9:09:45 GMT -6
Bob,
I will go towards the other side to state that there is a "Clean Snowmobile Challenge" up for folks to develop better, safer, cleaner burning machines. But it will end up like hybrid cars...only the folks that give a shit (or can afford to give a shit) will buy them.
Technological solutions that could reduce harmful emissions from snowmobile engines include:
*Substituting four-stroke engines for two-stroke engines to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions. *Introducing fuel injection to replace carburetors in new two-stroke machines. *Improving fuel atomization in two-stroke engines for cleaner burning mixtures. *Treating exhaust to reduce emissions from two-stroke engines. *Substituting rotary four-stroke engines for two-stroke engines to maintain power-to-weight ratios of the two-stroke engine. *Using ethanol blend gasoline and biodegradable lubricants. *Developing electric snowmobiles
Most of these things are very do-able but lower the power that people MUST HAVE! But are these regulations put on machines currently? No, are the older machines regulated? No.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 8, 2005 9:31:20 GMT -6
Just heard that the Presidents new budget calls for a decrease (real, adjusted for inflation) in environmental of 22% by (not through) 2010. - quote from William Beech, Chair of the Heritage Foundation
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 8, 2005 10:15:20 GMT -6
Of course their are Republicans (Green Conservatives??) in favor of controlling emissions of greenhouse gases. From "Republicans for Environmental Protection" From: www.repamerica.org/From a Green Conservative point of view... Facts and Myths on Global Warming www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.htmlWhich includes the following... Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 8, 2005 11:39:13 GMT -6
I am for basic environmental protection and conservation of natural resources. I confess to knowing nothing of snowmobiles or their effects.
Environmentalism cuts across the political spectrum. It has also become the banner under which many of the displaced communists in Europe hide. As one of my German friends (he is a Christian Democrat, last he told me) the Greens in Germany should be the "Watermelon" Party (green on the outside, red on the inside)
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Feb 8, 2005 12:03:49 GMT -6
While it's true that some of the far left have found homes in the green movement, and that includes here in the UK too, I would make it clear that the European concern with global warming and acceptance of Kyoto is driven by democratically elected governments and not political activists and communists.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Hedo69 on Feb 8, 2005 12:56:20 GMT -6
Tex, I must confess, that until this morning, I knew nothing about snowmobiles and haven't considered them really one way or another. It was merely one more blot on Bush's environmental record in a list of many. But when someone takes my comments to task, I jumped in there to educate myself a bit, so I could discuss it intelligently with Mr. Bob. ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png) I am wholly impressed by yours and the others knowledge on global warming. I have learned loads about it just reading the differing views! Thanks Simon and Gordon too!
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 8, 2005 12:57:48 GMT -6
They would come closer to convincing the skeptics if those in Europe and elsewhere who are serious about global warming would feel strongly enough about it to come up with a solution that:
1) actually reduces (or at least stabilizes or slows the growth) of global CO2 emissions
2) does not gut large portions of US industry and send it to Asia.
While there are many in Europe and elsewhere who sincerely believe that CO2 induced global warming is both scientifically sound and a serious threat to the global ecosystem, IMHO, there were many who had input into the details of Kyoto who were absolutely aware that there was no way that the US could sign on and were more than willing to delay any real action on CO2 emissions in order to paint the US into the corner of being viewed as obstructionist on environmental issues. IMHO, Kyoto is a dead horse and kicking it around more is a delay to any possible measures which could be enacted to limit CO2 emissions.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 8, 2005 13:24:08 GMT -6
I might add that the emissions statistics commonly used to depict which countries emit how much CO2 deal only with emissions and not with the other side of the equation, which is how much forest land, etc. is available as a CO2 sink (converts the CO2 back to oxygen). The average world forest absorbs approx. 2,200 lbs/acre of CO2 (2.5 metric tons per hectare). In contrast, warm weather pine forests (such as cover the American south from Gerogia to eastern Texas) grow as much in 14 years as the world average does in 40, with a corresponding increase in the rate of photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert CO2 back to oxygen. If we are going to rate countries by their CO2 emissions, surely it is only fair to present net emissions, rather than gross.
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Feb 8, 2005 14:46:21 GMT -6
They would come closer to convincing the skeptics if those in Europe and elsewhere who are serious about global warming would feel strongly enough about it to come up with a solution that: 1) actually reduces (or at least stabilizes or slows the growth) of global CO2 emissions The 55 developed countries, which includes Europe, that the Bush administration disagrees with and who have signed up to Kyoto already have a plan. In most quarters this is viewed not as the solution, but rather the beginning of the solution. If the Bush administration disagrees so much with Kyoto and are genuine in their desire to tackle global warming then where is their solution? George Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001 and has had 4 years to put forward an alternative to replace it before it is ratified next week. He has not done so. He could have used the USA's influence, as I stated previously, to produce a solution that was acceptable to America. Again he did not do so. I think the fact that he simply walked away from the whole process clearly demonstrates the emptiness of his statements "My administration takes the issue of global climate ch-ch-change very seriously" and "We'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases". An administration that didn't hesitate to rally support from the international community to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction which were claimed to be a threat to America and its allies, continues to snub that very same community in its efforts to tackle their very real concerns about the threat of CO2 emissions to the global climate. His unilateral response was a plan to allow the USA to produce more CO2, not less. www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1932Simon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 8, 2005 15:14:34 GMT -6
George Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001 and has had 4 years to put forward an alternative to replace it before it is ratified next week. He has not done so. He could have used the USA's influence, as I stated previously, to produce a solution that was acceptable to America. Again he did not do so. Simon In all fairness to GW, he has had a few other things on his plate since 2001. As far as the USA's influence goes, I'm not sure that our influence on the EU is that great, and the EU was the driving force behind Kyoto. Within the EU, France has low CO2 emissions due to high nuclear power use and the Germans are much in the same boat. Kyoto ( while doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions) requires little of Europe that they weren't already doing due to other air quality concerns, gives a bonanza to the developing Asian economies, and guts the US economy. Any surprise here who isn't too enthusiastic. The same goes for some of the new novel ideas for international courts and law, such as what has created the current situation whereby the US Defense Minister cannot go to Germany because he may be arrested by those who basically just disagree with US policy.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 8, 2005 17:12:21 GMT -6
OK Tex, now I am stepping in waving my Forestry Degree. You are partially right about the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere due to forests. And while the SE pine forests you site are pretty good relatively speaking, there are limits, and those forests are pretty small potatoes on a gloabl scale and even as far as cover in the US goes. forestry.about.com/library/graphics/typindex.gifThe biggest terrestrial absorbers of CO2 are, by far, the tropics, and they are being cut down at a HUGE rate. Right now about 22% of the US is forested, and that has remained stable since WWII. Globally, Russia accounts for about 20% of the worlds forests, Brazil 14%, Canada and the US about 6% each. In Brazil alone 21,000 sq miles of rain forest disappears annually (about the size of NorthCarolina) earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/deforestation_2.htmlThat wont grow back either, because contrary to popular belief, the tropics hav almost no top soil, all of the nutirents are tied up in the vegetation. When the vegetation is removed thae land has to start from scratch, and its decades until anything except shrubs grow. The aquatic biosystem accounts for about 80% of the CO2 absorption from the atmosphere. Over all about 25% of the 'excess' CO2 that is somehow (if humans are not respondsible) getting into the air is being absorbed by living plants on land or in the sea. Annual increas in CO2 is about 1.5 ppm (or about 0.5% increase) per year. HOWEVER, there are limits. Plants/trees cant just absorb CO2 whenever they like. Adequate water is needed, other nutrients in the soil may be limiting, and other air pollutants will cause the stomata in plants to clog or close down. Duke University did a study which put up large domes over forest plots where the CO2 levels were controlled at avariety of levels. The rate of CO2 absorption maxed out at a level that will be reached in about 50 years (at current rates of increase). After that forests will become less and less efficient. At a level that would occur in 100 years at current rates of increase, the levels of CO2 become toxic and the trees die. Of more importance is CO2 storage. When forests die naturally, the carbon is stored in the ground and released very slowly as a result of decomposition. Peat bogs in northern Russia and Canada store an amount of CO2 that, if released all at once, would double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the need to preserve wetlands. While it is comforting to think of that we are keeping watch over our forests, and trying to control our emissions, this is a subject where the only relistic way to think aobut the problem is in global terms. The amount of CO2 we put out in absolute terms HAS to be brought down because we are the biggest single producer. This gives no excuse to other nations to be allowed to increase their pollution output. I think of it more as an opportunity toi be on the forefront of new scientific, and commercial endeavours, developing new industries, before others do. Gordon
|
|
|
Post by DT on Feb 8, 2005 17:59:12 GMT -6
Thanks for the education folks. Now if the Republicants would get off the policies that the solution to pollution is dilution it would be a cleaner world ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png)
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 8, 2005 20:21:47 GMT -6
Bob, I will go towards the other side to state that there is a "Clean Snowmobile Challenge" up for folks to develop better, safer, cleaner burning machines. But it will end up like hybrid cars...only the folks that give a shit (or can afford to give a shit) will buy them. Technological solutions that could reduce harmful emissions from snowmobile engines include: *Substituting four-stroke engines for two-stroke engines to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions. Lemme talk about snowmobiles for a sec, guys. Hedo69, you are on the right tract. But there are a few bumps. Clinton proposed a COMPLETE BAN to snowmobiles. Bush proposed a plan that would LIMIT their numbers and REQUIRE 4 stroke engines, the same as what's in your car and would do away with the "blue fog." The idiot enviromental NAZI judge that overturned Bush's plan unwittingly allowed 2 cycle engines BACK IN! DUH!! Bush's plan would have allowed the public to continue to enjoy their public lands and reduce pollution too. Environmental Nazis would have nothing to do with it. Let's not forget the harm and fowl caused to simple folks who rely on tourism to make their living. Last year, West Yellowstone was nearly a ghost town compared to years earlier. Upwards of 1000 jobs were lost in an area where that is purely devastating. To put it in perspective, that would amount to the immediate loss of almost 40,000 jobs in NY. I suspect HILLARY would have a cow if some Republican proposed a law that immediately put out 40,000 folks from work! Don't you agree? Anyone who knows anything about Yelllowstone knows that the road allow access to about 3% of the park. In the winter, the snowmobiles have access to only about 1% of the park (Personal Communication with Park Rangers). Please tell me how accessing 1% of the park with 4 cycle engines (proposed by BUSH!) that produce no more pollution than the 20,000 to 25,000 cars going through their daily during the summer is adversely impacting anything? Maybe you should read: www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14546Or this: abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=169800This one ain't too bad either: www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles10/yellowstone_snowmobile_ban_throw.htm
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Feb 8, 2005 20:37:03 GMT -6
Tex, I must confess, that until this morning, I knew nothing about snowmobiles and haven't considered them really one way or another. It was merely one more blot on Bush's environmental record in a list of many. You admit you know NOTHING about snowmobiles, but somehow conclude it's a "blot" on Bush's record? ![>:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/angry.png) If this ain't more LAIMBRAIN LIB'BRUL LUNACY than I don't know what it is! JESUS H CHRIST Someone rip me a new one!! ............Bob
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 8, 2005 20:41:47 GMT -6
Bush's hydrogen technology proposal would be great if a way to separate hydrogen was available that does not involve using great amounts of electricity in the separation process. The combustion would produce only water vapor and could work in most engines we use now with a gas type carburetor. An fringe benefit would be that it is safer than methane (natural gas), propane and butane because it is lighter than air. Centralized well managed nuclear generated electricity used to separate commercial quantities of hydrogen for motor fuel would be feasible if we could make rebuilding our nuclear industry politically acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 8, 2005 22:56:32 GMT -6
Tex is so right. Hydrogen isn't really a fuel in the sense that petroleum is; it is more of a storage mechanism for energy that is "created" elsewhere, and then used to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen or whatever other molecule it is bonded to in its natural state. That's great in that it lets you reap the benefits of nukes or other forms of bulk power, but in more convenient locations (like a car). But hydrogen is never going to be the SOURCE of the power until we discover a cache of unbonded H atoms somewhere (and that isn't going to happen in this universe)......Jake
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Feb 8, 2005 23:05:44 GMT -6
Don't beat around the Bush, man...is you sayin hydrogen might possibly turn out to not be the answer? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png)
|
|