Crazy Homeless Guy Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 global warming is politics, politics are people To get rid of global warming you have To get rid of People i was careful to leave direct reference to politics out of my post(s) because it tends to turn into juvenile name calling. i.e. ...democraps. statements like this rarely lead to insightful discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickdt Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I suppose you could argue that global warming isn't the result of human activity on the planet but if you want to look at it in terms of proportionality the vast amount of scientific data out there points to global warming being directly influenced by human activity. Sure there are some scientists out there that would suggest otherwise but they are by far in the minority and to me their research smacks of the kind of research that results when people bring pre-concieved notions to the table and seek to find evidence that supports those notions (sort of like the war in Iraq...). Anyway, regardless of whether or not use of so-called enviromentally friendly fuels because they will somehow miraculously reverse the trend of global warming we (the US specifically) should get behind ethanol due to all of the jobs and business it would create for our country. Ours is an agriculturally based economy and ethanol would make boom towns out of the now depressed rural communities that helped to lead this country to its success. Then instead of paying farmers to NOT grow crops we can actually put people back to work doing jobs that can't be outsourced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Omnibus response 9000 feet? I very highly doubt it. But if sea level rose 9000 feet, and you moved 9000 feet up a mountain, you'd be at the same elevation relative to sea level that you're at now - it would not lower your air pressure. Holland should worry. However, consider this: global warming is a change over a period of decades, not years. If it's 3 degrees warmer now that it was last year, that's not global warming, it's a temporary weather pattern. Houston: I lived there for a while, and I wouldn't want to be on the freeways in anything less than an F150. Those drivers are CRAZY. And having also lived in Boston, NY and Jersey I know a crazy driver when I see one. I'm a fan of walkable cities and transit-oriented development, but the way Houston and some other American cities have already developed I don't see how anybody could walk, bike or take transit to work without knocking down half the city and starting over - it's just too sprawled (hence the difficulty in getting a light rail system to be useful for commuters there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Hunt Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Here is Oz we are in the midsts of a 1 in a 1000 year drought. We havn't had significant rain in over 8 years. We are sitting on level 4 water restictions (there are 5 levels). The sad thing is that if something was done by the pollies 4 years ago we would be sitting pretty now. Too little too late as most of the plans they are proposing are going to take 5 to 10 years to complete. By then the will be no water to save. Global warming is real and should be everyones concern. Every little bit will help. JHV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I'm not saying it's not real - it makes perfect sense to me that if we make a significant change in the composition of the atmosphere a change in temperature would result - but for the sake of scientific rigor: -I have yet to see a study demonstrating a sustained measurable increase, as a global average, in atmospheric temperature since humanity started burning fossil fuels in large quantities, relative to trends established previous to our burning of fossil fuels in large quantities. -I have yet to see a study demonstrating that, globally, sea level has risen in the last several decades. -I have yet to see a study demonstrating a link between sustained global temperature increase and any local or regional phenomenon such as hurricanes or droughts, or really any science linking real or potential global warming to any effect other than ice melting and temperature rising, or anything that demonstrates that any climate or weather changes are occurring that are not part of natural patterns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sindala Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I am sorry but there is enough proof that higher co2 levels in the atmosphere create higher temperatures, there are statistics that proof a very accurate relations between these two over millions of years. Google it, you'll see. CO2 levels are higher than ever and if keep increasing and so will the temperature. It only seems logical to me that this will have influence on our weather somehow. I understand that some people need 'in your face' proof delivered on their doorstep but i'd rather not wait for this. if we really want to tackle this problem we all have to change our mentality in a big way and thinking that caring for our enviroment shouldn't change the way we live our daily lives just isn't enough. Now some of you may call me a treehugging hippy (and i was raised to be so) but i don't own a car i do all my travelling by bicycle or train and for my groceries i have a transportbike. It's also a great way to keep fit. edit, i changed a few words above, i tend to get a little rude when it comes to this subject, sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 If you’re looking for someone to blame take a look at countries like China and India with billions of people on the verge of an industrial revolution. Yes the US is the biggest polluter currently but we will soon be dwarfed by these two countries and that's not a guess it's simple fact. The US already has many policies in place which cut and restrict the pollutants we put in the atmosphere, these other countries don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickdt Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 BUT the US and Australia are the only major powers that haven't signed onto the Kyoto treaty. China and India have. Reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 That's not true China and India didn't sign it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickdt Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Did you click on the link? It directs you to a list of the signatories which includes China and India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 It says right in the article "Major emitters like the United States, China, and India aren't part of the agreement" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickdt Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Here's a few more informative links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png http://unfccc.int/resource/conv/ratlist.pdf http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/non_annex_i/items/2833.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Paske Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 From what I understand, very few of the countries that signed the Kyoto will actually meet the standards it set. Another aspect of ozone depletion that no one has mentioned is the effect of higher levels of UV Ray's will have on our bodies. We won't be able to go outside before long without wearing spf 120. Skin cancer anyone? Global Warming sucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Hunt Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 For OZ I have heard that even if we did sign the agreement, the standards that we would have to meet are so low that in effect we can change nothing and still meet them. Kyoto agreement or not, govements take too long to agree on anything so it is ultimatly up to the individual to exercise choice to force change sooner rather than later. JHV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fac311 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 its hot global warming sucks. I got no AC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAYMOND Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 [ but i don't own a car i do all my travelling by bicycle or train and for my groceries i have a transportbike. It's also a great way to keep fit. edit, i changed a few words above, i tend to get a little rude when it comes to this subject, sorry i think what you are doing is what a lot of people should be doing.. to many people drive around way too much.... it not just gas fumes that polute just think of all the environement harm that has been done just to create the car in the first place the city is planing a rail rapid transit... but most of the arguments against it is very narrow thinking... i don't drive a car either and bus ridership is rising very fast.. i almost always have to stand in isle... if people are concerned about the invironment they need to get their life down to something very simple... signing treaties in my opinion is like handing out fake money... or is about as useless as trying to boycot north korea.. r:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fac311 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 This Is True But We As A Society Strive For New Technologies And Ways To Make Our Lives Easier. If People Waouldn't Have Been So Caught Up In The Fact That Gas Prices Would Go Up Ignorant Asses Then Maybe Prop 87 Would Have Passed In Californai And We Would Be On Our Way From Releasing Our Dependancy On Oil And Going Towards Some Sort Of Solution In Alternate Fuels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 The fact is that most people aren't going to give up their cars for bikes or mass transit unless they are forced to, it's simply to convenient. You’re also not considering what happens when people want to go somewhere outside of the city, there going to have to get there somehow. You also have to consider what country, state and city you’re talking about, each one is going to be different and may not facilitate a mass transit system or are to spread out to make riding a bike a sensible option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fac311 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 The fact is that most people aren't going to give up their cars for bikes or mass transit unless they are forced to, it's simply to convenient. You’re also not considering what happens when people want to go somewhere outside of the city, there going to have to get there somehow. You also have to consider what country, state and city you’re talking about, each one is going to be different and may not facilitate a mass transit system or are to spread out to make riding a bike a sensible option. YEAH WHAT HE SAID! PLUS YOU HAVE TO FIGURE MOST PEOPLE THAT HAVE FAMILIES HAVE TO DROP OFF THEIR KIDS AT SCHOOL AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS BEING ENVIORMENTALLY CONCIOUS HAS ITS LIMITS WHEN YOU HAVE A FAMILY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAYMOND Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 well i know, i have lived in places where there was no public tranportation and ussually public transportation is a lot slower except maybe for systems like BART or something.. but here people are being forced out of having a car.. and now have to ride the bus.... it is around $3.27 per gallon here.... bus pass is $40 per month. i read also, about how that ethanol is really a total waste of time and does not solve anything..... well why worry about tsunamies where the whole ocean will rise up over many of us... r:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickdt Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I just think that ethanol is a worth while option because it would put several thousand farmers in the US back to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fac311 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Look Either Way Your Not Going To Be Able To Change How People Think. Good Idea Or Not Unless Its Done In A Way Were The Public Accepts It While Unknowingly Agreeing To Certain Stipulations Something Like That Will Never Pass Unless There Is Someone In Power Who Makes It A Priority And Isn't Controlled By Oil Companies And Other Branches Of Corporate America. And Whether Ethanol Works Or Not Who Care If It Decreases Our Dependancy On Foriegn Oil And Creates Jobs Here In America. The United States Is To Busy Fighting Poverty In Other Countries When Part Of Our Own Country Look Like A Third World Nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickdt Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Look Either Way Your Not Going To Be Able To Change How People Think. Good Idea Or Not Unless Its Done In A Way Were The Public Accepts It While Unknowingly Agreeing To Certain Stipulations Something Like That Will Never Pass Unless There Is Someone In Power Who Makes It A Priority And Isn't Controlled By Oil Companies And Other Branches Of Corporate America. And Whether Ethanol Works Or Not Who Care If It Decreases Our Dependancy On Foriegn Oil And Creates Jobs Here In America. The United States Is To Busy Fighting Poverty In Other Countries When Part Of Our Own Country Look Like A Third World Nation. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 That's true however ethanol has almost no effect on air pollution from cars built after 1990 and there is a 23% decrease in fuel efficiency when using E85 ethanol products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fac311 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 That Might Be True. Ok So We Are Using More Ethanol Than Gasoline . Ethanol Doesn't Last As Long But This Is Ok Because Our Economy Is Providing Us With Our Own Fuel. We Are Not Outsourcing And Paying Another Country To Provide Us With A Service We Our Boosting Our Own Economy Instead Of Someone Elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now