Is global warming bad?

[Asterix]

If this is a problem that has grown as some would say exponentualy no one administration can correct it.


The deforesting in the rain forests has not just began, nor is it a Bush administrations program. The over logging of US forests has occured only in the past 4 years?

The polutants in the ocean are a result of Bush?

What steps have you done to replenish and correct what you bring up?????

Is voting enuff?? Or would the best and most direct way be in planing trees, cleaning up the beaches, buying browfields and restoring them to clean and productive lands? Investing in companies working on water based fuels and even puching for laws allowing no fuel buring transports be allowed in urban areas to be own and maintained by privite citizens?

You kinda like to take the ball and run with it in any direction, don't you? Not that it matters, but I have volunteered for beach and neighborhood cleanups, and try to use the most environmental friendly products in my own business. I don't fool myself that this is making anything more than a minute difference.

Where did I suggest that Bush was the cause of pollutants in the ocean or the deforestation of the rain forests? Get real. My point is that the US is doing nothing to address worldwide environmental problems, and going backwards as far as the same issues at home. Excuse me if I expect the leaders of my country to lead.

 

[papasmerf]

Where did I suggest that Bush was the cause of pollutants in the ocean or the deforestation of the rain forests?.

ummmmmmmmm you said it right here

Yes, the Clean Air Act did much to improve the environment.Too bad Bush and the republicans are doing their level best to gut it, but that's another discussion. What I was referring to was the issue of global warming and the loss of forests and ocean life, and as far as addressing it or even discussing it, the current administration especially, has done squat.

As far as taking the ball and running all over

I was just repeating, in my own way, John kennedy's words: "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country".

 

[Asterix]

ummmmmmmmm you said it right here

No. I didn't say Bush was the cause of the problems, juat that he was not addressing them, and as far as the Clean Air Act was trying to go backwards. Really papasmerf, if you want to engage in a meaningful discussion try not to distort what others post. It just makes you look silly.

 

[papasmerf]

No. I didn't say Bush was the cause of the problems, juat that he was not addressing them, and as far as the Clean Air Act was trying to go backwards. Really papasmerf, if you want to engage in a meaningful discussion try not to distort what others post. It just makes you look silly.

why is it that when people agree with you it is insight

but disagree it is foolish?

fact is sitting at a PC and saying BUSH needs to adress global warming is not productive. Getting out there and putting you passions to practice is. Your using products are environmentaly friendly, not using air conditioning at home, in the car or in you business, walking to work all good things that show comittment to ideals.

BTW you do walk to work and not use air conditioning anywhere??/ right?

 

[Ranger68]

What is Canada doing about global warming.

Is Canada planning on passing laws banning the use of Co2 producing fuels?

What will you do to force the Canadian Government to comply with the views expressed here by Canadians???? In that as Canadians your best shot with geting things done is at home and not trying to reform others first.

Canada is a signatory nation to Kyoto.

The US, the world's biggest GHG emitter, is not. This is simply because it's too expensive. Period. End of story. It is NOT because they actually believe that Kyoto isn't helpful. It's because the current administration can't POSSIBLY foresee having the money to comply and can't conceive doing ANYTHING to damage the economy while it's pursuing its goal of global hegemony. It's really quite simple.

 

[papasmerf]

Canada is a signatory nation to Kyoto.

The US, the world's biggest GHG emitter, is not. This is simply because it's too expensive. Period. End of story. It is NOT because they actually believe that Kyoto isn't helpful. It's because the current administration can't POSSIBLY foresee having the money to comply and can't conceive doing ANYTHING to damage the economy while it's pursuing its goal of global hegemony. It's really quite simple.

Didn't I read in this thread that Kyoto allows for "emergining nations" to be exempt??? Does this not mean a basic flaw in the plan? And the arguement that once developed these nations would conform is a bit hopeful.

Seriously as an individual are you living in walking distance to work? refusing to drive if you can walk? Not using air conditioning under any circumstances? Not using electric or NFG?

Are you doing your part? Or are you waiting for federal laws to demand you do?

 

[Ranger68]

First of all, it is entrenched in the Kyoto protocol that the current steps to be taken are FIRST steps. All signatories are to convene again a few years into the agreement to monitor, assess, and share progress in the issues. It is understood that MUCH MORE needs to be done, and that developing nations will be brought to the table even during the current period of compliance.

You should read the protocol if you wish to take part in a discussion of its merits and problems. Otherwise, your opinion is ignorant.

China has cut emissions by 17% since 1990, and emits roughly HALF of what the US does. Emerging nations can be dealt with in future rounds, although, to mention the two that are most often brought up in US rhetoric, both China and India have signed the protocol and agreed that future discussions may very well require them to cut GHG emissions. In effect, they have VOLUNTARILY agreed to take part in the process.

Look, it's all quite simple - Kyoto is not an end unto itself. This is VERY clearly laid out in the text and spirit of the protocol, and all of the signatory nations understand this. Why, then, does the exemption of "emerging nations" make it flawed? What about the protocol do you find problematic? What is your problem with this discussion?

I can tell you what the US thinks. In July 1997, the U.S. Senate passed S. Res. 98 by a vote of 95-0. S. Res. 98 expressed the sense of the Senate that the "United States should not be a signatory to any protocol . . . which would

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from Annex I parties, unless
the protocol . . . also mandates new specific
scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse
gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within
the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the
United States . . ."

All you have to understand is that there's an "or" between parts A and B, then read part B.

I'm not sure what your questions are about, except a veiled attempt at argumentum ad hominem. Don't be an ass. If you wish to discuss the topic, please do so, by answering the questions I pose you above. Otherwise, shag off.

 

[Ranger68]

No. I didn't say Bush was the cause of the problems, juat that he was not addressing them, and as far as the Clean Air Act was trying to go backwards. Really papasmerf, if you want to engage in a meaningful discussion try not to distort what others post. It just makes you look silly.

I think it's clear that papasmerf is neither capable of or willing to engage in a meaningful discussion.
Ignorance is bliss.

 

[papasmerf]

I'm not sure what your questions are about, except a veiled attempt at argumentum ad hominem. Don't be an ass. If you wish to discuss the topic, please do so, by answering the questions I pose you above. Otherwise, shag off.

As I sit here and examine your post I realize you are one that believes Global Waming to be a problem.

My questions to you are based on your belief. You can make a difference and are not. You tell me to Shagg off or FUCK OFF in todays venacular. Yet you never answered my questions

What are you doing to make sure global warming stops??
Are you walking to work???
Not driving when you can walk??
Never using air conditioning, under any circumstances?

Or are you running around saying someone help us and do something?????

Your reluctance to answer defines your choices.


Myself I do not suscribe to the sky is falling theory and I drive and stay cool in the summer. Do you?

 

[papasmerf]

I think it's clear that papasmerf is neither capable of or willing to engage in a meaningful discussion.
Ignorance is bliss.

See above post.

And before you call ignorance answer the questions

 

[Asterix]

why is it that when people agree with you it is insight

but disagree it is foolish?

fact is sitting at a PC and saying BUSH needs to adress global warming is not productive. Getting out there and putting you passions to practice is. Your using products are environmentaly friendly, not using air conditioning at home, in the car or in you business, walking to work all good things that show comittment to ideals.

BTW you do walk to work and not use air conditioning anywhere??/ right?

To answer your questions. No I don't walk to work, or even take the bus. My business requires I drive many miles every day, and I don't think the bus drivers would like me hauling all my equipment on board anyway. I'm as much a slave to the auto as anyone, and no it doesn't have AC, neither does my home. As I said, I try to do as much in my community as I can, but I have a bad habit of wasting my time on a particular internet board, involved in discussions that go nowhere. OK, your turn.

You seem to be suggesting that anyone who in anyway uses petroleum is being hypocritical for expecting the government, and in my case, the US government to take the lead. Earlier you mentioned how the Great Lakes and the air in the eastern US and Canada are cleaner than they were 20 or 30 years ago. A very good thing indeed. Do you suppose this happened because enough people decided to walk to work, or turn off their air conditioners, or that the industry moguls woke up one day and decided that, hey, we've got the technology to do this cleaner and it's the right thing to do? Or did it actually take a law to be passed to make it happen. Which Bush is trying to gut btw. Really.

I agree that when applied to international politics we're going to hit roadblocks, but I also think a substantial part of that roadblock is the US, and particularly the current administration.

 

[papasmerf]

Asterix,


Stretching the fabric of reality and saying you are correct about Bush, tell me what real power a President has. It is Congress and the Senate the laws are passed in. The President can only approve or veto them. And as you know Congress has the power to over-ride a Presidentual Veto. So I am just not sure how you narrow it down to Bush and company. When is reality it is the Clinton/Higgins show that has control.

 

[Ranger68]

See above post.

And before you call ignorance answer the questions

Your questions are not germane to the discussion.
They're argumentum ad hominem.
Look it up.
Bye.

 

[Asterix]

papasmerf.

In addition to what bbk has pointed out, the president and the state department largely dictate the direction of international policy. If the president chooses to put an international issue on the shelf, such as the world environment or global warming, there is litttle congress can do about it. Also if he chooses to water down the Clean Air Act, which it appears he'll try, he likely has the votes to do it. The republicans currently have a strong majority in the senate, and at least a significant majority in the house. Over-ride? If this congress ever over-rides Bush on anything of real importance I would be stunned.

 

[papasmerf]

I remember when Bush was first elected, alot of folks thought drilling for oil in Alaska was a forgone conclusion. But in the past 4 years not one well has been drilled.

Currently people are working on suposition. No legestation is on the table. I do know that as a citizen anyone can contact their congressman and let their views be known. Since we are the folks who elect and re-elect these folks, we have more say then one might think. While it is true lobbist have the attention of many, we have the ability to mount a camoaign and vote them out.

 

[papasmerf]

Your questions are not germane to the discussion.
They're argumentum ad hominem.
Look it up.
Bye.

Not a red herring at all

My questions are valid in that the debate is one of global warming. While you and others feel it is the responsibility of the US. I say it is more up to the individual to do their parts.

I guess I suspect people are resposible for their destiny. We can choose what we do. I do not believe it takes legestaion to get folks to do thing, but rather changes in technology. I great exapmple is you computer. But how many parts in it are not environmentaly friendly?????? Yet you choose to use it.

 

[Asterix]

I remember when Bush was first elected, alot of folks thought drilling for oil in Alaska was a forgone conclusion. But in the past 4 years not one well has been drilled.

Actually it's already a done deal. Always wait until after the election....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/15/energy.alaska.drilling.reut/

 

[papasmerf]

Actually it's already a done deal. Always wait until after the election....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/15/energy.alaska.drilling.reut/

Oddly enough I am saddened by this as Alaska is indeed a wilderness and I for one would like to see it preserved. I always thought that might be a place of harmony amongst the natives and those who choose to head there. Whith the land and see a friend and foe to all.

 

[Asterix]

Oddly enough I am saddened by this as Alaska is indeed a wilderness and I for one would like to see it preserved.

Oddly enough? I don't think it's odd at all to feel saddened by what might happen to Alaska because of this.

So, still think the president has no real power?

 

[papasmerf]

Oddly enough? I don't think it's odd at all to feel saddened by what might to Alaska because of this.

So, still think the pressident has no real power?

Actually I know the presidents power is limited by law.

And the oddly enough is for those who beleive me to be only one sided



I have a question for all those who live in WNY. Why do we never get answers as to why our energy costs are higher then the national average???? Even when called for by the state senate? This aint no new problem when it comes to how much we pay and if reserves are to be tapped.