| Author | Message | ||
     sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 729 Registered: 10-2001 |
cjc wrote: "It's vain to think that man is that capable, given the size of one volcanic eruption, the amount of oil that naturally seeps out of the ocean floor -- a bunch of things. That's not to say man has no effect." About a month ago I was in Hawaii, standing at the top of Waimea Canyon watching the clouds fly by, completely in awe of the power of nature. The thought that kept popping into my mind was just what cjc said. To think that we actually can control, to any significant measure, what occurs here on earth is very vain. Our time here on earth has been, to date, a mere blip in time. Can we do harm to the earth? Yes, but is it really the earth that we are harming or causing ourselves a little discomfort while enjoying our brief stint here. The earth doesn't need our protection, it will be here long after all of us are gone. It is very ego-centric of us to think that we can change the earth for better or worse. By the time nature decides that man's time on earth is up we'll all be long gone and so will our children and our children's children and so on. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 78 Registered: 1-2003 |
From the Wall Street Journal... Cool on Warming If a much-heralded global treaty falls in Siberia, is it news? Apparently not in the U.S. media or Senate, where proponents are still selling the Kyoto climate control treaty a month after Russian President Vladimir Putin all but iced it. Environmental lobbies aren't known for reticence, but an odd silence has overtaken them since Mr. Putin offered his coup-de-Kyoto at the World Climate Change Conference in Moscow earlier this month. The delegates assumed the Russian would announce his government's intention to ratify the treaty. But instead he delivered an emperor-has-no-clothes speech that stunned the audience -- and changed the global warming debate. Mr. Putin acknowledged that Russia would get an initial boost from the treaty as it sold spare quotas for carbon dioxide emissions. But having promised to double the size of the Russian economy in 10 years, he went on to say that Kyoto would soon become an economic albatross. Even worse for the warming clergy, the Russian dared to dispute the science underpinning Kyoto . Mr. Putin said he has learned that we simply don't know why temperatures are rising, how recent trends relate to long-term temperature variations and, above all, whether or not changing human behavior would matter to any of this. Finally, to gasps of horror, Mr. Putin noted that it would hardly be a tragedy if Siberia warmed a couple of degrees or if Russians had to "spend less money on fur coats." He added what is obvious to Americans who live anywhere north of Chicago, namely that warming temperatures would probably help Russia's agricultural output. The growing season is short in Siberia. We'd have thought all of this was news, especially because at this point Russia holds an effective veto over Kyoto . The treaty requires countries representing 55% of emissions to sign up before it takes effect, and so far nations amounting to 44% have ratified. If Russia doesn't ratify with its 17% emissions share, Kyoto will be deader than those earlier theories about the looming global ice age. On the other hand, perhaps this is precisely why the Sierra Club and friends are so quiet. They know this Russian challenge undercuts their refrain that the U.S. is the world's sole global scofflaw on climate change. With China also skeptical, the Bush Administration can now claim a majority of global opinion for its Kyoto opposition. Perhaps this will even encourage the White House to drop its split personality on global warming, claiming it is a problem but declining to do anything about it. A good time to start would be this week, when Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain will offer their "Climate Stewardship Act" for a vote. The duo have also apparently missed the Moscow news, because their proposal to reduce emissions of "greenhouse" gases would revive Kyoto by the back door. While their bill has less restrictive targets than Kyoto , its practical effect would be increasingly stringent controls on energy use. An emissions cap would create a property right in tradable pollution reduction credits, and companies facing the restrictions would soon become lobbyists for Kyoto ratification in order to take advantage of its emissions trading provisions. But there is no reason at all to impose such a "cap" because CO2 isn't a pollutant. One irony here is that many of the countries that claim to be Kyoto's biggest fans may actually be pleased to see it die. That's especially true in a Europe beset both by slow growth and by Green parties that are part of center-left coalitions and believe in Kyoto as a matter of neo-religious faith. Alas, the European Union passed its own version of Lieberman-McCain not long ago in an effort to show that Kyoto still had life after President Bush withdrew U.S. support. So if Kyoto does now finally collapse, the EU will have saddled itself with even more costly regulatory burdens. No wonder Europeans want the Senate to do the same for the U.S. For this and other reasons, the lobbying of Mr. Putin to renege on his anti-Kyoto position will be intense. But Mr. Putin's Moscow doubts reflected the considered guidance of Russian scientists and his main economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov. Perhaps because they haven't been part of the global warming party circuit, Russian scientists also seem more able to think for themselves. It's hard to recall now after years of media incantation, but in 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify any climate-change treaty that would cause "serious harm" to the U.S. economy and from which developing countries are exempted. McCain-Lieberman is an attempt to repudiate that vote and pressure the White House into bending to the global warming lobby. Maybe someone should read Mr. Putin's Moscow speech on the Senate floor before the Members vote. ____________________________ Remember in 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify any climate-change treaty that would cause "serious harm" to the U.S. economy and from which developing countries are exempted. Those were the clinton years, and even now, I doubt that 50 senators have changed their mind. | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1150 Registered: 12-2001  |
There is some merit to what you say sportsnut,but I would counter with the fact that in less than a blip of the blip that man has been on this planet we have harnessed nuclear power and become capable of destroying the entire planet in an afternoon. Earth does need some protecting and there is a bit of I-can-do-what-ever-I-want-to-the-planet-it-wont-matter-after-I'm-gone rationalizing that I think is perilous. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 61 Registered: 8-2003 |
Pretty sad, that we need one of the worst polluting countries in the world to justify our own failings. This is a not so old picture from a Russian industrial area.  | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 71 Registered: 11-2003 |
why worry? god will fix the environment if we screw it up. but why didnt god strike down Rockefeller, Ford, and the Carnegies of the world with a bolt of lightening before the industrial revolution?? hmmmm maybe there is no god?? If that's the case and nothiness awaits us after death, who cares what we do--let's party!!! | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 62 Registered: 8-2003 |
Not to mention Chernobyl | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 63 Registered: 8-2003 |
Kenney, most likely nothing will await me after death, but there are my children. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 730 Registered: 10-2001 |
Duncan - we have become capable of destroying all human life, not the earth. Again, its not the earth that needs protecting, its the inhabitants. | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1143 Registered: 1-2003  |
True, sportsnut, but we just might have the power to do good or bad for the environment. Scratch that. We do have the power. We just don't know how much. We've seen super polluted areas and their effects. It may be a mystery for a long time how much we have affected the entire global environment. Therefore, it may be a mystery as to how much we can and should try to affect it for everyone's benefit. But to act as if it's not our concern is, as Duncan says, perilous. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1144 Registered: 1-2003 |
Kenney, you've dug up an article damning RFK Jr. Taking it at its word, RFK pushes agenda for his own sake, whether or not they have merit. What about what Kennedy wrote in Rolling Stone? What do you think of that? I've been asking you this question, and you haven't answered yet. Instead, you continue to do what I call a cheap shot. Even if RFK is rabid and overly combattive, he may have a valid point or two. The same can be said of Limbaugh and other commonly hated characters. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 73 Registered: 11-2003 |
Just playing the 'Crossfire' game lefties and righties like to play, tom...no cheap shot... to continue playing, I challenge you to prove the anti-Kennedy article is wrong and if(when) you cant, that means Kennedy has no credibility and therefore completely refutes his article.......ha!(having fun yet??) | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1532 Registered: 5-2001 |
Analyze this, from Kennedy's related interview on Salon.
What are the facts outlined here? That there is a "Christian Dominion" movement. True. See http://www.commonlawreview.com/review/environmentalism.htm, I purposely searched for a conservative site for this, it's a long article but the conclusions in the last few paragraphs are indicative. James Watt shared these points of view: true. Many public quotations. What does this all mean? Well it means that no matter what you make of the ozone hole, CO2 levels, global warming, endangered species and everything else, these are people who are avowedly willing to destroy the environment, even if they haven't already. Now another point: can the environment be destroyed? Answer a few basic questions: Can the Earth support an unlimited population? Is there an effectively endless supply of fossil fuels? Can the air and water absorb an unlimited amount of toxins and not become dangerous even lethal? The answers to all of these are of course "no." The environment can be destroyed. So add two and two: Government policies that move towards environmental destruction; an environment that can be destroyed. Serious danger. | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1145 Registered: 1-2003 |
Kenney wrote: Just playing the 'Crossfire' game lefties and righties like to play, tom...no cheap shot... It is a cheap shot. I was trying to get the discussion going to a more substantive level. I figure the right could use some good representation, and I thought maybe you'd be the man to provide it. In other words, I was hoping not to play crossfire. to continue playing, I challenge you to prove the anti-Kennedy article is wrong and if(when) you cant, that means Kennedy has no credibility and therefore completely refutes his article.......ha!(having fun yet??) I think the article stands pretty well on its own. So I take it that you're saying that the article is wrong or must be wrong just because. I'm disappointed. I came here for an argument, and all I get is contradiction, as Eric Idle (I think?) said. If you won't claim to have read the article and found it with or without merit, then, um, what's your point? Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 64 Registered: 8-2003 |
Kenney, when I found and posted the article, I didn't even check on the author, honestly. Your post was the first thing made me aware that Kennedy was the author. What I'm saying is that I posted the article for what it's all about, not who wrote it. It seems like you can't disprove the arguments made for whatever reasons, maybe you are not educated enough, or maybe you are so stuck to you ideology, that you can't even imagine a different point of view is valid to discuss. I say, talk about the issues in the article and we will debate you, or otherwise I will just ignore any future of your future comments on this thread. Everybod else, how is just talkin about global warming and and if it's effects are proven/unproven. The article talks about alot more then just that. It talkes about polluted rivers, and uneatable fish and much more. Can we distroy the earth? Most likely not, but we can sure make it an awfull place to live on, let's stop Bush from makeing that happen faster then it will anyway. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1535 Registered: 5-2001 |
I re-read the WSJ piece quoted above, and the only direct assertion about scientific facts is "But there is no reason at all to impose such a "cap" because CO2 isn't a pollutant." Well I guess if you really want to be strict about the meaning of words, it isn't. Dictionary.com defines "pollutant" as "Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water." While it is a waste material, I guess you can't call it a contaminant, because it's something that's in the air to begin with. But to paraphrase a recent movie, "pollutant is just a word." It's the answer to the wrong question. Nitrogen, by this definition, isn't a pollutant either. But if the level of nitrogen in the air rose to, say, 99% you'd be, well, dead. It's not whether or not CO2 should be in the air, but what is a proper amount, and whether there are implications to a rising level of it. Anyone with two fish tanks, two thermometers, a heat lamp and some dry ice can see what happens when the levels of CO2 rise. Why is this so difficult? | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 75 Registered: 11-2003 |
You got me Earlster, I am not education enough. After I get my GED, I hope to take classes at a community college. Thanks for making me finally face the harsh realities of my stupidity. "I say, talk about the issues in the article and we will debate you, or otherwise I will just ignore any future of your future comments on this thread."--Earlster Maybe after getting my 2-yr degree, I will be able write as well as you. | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 67 Registered: 8-2003 |
tom, it's so difficult, because it doesn't fit into certain ideologies. Many of which begin with 'M' - Me, Me, Me - Money, Money, Money - more, more, more They get so stuck at the M thing, that they never make it to 'R' - Respect for others and nature - Responsibility towards our future and children | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 68 Registered: 8-2003 |
Yoou gott mme Kenney, English is my second language after all. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 76 Registered: 11-2003 |
Yes, let's not forget about the children...or our children's children, or our children's children's children... | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1536 Registered: 5-2001 |
Earlster, thanks for your support. So here I am starting a debate, as requested, about the specifics of the article, and Kenney is still ranting. |
