| Author | Message | ||
     cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 473 Registered: 8-2003 |
It's all there. To question Kyoto and the doomsday scenarios out there is to be disrespectful, selfish, greedy and without concern for the welfare of our kids. Question: First, does anyone remember the "new ice age" of the 70s? I remember it vividly. Leonard Nimoy even did a special on some series back then about it. And we were much dirtier back then. Was it our relative "dirt" that saved us? Another Question: No one can accurately say how much full implementation of the Kyoto Treaty would cost the US. So for those that question the war on terror by virtue of it's cost vagueness, how can you justify blindly spending on a program that in the end may have no real impact on something that may be beyond our control and could (and has in the past history of the earth) ultimately reverse itself cyclically regardless of what mankind does or doesn't do? | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 735 Registered: 10-2001 |
Earl - you could take that "M" to an extreme and say that me represents the entire human race. What you are trying to save is me (the entire race), which IMO is just as selfish. I do believe we can do harm to our environment. Its foolish to think that we haven't already. But if you look throughout history this pattern has been repeated over and over again. Farming, fishing, industrialization were all seen as ruining the earth at one point or another and seen as potentially dooming civilization as we know it. We're still here. All I'm saying is it is never as bad as it seems. Should we be doing something to minimize the destruction of the environement? Yes. Does it require a radical change in the way we live, conduct ourselves etc? I don't think so. Remember as recently as the 70's when we were witnessing the coming of the next ice age???? | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 71 Registered: 8-2003 |
sport - I don't think we need to radically change the way we live, but what I don't want is for Bush et.al to turn the clock back. The pattern has repeated over and over again? There have always been ups and downs, but only in the last 100 - 150 years, since people first started using coal and then oil did we start to have a significant impact on the environment. We had some really bad pollution earlier this century, we changed laws and things got better, but it seems that as usually we forget. cjc - No, we don't know how much Kyoto, or any other environmental policy costs, maybe it costs nothing for the overall economy. Sure some industries might get hurt more or less, but others will flourish. I'm not advocating to de-industrialize, but to take advantage of the modern technologies we have to do things cleaner and more sustainable. Money saved now, might very well just be a loan for future generations to pay the tab. Just look at super fund sites. It was cheap to pollute then, now our generation is picking up the bill. | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 72 Registered: 8-2003 |
WSJ article: It's just so ironic to read Putin say that a few degrees warmer will help his farmers in Siberia. Sure it might, but Russia is doing ok feeding it's people. On the other hand go and look at Africa, millions are starving, they had famine for many years and a warmer climate will sure not help their crops. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 481 Registered: 8-2003 |
Earl -- you're ignoring other spans of higher global temperatures during man's time on this earth that didn't have even half of our current industrialization. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 83 Registered: 11-2003 |
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/11/21/1069027339796.html While I have yet to verify, I bet Bush is to blame. to all my thoughts, add to the end: or not. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 267 Registered: 6-2003 |
Pollution is bad for many reasons, and we now understand that its effects can be very far reaching. I can understand why people who make money from polluting industries would defend their right to do so. What puzzles me, however, is that many people whose quality of life is lowered by pollution will also take the side of the polluter. Possibly these are the same people who throw garbage out their car windows, or who leave food wrappers in the train. Engaging such people in rational dialog is no easy matter. The silent (and nature friendly) majority might join me in giving Earlster a vote of thanks. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 85 Registered: 11-2003 |
sir monte, there are a number of self-help orgniztions, just look around.... to all my thoughts, add to the end: or not. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1539 Registered: 5-2001 |
I remember in the pre-phosphate-ban days, going camping and walking up one of my favorite streams in the woods, and finding it clogged with detergent suds. I remember seeing the underbrush thick with pop-tops from soda and beer cans. I saw a die-off of thousands of fish on a beach on Lake Michigan. I remember being hardly able to breathe driving across the Flats in Cleveland. What I don't remember is what's so great about pollution. Things are much better now, and we're richer than ever. Why go back? | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 163 Registered: 2-2003 |
I agree with Tom entirely. I remember growing up in NYC during the early mid sixties and reading about smog alerts. I remember when no one thoughty about drinking faucet water. What I can't understand from folks like cjc and sportsnut is why would you even consider putting the earth at risk. Is money really all you care about? Because that is the ultimate bottom line of market forces. It is lazziness, lack of concern, lack of understanding; how much effort would be involved to live in a way that is less polluting to the earth. Is it so much to even consider? Are you so bent on quarterly dividends, that your willing to risk the earth for your children and grandchildren. Have we as a society become that selfish? Ask yourself, do you really need that SUV to drive to the supermarket? Do you really need to drive alone to work in a full sized car to work. How many houses do you pass at night with lights on in every room. It is a matter of philosophy. Why waste? We have the technology to be driving cars and light trucks that get 40-50 MPG. Why won't the goverment and big business support such efforts. I drive a VW Turbo Diesel, it gets 45-50 mpg. Yes it cost 500 dollars more. Over the last 4 years I've saved easily over 1000-1500 dollars on fuel. Unfortunately our country won't even produce low sulfer deisel. So, this year I'll buy a Hybrid. So to the likes of the cjc's and sportnut's of the world. You can focus on your dividends and market forces, I guess that's your philosophy. However, money has never been shown to bring neither more happiness, love or understanding. It's all a matter of what you value. The science supporting global warming is not perfect, nor are the arguments to it disclaim. However, why is the currently appointed administration so bent on suppressing data from its own agencies that are consistent with the existance highly abnormal temperature fluctuations? | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 739 Registered: 10-2001 |
Andy - I'm so proud of you. For you to imply that for me its all about money is wrong (because its not). Talk about sweeping generalizations. But that is the problem with people like you it can't possibly be about anything else. Like the fact that I am not wholly convinced that mankind is hell bent on destroying the earth's environment. We can damage it - but it cannot be destroyed. Laziness?? F - you. It has nothing to do with that, that's a cop out. So now that I've told you for me its not about money your whole argument is shot to sh*t. I do what I can. I recycle, I use longlife bulbs, I turn off all the lights in my house when they are no longer in use. I allow myself the vice of driving an SUV and a porsche. We can't all be morally perfect like you. The thing that annoys me more than anything else about this topic is the "holier than thou" attitude that people like you exhibit. Without big industry you'd be living in a cave with no electricity and no other comforts that you take for granted today. But that would probably be ok for you, not for me. If the science suporting global warming is not perfect why support it so blindly? You are the same person who'll rail against people for supporting the War in Iraq for blindly following the administration. What if my response to you was, "well the science of intelligence is not perfect but it could have been correct and in fact bits and pieces of it are." Would you accept that and jump on the band wagon? I doubt it. Should there be regulation? Absolutely. But I also believe that there should be drilling in the ANWR and more offshore drilling. I can't wait for the day when the find out that the cure for AIDS would result in culling a significant portion of the rain forests of the world and a by product of its manufacture would result in increased air pollution. Would you still be on your high horse then? | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 164 Registered: 2-2003 |
The question posed to you is, why not support evironmentally friendly policies. How much would it really effect you. Would you really suffer if you didn't drive an SUV? It's not holier than thou, it just presents the one with the challenge of thinking about the consequences of ones actions. AS far as AIDS, it is more likely that as we destroy our rainforests we will be much less likely to find a cure for AIDS. If you know anything about drug development/entomology, most of the drug we use are derived from plants, fungus and microbes often found in places like rainforests. They are then synthesized in the lab. The very fact that you would propose such a scenario displays a the very ack of appreciation for the environment that is so readily sacrificed for market forces | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 165 Registered: 2-2003 |
Repost (too many errors) Sportsnut, The question posed to you is, why not support evironmentally friendly policies. How much would it really effect you. Would you really suffer if you didn't drive an SUV? It's not holier than thou, I' m just presenting you with the challenge of thinking about the consequences of actions. 1500 lbs of emissions vs. 500 lbs of emissions. Is it really worth dumping 1000 extra lbs of pollution into the air to drive a four wheel drive to the super market? To think we have such advanced techologies, an yet, we can't bring to market a combustion engine with an efficiency greater than 20-25% at best. Yes, you'll reply let the market decide. But there are people who do not gauge everything according to quarterly profits and dividends. Is it so inconcievable to think so that maybe, just maybe, we could increase the average mpg in cars to 40 mpg and let have SUV's regulated by the same mpg regulations? Or are you so concerned about profits and dividends, even though, such technology is available today that could help maintain and improve the environment as well as lesson our dependence on foreign oil, that you so willing dismiss those that support and promote such technologies? You may call it "holier than thou", I call it common sense. As far as AIDS, it is more likely that as we destroy our rainforests we will be much less likely to find a cure for AIDS. If you know anything about drug development/entomology/botany, most of the drugs we use are derived from plants, fungus and microbes often found in places like rainforests. They are then grown, characterized and synthesized in the lab. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 740 Registered: 10-2001 |
Andy why do you keep arguing about profits and dividends? I've already told you its not about the money. I do think of the consequences of driving an SUV. That is why it sits in my driveway most days (I've put 4K miles on it this year). How many miles a year do you put on your car? If you are so concerned about emissions why not find alternate transportation to work? Ride your bike. As for the drug scenario - I know how drug research is conducted. The hypothetical question posed was if the cure for AIDS resulted in having to clear the rainforests what would you do? Are you that closed minded that you think that the only way to cure the disease is through the use of current methods and procedures? I'm all for SUVs getting better gas mileage. But until they build one I'll make due with what they have. Same as my other two cars. Your extremist views on this subject are wasted on me. It seems to me that there are only two viable views on this subject for you. Your view and everyone else's view. The fact that you choose to generalize about those who disagree with you is sad. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 166 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sportsnut, As a liver transplant surgeon, riding a bicycle to work at 3 AM is not practical or safe. That's why I drive a car that gets 45-50 mpg's. When I'm not rounding or opearating, although very rare, I try to take the train to Newark. As far as the AIDs scenario, at least propose a scenario that is at least possible. Although, I honestly don't know how I would respond. I guess you have to propose a scenario with an "extreme" unlikehood to "try" to support your position. Tell me exactly what is so extreme about anything I've just posted | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1541 Registered: 5-2001 |
If it's not about money and profit, what's it about? There are a lot of free-market fundamentalists out there. | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1162 Registered: 1-2003  |
tom, it's not just about money and profit, it's about the individual's right to choose. You and I may think SUV's are excessive, but to the Dutch and people in poor countries, a car is excessive. They use bicycles, public transit, and foot. They use motorcycles and mopeds a lot in Europe. The lifestyle you and I enjoy would be considered excessive by most of the world's inhabitants. Having said that, I think a society has a duty to control the incentives of individual choice. A free market allows all sorts of decisions passively. Regulation is the act of making those decisions more actively. So I don't buy the argument that the government shouldn't control us. The people decide, one way or another. There is value in individual decisions, and there's also value in collective ones. The anti-environmentalists, and I don't mean you specifically, sportsnut, fail to imagine breaking out of the tradeoff we're currently in. The current tradeoff is money versus a clean environment. Or another is freedom of choice versus a clean environment. If we imagine a breakthrough, where these things are not at odds with each other, we might invent such a breakthrough. People are clever and can build nearly anything they imagine. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1544 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yes, but the individual's right to choose has nothing to do with how a corporation does its business. Absent any regulation, it will do what is necessary to maximize profit. If that means they dump their toxic sludge in the Passaic River, that's what they will do -- and have done. And only the rarest of CEOs, maybe the Gorbachevs of the chemical trade, will buck the trend and do what's right. Regulation has the wonderful effect of evening the playing field for all the honest players so that they can compete in a free enterprise system that doesn't force them to do what's wrong. The answer doesn't lie with forbidding us to own SUVs. Hey, I have a minivan! It lies in getting the manufacturers to make SUVs that get 30 MPG. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 167 Registered: 2-2003 |
Tom Minivans still have to comform to minimal mpg requirements, SUV's don't. However, you're missing the point, technology exists today to produce minivans and SUVs that get >40 mpg. The problem we've faced are lobbyists from the oil and auto industry inhibiting such efforts. Our country is so willing to drill for more gas and oil and yet won't pass legislation to close loop holes which let an SUV get an average of 17 mpg, when for the purposes of what they are most commonly used for, should get 23 mpg. Even 23 mpg as a minimal requirement is a joke for cars. No one is forebidding the ownership of SUVs. However political pressure should be applied to dramatically increase mpg's for all vehicles. Additionally, this will also help decrease our dependence on foreign oil and maintain the environment. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 300 Registered: 8-2003  |
55% of the oil the US consumes is imported. If we could just bump up average vehicle efficiency to 30 MPG, how much could we reduce our dependence on foreign sources? This is not just an environmental issue, it's a national security issue. |
