|
| | 
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 6:00 PM
Posts: 7,240
Visits: 9,604
|
| | |
| | 
Day-Saver!
Last Seen:
11/15/2008 9:50 AM
Posts: 5,280
Visits: 27,161
|
| This is straying from the topic specifically, but generally represents the same theme. Action is being taken.
And I've had enough! On my recent trip to Montana I saw the gas prices as high as 2.69 a gallon for regular up there. I mentioned to my dad that perhaps America was finally catching up to the rest of the world.
Regardless, starting tomorrow I'm taking the bus to work (I would have todya, but I gotta pick my bro up from the airport). Vanderbilt has worked out a deal with the Nashville Metro Transit Authority such that students and employees who wish to do so may ride the city busses for free (Part to alleviate the parking problem and part in conjunction with "Project Green" or whatever you want to call it). I have a pickup truck and I can afford gas, but I'm no longer going to be feeding the oil companies and the gas stations my money, directly, as much as possible. It's not inconvenient, the ride isn't THAT much longer than what it takes me to drive. I know the big industries will hardly be hurting from the drastic reduction from one customer and I don't know how much taking my truck off the roads will have on pollution, but this is something, that in my mind, needs to be done.
Enough is Enough! 
Edit: I actually read the article, and it's none to surprising that the states involved are "blue" states. Even if the man who champions this plan is a Republican....After all, Northeast Republicans tend to be more "liberal" than Southern Democrats. Ain't that the truth. Pataki is one Rep I could consider voting for, depending on opposition candidates. |
--
HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY! |  |  |
| |
| | 
I am pot
 
Last Seen:
4/4/2006 6:06 PM
Posts: 1,670
Visits: 2,512
|
| | |
| | 
televisionary.
Last Seen:
9/14/2007 3:08 PM
Posts: 1,543
Visits: 2,170
|
| | |
| |
Day-Saver!
Last Seen:
11/15/2008 9:50 AM
Posts: 5,280
Visits: 27,161
|
| | |
| | 
Elite Pathogen
Last Seen:
Today @ 4:20 PM
Posts: 4,387
Visits: 10,907
|
| | |
| |
Day-Saver!
Last Seen:
11/15/2008 9:50 AM
Posts: 5,280
Visits: 27,161
|
| | |
| | 
Second Lieutenant
Last Seen:
2 days ago @ 3:52 AM
Posts: 1,434
Visits: 2,286
|
| Scipio,
I'm not no sure the U.S. is not doing anything about climate control/ green house gases.
Just recently the US, Australia, Japan, China, South Korea & India all signed an agreement to:-
Today the six founding countries released a Vision Statement for the Partnership at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Vientiane which states that countries will work together to:
develop, deploy and transfer existing and emerging clean technology;
meet our increased energy needs and explore ways to reduce the greenhouse intensity of our economies;
build human and institutional capacity to strengthen cooperative efforts; and
seek ways to engage the private sector.
This vision is consistent with the approach articulated in the Australian Government's Climate Change Strategy and Energy White Paper. The partnership complements the commitments made by the Australian Government in its election policy document A Sustainable Australia to promote an effective and pragmatic approach to climate change that builds on key partnerships within the region, promotes collaboration between Australian businesses and researchers and their regional partners, encourages technology partnerships and implements practical solutions to climate change that involves large countries.
We are pleased to announce that Australia will host the inaugural ministerial meeting of the partnership. Foreign, Environment and Energy Ministers from each member country will be invited to build on the principles in the Vision Statement. Discussions are already underway on the practical elements, including a work plan and a wide range of technology areas for possible collaboration.
Full text of media message Enviroment Minister's Statement
Seems to me Australia; which is another country not to sign Kyoto; have come up with their own green house agreement, thereby negating Kyoto?
S |
--
You'll find me out back just blowing the froth off another coldie | | | |
| |
| | 
Chairman of the bored.
Last Seen:
8/5/2008 1:25 PM
Posts: 4,964
Visits: 5,633
|
| My understanding is that one reason the Bush administration gave for not signing Kyoto is that 2nd and 3rd world nations who signed it, didn't have to comply with the same restrictions that we would have to.
Ahh yes, finally someone gets it! Two big (and by big I mean in the 1 Billion  person category) exemptions in Kyoto...China and India (as well as most other '3rd' world nations) would be totally exempt in Kyoto.
If you're looking to save the world from global warming Kyoto is NOT the answer. In fact, it's not even worth the recycled paper it was written on or the hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel used by it's signators to get there when they signed it. Kyoto, while on the surface appearing to stiffle 'greenhouse gas' emissions (whose effect on the environment is still under wide debate) in the end only ends up being a money transfer scheme from 1st world countries to 3rd world countries.
Let's say country A doesn't meet it's carbon limit for whatever reason. Country A goes to country Z(a third world country) and buys thier extra credits. Country A now has all the Carbon credits it needs and has paid it's 'penalty'. The Gov't of country A now has 2 options. Leave things as they are (i.e. subsidizing whatever industry (to compete with those evil Chinese who aren't part of the treaty)) or pass the cost on to those industries (who in turn pass it on to the consumer)
Sure you can 'earn' small amounts of CCs by building windfarms (but the people in South Hampton have a problem with that for some reason), planting trees (who's going to count 2 billion trees???), etc but in the end, most CCs will be bought from countries who simply don't have the industrial capability to exceed their limit.
Now, here's a real kick in the n*ts. The biggest source of CO2 in most countries is Power Plants. Many European countries are already having problems trying to meet self imposed limits (and limits from other treaties)...this is with a major portion of their power coming from Nuclear (or is it Nuk-ular) plants as opposed to the US and it's coal burning plants. So, the question is, do you want extra CO2 in the air (which still hasn't been proven to do anything) or do you want more radioactive waste (which we can't really do ANYTHING with).
Honestly, if CO2 was proven to be the cause of global warming I'd be suprised. I'm sure as the 'native Americans' we crossing that land bridge between Asia and the US several thousand years ago (due to an ice age...) they weren't driving SUVs to cause an end to that ice age. There are a myriad of explanations and reasons to explain Global Warming and to focus on just one is not only unscientific, it's stupid.
Even if it does turn out to be the CO2 that we put in the air (not to mention all the volcanos, sheep , wild fires, etc) we'll find a better way to deal with it than with some nonsensical treaty that leaves out 2/3rds of the world population. Especially at a time when China and India are rapidly gaining ground and will soon overtake the US in terms of CO2 emmissions.
I'd put my money on GM-plants designed to suck in 2 or 3 times the normal amount of CO2. The problem will be, once that's done and the CO2 problem is 'solved' what happens when it starts getting cold?  |
--
When I'm in charge, every mission is a suicide mission -Zapp Brannigan | |
|
|
|
