[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Do you believe the world can sustain the current population of the earth at the minimum standard of living set in United States?
We have minumum standards set here in the Untited States. Should an Environmental Treaty set a minimum standard of living? Should living standards be set higher for the United States than China or India or Canada?

We have minimum standards for living in the U. S.? Somebody forgot to tell the 17 million children that live below the poverty level, and the 2 to three million who are homeless at any given time of the year. Of course, if one thinks about it, we do have standards, so you are technically correct; we just don't seem to care enough to make them mean anything.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Why don't you answer the questions I asked Shortcut?

....maybe you could clarify a few things first as it would help establish a base line to reduce emissions world wide. Do you believe the world can sustain the current population of the earth at the minimum standard of living set in United States?
We have minumum standards set here in the Untited States. Should an Environmental Treaty set a minimum standard of living? Should living standards be set higher for the United States than China or India or Canada?

I hadn't even read your questions.

1. I don't know if the world can sustain the current population of the earth at the minimum standard of living set in United States. I suspect not, but I think historically people have always greatly underestimated the sustainability limits, and I might be doing so, too.

2. No, of course not. Why should it? Is anybody advocating this?

Your first question is sort of like "peak oil" theories. Logically, there must be a limit somewhere, but every prediction so far has turned out to be too conservative and has missed developments in extraction technology. But there are so many more variables and so many more relevant technologies in sustaining the human population -- it's just a very complicated question.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

We have minimum standards for living in the U. S.? Somebody forgot to tell the 17 million children that live below the poverty level, and the 2 to three million who are homeless at any given time of the year. Of course, if one thinks about it, we do have standards, so you are technically correct; we just don't seem to care enough to make them mean anything.

You can answer the other questions KarlG. In a Kyoto type agreement, should we have a minimum poverty
level standard, as in the United States, for all countries?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

I hadn't even read your questions.

1. I don't know if the world can sustain the current population of the earth at the minimum standard of living set in United States. I suspect not, but I think historically people have always greatly underestimated the sustainability limits, and I might be doing so, too.

2. No, of course not. Why should it? Is anybody advocating this?

Your first question is sort of like "peak oil" theories. Logically, there must be a limit somewhere, but every prediction so far has turned out to be too conservative and has missed developments in extraction technology. But there are so many more variables and so many more relevant technologies in sustaining the human population -- it's just a very complicated question.

Are you saying the United States should not have higher standards or no there should be no minimum standards at all?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

We have minimum standards for living in the U. S.? Somebody forgot to tell the 17 million children that live below the poverty level, and the 2 to three million who are homeless at any given time of the year. Of course, if one thinks about it, we do have standards, so you are technically correct; we just don't seem to care enough to make them mean anything.

What about the 750,000,000 people in China alone who fall below our minimum standard? Do they have a right to work towards the Minimum US Standard?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Are you saying the United States should not have higher standards or no there should be no minimum standards at all?

Of course the US should have the highest standard of living! But there should be no minimum standards at all in any international treaty, let alone a treaty on global warming. (I don't really understand the connection you are trying to draw between global warming and global poverty.)

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

Of course the US should have the highest standard of living! But there should be no minimum standards at all in any international treaty, let alone a treaty on global warming. (I don't really understand the connection you are trying to draw between global warming and global poverty.)

Tie the point is, and Shortcut will not admit it and neither will KarlG, is the reason we did not sign the Kyoto agreement, which Gore supported, is China, for one, was not subject to the treaty while the US would have been significantly impacted threatening our economy and our national security. It would have reduced our standard of living and reduced our ability to compete. What this has to do with global warming is, in order to bring the rest of the world up to the poverty level here in the United Sates, it would require several biospheres, not just the one we have. I'm sure, being a good environmentalist, as are Shortcut and KarlG, you have no issues lowering our standard of living to the base poverty of the United Sates so others in the world can raise their's.
This in effect was the Kyoto Agreement. According to some, the outcome is inevitable anyway. So in effect, you better start buying Carbon Offsets, or Resource offsets, and invest in companies which offer them or your grandchildren will be composting their own waste like the rest of the third world.
Ockham's Razor - 10 December 2006  - Apocalypse now
Jennifer Marohasy: Population Archives

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I'm sure, being a good environmentalist, as are Shortcut and KarlG, you have no issues lowering our standard of living to the base poverty of the United Sates so others in the world can raise their's.

But the subject of this thread clearly shows that you can fulfill the environmentalist agenda without sacrificing the lavish, energy-rich lifestyle of Al Gore's Tennessee mansion(s).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Tie the point is, and Shortcut will not admit it and neither will KarlG, is the reason we did not sign the Kyoto agreement, which Gore supported, is China, for one, was not subject to the treaty while the US would have been significantly impacted threatening our economy and our national security. It would have reduced our standard of living and reduced our ability to compete. What this has to do with global warming is, in order to bring the rest of the world up to the poverty level here in the United Sates, it would require several biospheres, not just the one we have. I'm sure, being a good environmentalist, as are Shortcut and KarlG, you have no issues lowering our standard of living to the base poverty of the United Sates so others in the world can raise their's.
This in effect was the Kyoto Agreement. According to some, the outcome is inevitable anyway. So in effect, you better start buying Carbon Offsets, or Resource offsets, and invest in companies which offer them or your grandchildren will be composting their own waste like the rest of the third world.
Ockham's Razor - 10�December�2006� - Apocalypse now
Jennifer Marohasy: Population Archives

We don't have to lower our standard of living in order to be ecologically prudent; that's a typical, and specious, straw-man argument. We could do things like drive at the speed limits, turn lights off, change bulbs to more energy and longer lasting types, and plenty more. I read a while back that if we got 8mpg more fuel economy on our vehicles, we could almost eliminate all ME oil imports! We can do that now!! We're not going to, because it's our so-called right to use the earth's resources as we please. The resulting consequence of that is that we're now paying for that "right" with our sons and daughters lives in Iraq!

While we're talking about the environment, take a look at this. How much is it going to take before the rest of you wake up, and smell the coffee? http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...e_repor_1.html

Exclusive: Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research

Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.

The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.

The report is slated to be released tomorrow at a hearing before the House Science Committee, which is investigating the issue.

"The evidence suggests that incidents of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications for the administration," the group says in its report.

Some of the alleged interference -- including restricting scientists' ability to talk with the press and Congress -- may have violated federal laws protecting their right to speak, the group concludes.

"Directives and signals" from White House offices, like the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, are handed down to political appointees and politically-aligned civil servants through off-the-record conversations, the report says. Frequently, those giving the direction have little or no scientific background, according to the report.

The alleged interference took the form of "delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying interviews" between government scientists and media outlets, as well as delaying, denying or "inappropriate[ly] editing" press releases conveying scientific findings to the public.

Political appointees also suppressed, delayed and inappropriately edited reports produced by government scientists for Congress and the public, the Washington, D.C.-based group concluded.

In some cases, the policies and practices the group says were enacted to squelch damaging scientific information "constitute constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal climate science employees' free speech and whistle-blower rights," the report finds.

"Claims the administration interfered with science are false," Kristen Hellmer, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told ABC News. "We spend nearly $2 billion a year on climate science, which leads the world and speaks for itself."

Tarek Maassarani, the report's author, cautioned that he did not see evidence of a single coordinated White House effort to block credible climate research. Instead, he believed officials acted only when a piece of research or particular issue showed up on their political radar. "They're reacting to situations most of the time," Maassarani told ABC News.

The investigation covered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and elsewhere.

Evidence and allegations of political interference in government climate change research have dogged the Bush administration, even from fellow Republicans. Last November, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., charged the administration had broken the law by failing to deliver news of climate change research to Congress by a legally-mandated deadline of November 2004.

"When you get to that degree of obfuscation, then you get a little depressed," McCain said then.

House Science and Technology Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., said the report's findings were "alarming" but "confirm what we knew all along" and looked forward to learning more at tomorrow's hearing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

We don't have to lower our standard of living in order to be ecologically prudent; that's a typical, and specious, straw-man argument.

Well, it's unsubstantiated, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it false. I'd really like to see a detailed analysis instead of blind guessing on both sides.

We could do things like drive at the speed limits,

This seems like a perfect example. Slower driving speeds would indeed improve gas mileage, but if you're a trucking company and you try to save fuel costs in this way, you end up losing money (wages cost more than fuel). Scale it up to the national level, and American businesses in general lose out to Chinese and Indian ones.

But I think we can still "invent" our way out of this problem. If we can (finally) develop some of those technologies that we were "supposed" to have had entering the 21st century, like autonomous vehicles in this case, then we actually would save money by driving at fuel-optimum speeds. Of course, millions of truck drivers would be looking for new careers, but maybe they could work in the field of developing and maintaining the autonomous vehicles.

Anyway, call me an optimist, but it seems like climate change should have plenty of win/win solutions. So far everyone's been focusing on the win/lose ones (and the lose/lose ones), and it's really bumming me out. Please stop it.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

We don't have to lower our standard of living in order to be ecologically prudent; that's a typical, and specious, straw-man argument. We could do things like drive at the speed limits, turn lights off, change bulbs to more energy and longer lasting types, and plenty more. I read a while back that if we got 8mpg more fuel economy on our vehicles, we could almost eliminate all ME oil imports! We can do that now!! We're not going to, because it's our so-called right to use the earth's resources as we please. The resulting consequence of that is that we're now paying for that "right" with our sons and daughters lives in Iraq!

While we're talking about the environment, take a look at this. How much is it going to take before the rest of you wake up, and smell the coffee? http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...e_repor_1.html

Exclusive: Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research

Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.

The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.

The report is slated to be released tomorrow at a hearing before the House Science Committee, which is investigating the issue.

"The evidence suggests that incidents of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications for the administration," the group says in its report.

Some of the alleged interference -- including restricting scientists' ability to talk with the press and Congress -- may have violated federal laws protecting their right to speak, the group concludes.

"Directives and signals" from White House offices, like the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, are handed down to political appointees and politically-aligned civil servants through off-the-record conversations, the report says. Frequently, those giving the direction have little or no scientific background, according to the report.

The alleged interference took the form of "delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying interviews" between government scientists and media outlets, as well as delaying, denying or "inappropriate[ly] editing" press releases conveying scientific findings to the public.

Political appointees also suppressed, delayed and inappropriately edited reports produced by government scientists for Congress and the public, the Washington, D.C.-based group concluded.

In some cases, the policies and practices the group says were enacted to squelch damaging scientific information "constitute constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal climate science employees' free speech and whistle-blower rights," the report finds.

"Claims the administration interfered with science are false," Kristen Hellmer, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told ABC News. "We spend nearly $2 billion a year on climate science, which leads the world and speaks for itself."

Tarek Maassarani, the report's author, cautioned that he did not see evidence of a single coordinated White House effort to block credible climate research. Instead, he believed officials acted only when a piece of research or particular issue showed up on their political radar. "They're reacting to situations most of the time," Maassarani told ABC News.

The investigation covered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and elsewhere.

Evidence and allegations of political interference in government climate change research have dogged the Bush administration, even from fellow Republicans. Last November, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., charged the administration had broken the law by failing to deliver news of climate change research to Congress by a legally-mandated deadline of November 2004.

"When you get to that degree of obfuscation, then you get a little depressed," McCain said then.

House Science and Technology Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., said the report's findings were "alarming" but "confirm what we knew all along" and looked forward to learning more at tomorrow's hearing.

I drive a Volwagen TDI and use flourescent bulbs, I guess I'm good.
Now if we can just "make" China sign Kyoto.

[OldManMac]

The trucking example is actually a good one, as I drove over the road a couple of years ago. In many states, the speed limit for trucks is lower, and most large trucking companies encourage their drivers to drive at the speed limit, as it makes a huge difference in their fuel bills. If I got 6mpg, vs. 7mpg, that would represent over 10% increase to Schneider, who I drove for, based on 500 miles/day, with fuel running at $2.71/gallon, which is where it is now, and which it was when I drove. That doesn't sound like much, but when you multiply that by 12,000 drivers in just one company, the dollar amounts are enormous. There are approximately 300,000 trucking companies on the road, ranging from one man outfits, to Schneider, which is the largest full truckload company, although there are a couple of bigger companies that haul what's called less than truckload. Schneider calculates part of your quarterly bonus on how good your mpg rating is, and the trucks are monitored 24/7, with GPS systems, which also calculate your average mpg, average speed, miles driven, etc. When you do your trip plan for Schneider, they actually figure your trip at an average of 50mph, which includes breaks, lunch, and fueling. Fuel costs are paramount to most truckers, and there isn't a huge difference between wages and fuel costs, as most companies pay by the mile.

[Orion27]

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project

Nice going Karl, you ignore the question and then quote from a rant in a liberal blog whose source is a wacko liberal accountabilty group which links to the ACLU and praises them as champions of liberty.
Did you get a NAMBLA card when you joined the ACLU Karl? All we have to do according to Karl is drive a Volkswagen. Mighty 60's of you
Karl.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I drive a Volwagen TDI and use flourescent bulbs, I guess I'm good.
Now if we can just "make" China sign Kyoto.

Fascinating, but it's nice of you to repost my post and conveniently gloss over article. Oh, that's right; it's about bad things that a Republican administration is doing.

I was thinking about a TDI as my next car, as I've owned 8 VWs in the past; now I'm going to have to change my thinking.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Nice going Karl, you ignore the question and then quote from a rant in a liberal blog whose source is a wacko liberal accountabilty group which links to the ACLU and praises them as champions of liberty.
Did you get a NAMBLA card when you joined the ACLU Karl? All we have to do according to Karl is drive a Volkswagen. Mighty 60's of you
Karl.

So, according to your logic, if a "liberal" group points out that the administration is deliberately obfuscating information, then the government gets a free pass! You really need to try harder; you're blindness is making you look like the fool that you are, especially with your neat little additional quip about the ACLU and NAMBLA. I'll bet that you even think George W. Bush is a conservative. You obviously have no idea of what the ACLU stands for; it's something called "Freedom," and, unfortunately for you, it includes freedom to have thoughts other than what you believe, and that is obviously quite threatening to you. IIRC, this isn't the first time you've mentioned NAMBLA either; is there something you want to tell us? Some times I think that it's hard to believe that someone your age could be so closed minded and so blatantly partisan, but then I realize that tunnel-vision and ignorance are not necessarily just the handicaps of young children.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So, according to your logic, if a "liberal" group points out that the administration is deliberately obfuscating information, then the government gets a free pass! You really need to try harder; you're blindness is making you look like the fool that you are, especially with your neat little additional quip about the ACLU and NAMBLA. I'll bet that you even think George W. Bush is a conservative. You obviously have no idea of what the ACLU stands for; it's something called "Freedom," and, unfortunately for you, it includes freedom to have thoughts other than what you believe, and that is obviously quite threatening to you. IIRC, this isn't the first time you've mentioned NAMBLA either; is there something you want to tell us? Some times I think that it's hard to believe that someone your age could be so closed minded and so blatantly partisan, but then I realize that tunnel-vision and ignorance are not necessarily just the handicaps of young children.

I'm Partisan? I'm calling you out as being weak on global warming and you're calling me partisan? Let's talk about the issue which Shortcut denied as well as you. Al Gore is calling for a drastically lower standard of living in the United States. He asked us to sign Kyoto without Chinese participation.
He asked for drastic reductions, unilaterally, from the United States. Why would he give China a pass?
To raise their standard of living. Why the draconian cuts for the US? And then on top of that perhaps pile on a carbon tax? Maybe you have an explantion as to why the Senate voted 95-0 against the treaty?
So to answer the controversy: Yes Al Gore tried to lower our standard of living, and has actively preached it by supporting Kyoto. And now, when you see the handwriting on the wall, you think you can save yourself by driving a ...... well KarlG you're just going to have to walk.