Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > US oppses gas reductions

US oppses gas reductions
Thread Tools
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 11:54 AM
 
MY GOD when will this country (USA) see the light like every other country has, emissions from cars, power plants, and other industry is effecting the environment!! This is not an issue of left or right its about trying to save our planetary needs.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | US 'opposes' G8 climate proposals
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
mac128k-1984
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 12:01 PM
 
Well I cannot comment on the linked article, since it offers no details other then bashing the US, i.e., calling us criminal. Prior position papers that the US opposed was done so on the grounds that it would be too expensive, damage the economy effect the poor and working poor and/or have little or no real impact on global warming. It seems Europe enjoys bashing the US for any reason.
Michael
     
stevesnj  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 View Post
Well I cannot comment on the linked article, since it offers no details other then bashing the US, i.e., calling us criminal.
This article seemed very clear to me that the US is ignoring the scientific facts about the effect of emissions on the world environment. Why shouldn't the others (G8) not like the US stance on this issue? This isn't an issue you can say after the fact 'Oh well we should of listened to the other G8 members'.
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 12:11 PM
 
Wrong forum.
     
shabbasuraj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 12:17 PM
 
^^^^^^^^ +1
blabba5555555555555555555555555555555555555
     
stevesnj  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Wrong forum.
Sorry about that...why haven't you moved this to the proper forum yet Admin Railroader?
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
Sorry about that...why haven't you moved this to the proper forum yet Admin Railroader?
Done.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 01:58 PM
 
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 02:00 PM
 
And…MY GOD WHEN WILL THE U.S.A. LEARN TO MARCH IN LOCKSTEP LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD! DAMN US! DAMN US ALL TO HELL!
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 02:18 PM
 
More like when will Bush learn to start contributing to solutions instead of just the problems? His position is backed up not by scientists, but by corporate lobbyists. Lame.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 03:09 PM
 
Come up with a proposal that isn't disproportionately hard on the US, and they might just go along with it.

Kyoto was a joke. Let's not repeat that.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Come up with a proposal that isn't disproportionately hard on the US, and they might just go along with it.
The US are a disproportionate large producer of greenhouse gases, so coming up with an effective proposal that is not hard on them is kind of difficult.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 03:57 PM
 
I don't think this was disproportionately hard on the US. Do you have any evidence for that? The US produces between 20-25% of the world's emissions of greenhouses gases, despite having less than 5% of the world's population. It sounds like we are disproportionately contributing to the problem.

Even if what you say is accurate -- which I contest -- maybe the US should come up with a proposal, then, instead of simply shooting down everyone else's ideas? The longer we wait to implement a solution, the harder it will be on all of us.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
More like when will Bush learn to start contributing to solutions instead of just the problems? His position is backed up not by scientists, but by corporate lobbyists. Lame.
are you trying to say that bush is single handedly responsible for America's contributions to global warming? Give me a break.

I'm not defending Bush's stances on the environment here, but lets get real here...
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Come up with a proposal that isn't disproportionately hard on the US, and they might just go along with it.

Kyoto was a joke. Let's not repeat that.
Disproportionate how?
By population? Perhaps. By consumption of resources? Not really.

Most of the immediate measures (improve insulation of housing, energy efficient household appliances, changing some habits such as switching off lights immediately, fuel-efficient cars, etc.) have positive benefits while being green.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
are you trying to say that bush is single handedly responsible for America's contributions to global warming? Give me a break.
No, he's saying that Bush hasn't read the writing on the wall yet and that he's adamantly sticking to an outdated point of view for ideological reasons.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
shinji
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 04:16 PM
 
I think it's mostly the influence of wealthy oil companies, not an ideological thing.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 04:26 PM
 
At this rate we'll have hit 1990 levels of CO2 emissions by 2020. And still have a thriving economy. Granted there are probably factors that prevent this from actually continuing though. Conservation (of energy) doesn't necessarily mean loss of economy as OreoCookie pointed out.

Seriously, the US should have come up with their own plan to cut emissions unilaterally. We don't need the UN to tell us what to do. Of course, coming up with a plan requires there be a problem to begin with, one that Bush is slowly beginning to accept.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 04:34 PM
 
Many of the things sound ridiculously simple, but have an enormous impact. Example: water consumption. In Germany, we have toilets that (i) consume less water per flushing and (ii) either distinguish between large and small flushings or have a stop button. This has saved so much water over the last few years that some waste water plants are running into trouble (because they have too big a capacity). It is also taught at school to be responsible when using water and electricity (e. g. don't leave the water running when you brush your teeth, switch off the lights when you leave a room). This doesn't have any negative impact on your standard of living and is indeed very easy to do. Plus you have an immediate impact on your electricity and water bills.

Another thing that costs next to nothing is to require manufacturers to list how much water and electricity your new washing machine consumes and then put it into energy efficiency categories. You have the same for cars already, why don't you do it for other appliances as well? People will tend to buy more efficient models. Negative impacts? I can't really think of any.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
are you trying to say that bush is single handedly responsible for America's contributions to global warming? Give me a break.
You are reading too much into my post. I am saying that the rest of America is largely willing to start making changes to help solve the problem. (This is especially the case since we acknowledge the huge cost of our oil dependency -- see Iraq.) But Bush is not, and he is dictating a policy at odds with both popular opinion and science. There is no substance behind Bush's policy except corporate contributions.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Many of the things sound ridiculously simple, but have an enormous impact. Example: water consumption. In Germany, we have toilets that (i) consume less water per flushing and (ii) either distinguish between large and small flushings or have a stop button. This has saved so much water over the last few years that some waste water plants are running into trouble (because they have too big a capacity).
What effect does this have on global warming?
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Come up with a proposal that isn't disproportionately hard on the US, and they might just go along with it.
I'm pretty sure the United States is a producer of greenhouse gases disproportionate to its size and population so any reductions implemented *will have to have* a disproportionate effect on the United States. That's simple logic.
(edited: Looks like some other folks pointed this out already.)


I would like to see the US government start subsidizing development of wind and solar energy plants. If we could start using less fossil fuels in our power plants that would be a big savings right there in terms of greenhouse has emissions. This is good for the environment, will create some jobs in the process, and the piggies in Congress can make sure their local renewable energy suppliers can get some of the subsidies. Everyone wins.

There are SO many small things we can do to decrease our energy usage in the first place that doing many of these small things, in concert with big things like new energy supplies and new car efficiency standards, could make a significant impact in our total output of greenhouse gases.

List of small things to do that make a difference in energy usage.
  • Switch to CF (compact fluorescent) light-bulbs
  • Double minimum insulation requirements in new home and buildings
    (a whole LOT of energy is wasted in poorly insulated homes and buildings)
  • Require motion-sensitive lighting systems in new buildings
    (lights go off if no one is in a room)
  • Increase energy efficiency standards for home appliances, especially air conditioners and hot-water heaters
These are just some of the things that could be done in and around the home to help make them more energy efficient.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; May 28, 2007 at 05:22 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
What effect does this have on global warming?
… of using less electricity, for instance? Isn't the tie to CO2 emissions immediate?
It also helps to keep efficiency in mind when you apply the principle not just to gas or electricity. Did I point out that it saves a lot of money?
( Last edited by OreoCookie; May 28, 2007 at 05:22 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 05:19 PM
 
OH MY GODDDD!!! Y'all put doomsday evangelicals to shame.

The US;

- 25% of World GDP
- 25% of World GHG

Makes sense to me.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
What effect does this have on global warming?
Seriously people, one quagmire at a time here.
ebuddy
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2007, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Makes sense to me.
It sounds like we all agree here except Bush and mduell.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 03:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, he's saying that Bush hasn't read the writing on the wall yet and that he's adamantly sticking to an outdated point of view for ideological reasons.
Which has to do with finding new ways of getting greener how? Bush isn't stopping anyone from coming up with a good idea that works for everyone. And if someone does come up with something, who knows? maybe it will actually pass!
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 03:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
You are reading too much into my post. I am saying that the rest of America is largely willing to start making changes to help solve the problem. (This is especially the case since we acknowledge the huge cost of our oil dependency -- see Iraq.) But Bush is not, and he is dictating a policy at odds with both popular opinion and science. There is no substance behind Bush's policy except corporate contributions.
America is ready to make changes? They need Bush's approval to buy more economical cars? They need is approval to switch lights off more often? They need his approval to buy energy from greener companies? If America wanted changes there would be changes.

Look at how miserably the "don't buy gas for a day" things went.
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 04:09 AM
 
Bush gave a speech last year that Americans had to learn to be more efficient and American reliance on foreign oil will have to change with new technologies.

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is up to you, the consumer, to achieve. Corporations adjust the pace of reform and innovation when there's pressure from consumers. Without pressure there's status quo.

But let's just blame the government because it's the convenient way of not taking the blame ourselves!
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 08:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Look at how miserably the "don't buy gas for a day" things went.
I've never understood this. Every time I get one of these emails I rail back; "okay, I'll just get my gas on Tuesday then."

This has always struck me as entirely stupid. You wanna sock it to 'em, just pick one oil company to patronize and get as many to patronize that one company as possible. Choose the one with the "greenest" policy and the one without record profits and have at it. Just not buying gas on one day is not going to make any difference at all. If you want to send a message, put two or three of them out of business.
ebuddy
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by stevesnj View Post
MY GOD when will this country (USA) see the light like every other country has, emissions from cars, power plants, and other industry is effecting the environment!! This is not an issue of left or right its about trying to save our planetary needs.
I trust you'll be leading the way by not turning your aircon on at all this summer?

No, thought not.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 09:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Switch to CF (compact fluorescent) light-bulbs
Doesn't work for a good few people. Some folks get headaches from the flicker. Some folks get RF interference in their recording studios from them.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Double minimum insulation requirements in new home and buildings (a whole LOT of energy is wasted in poorly insulated homes and buildings)
One size fits all doesn't work. I like a cold house, and insulation would prevent the radiant heat buildup (from windows) from leaving.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Require motion-sensitive lighting systems in new buildings (lights go off if no one is in a room)
Doesn't really work with CF bulbs. Make your mind up.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
monkeybrain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 10:43 AM
 
Well then you'll just have to open a window.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
America is ready to make changes? They need Bush's approval to buy more economical cars? They need is approval to switch lights off more often? They need his approval to buy energy from greener companies? If America wanted changes there would be changes.
That isn't enough. We also need policy changes. For example,
Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process
Bush's big idea has been to use coal fuels (this has bipartisan support, including from Obama). But moving to coal fuels will negate the effect of any conservation approaches toward reducing carbon emissions. Coal fuels end up emitting twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as oil. If this goes through, you'll have to cut your energy use by 50% just to stay even.

The problem is a classic instance of "tragedy of the commons," and an effective solution will require government help.

Look at how miserably the "don't buy gas for a day" things went.
That's probably because "don't buy gas for a day" is dumb.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost
But let's just blame the government because it's the convenient way of not taking the blame ourselves!
It isn't a question of blame. Of course the blame is ours. But going forward, the government should support us. Global warming is a global problem, and of course governments have a major role to play in it. See, e.g., my above link about coal.
( Last edited by tie; May 29, 2007 at 01:21 PM. )
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 02:09 PM
 
Yet strangely enough, all the lefties who hate Mrs Thatcher for closing down the mines in the 80s are the very same people who're now opposed to coal power because of emissions. Funny, that.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 02:22 PM
 
Doofy, are you trying to be funny or obnoxious?
I'm sure not many people could come up with reasons why houses shouldn't be well insulated (keeps the warmth or the cold inside ) … or why they hate energy-efficient light bulbs.

What do you think of requiring manufacturers to tell people how much water and electricity (for instance) their appliances consume? Or water-efficient toilets?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I'm sure not many people could come up with reasons why houses shouldn't be well insulated (keeps the warmth or the cold inside ) … or why they hate energy-efficient light bulbs.
One size does not fit all.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What do you think of requiring manufacturers to tell people how much water and electricity (for instance) their appliances consume?
No problem with that. Strange how it's real hard to get a hot fill washer these days though.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
No problem with that. Strange how it's real hard to get a hot fill washer these days though.
US-style washing machines are strange. Kind of primitive. No problem to get them in Europe, though, all of them have a 95 degrees washing program. At least in Europe it doesn't have anything to do with energy efficiency.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Yet strangely enough, all the lefties who hate Mrs Thatcher for closing down the mines in the 80s are the very same people who're now opposed to coal power because of emissions. Funny, that.
Don't be so negative. If this is true, it sounds like a good thing: people changing their positions based on the evidence. This is welcome compared to the wild fanaticism we often see here -- assertions that the earth is only 300 years old, that global warming is an ivory tower conspiracy, etc. etc.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
US-style washing machines are strange. Kind of primitive. No problem to get them in Europe, though, all of them have a 95 degrees washing program. At least in Europe it doesn't have anything to do with energy efficiency.
Let me spell it out for you:

In the UK (in Europe, last time I looked) it's really difficult to get a hot fill washer. They mostly take cold water only, then heat that water up to whatever the program says with their own internal element.

So, all the already heated water sitting in my system on account of the Aga chugging away isn't used. We're heating water up from cold when there's an already heated supply of water readily available.

So, you can slap all the A grades on washers that you like - if it ain't got hot fill capability then it's not as efficient as a ten-year-old machine which has.

Strangely, the only washer I've found with a hot fill has been a US one.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Don't be so negative. If this is true, it sounds like a good thing: people changing their positions based on the evidence.
You'd think that if that were the case they'd stop hating Mrs Thatch and consider her ahead of her time. Nope, they still hate her for closing down the mines.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
You'd think that if that were the case they'd stop hating Mrs Thatch and consider her ahead of her time. Nope, they still hate her for closing down the mines.
LOL.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Let me spell it out for you:
There's no need to be patronizing.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
In the UK (in Europe, last time I looked)
My British friends refer to `The Continent' as Europe. It was in part a joke.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
it's really difficult to get a hot fill washer. They mostly take cold water only, then heat that water up to whatever the program says with their own internal element.
Oh, this is what you mean by `hot fill washer'. No, you can't get those for domestic use.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
So, all the already heated water sitting in my system on account of the Aga chugging away isn't used. We're heating water up from cold when there's an already heated supply of water readily available.
I'm not sure why you can't get them in Europe. Perhaps it's for safety reasons.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, he's saying that Bush hasn't read the writing on the wall yet and that he's adamantly sticking to an outdated point of view for ideological reasons.
Essentially, a Magic 8 Ball.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
It isn't a question of blame. Of course the blame is ours. But going forward, the government should support us.
Doesn't make complete sense. You live in a free society and don't want government controlling every aspect of your life yet when greehouse gases and carbon emissions need to be reduced voluntarily by a conscientious population you want the government to step in and act like a nanny or big brother?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 09:49 PM
 
This has got to be the single most poorly worded article I've ever read. It's an absolute non-story.

Wide-ranging US amendments to a draft communique prepared ahead of June's G8 in Germany summit cite a "fundamental opposition" to the proposals.

... Such as???

Greenpeace, who leaked the document, said it showed UK PM Tony Blair failed to persuade the US to alter its stance.
... alter its stance on what exactly? Why should I listen to Greenpeace?

In the document, US officials make major changes to the communique.
... such as???

In comments printed in red ink, the US negotiators express disappointment that earlier concerns have not been taken on board.
... concerns such as???

The changes strike out entire sentences and significantly reduce the certainty with which the statement addresses climate change.

What statement? Throw me a bone man... what does the above even mean???

Greenpeace Director John Sauven described the US position as "criminal".
... that cinches it, so because some schlep from greenpeace says it's so, it's so?

"The US administration is clearly ignoring the global scientific consensus as well the groundswell of concern about climate change in the United States," he said.
A. There is no groundswell of concern about climate change in the United States. I've not seen any decline in our fuel usage, have you? On what basis are they claiming there's some "groundswell of concern"? Yep, we're all freaking out about global climate change over here.

B. If by the "Global Scientific consensus" they keep chest-pounding, they're referring to the IPCC statement they struggled to publish on time; “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.", I'm telling you there isn't a global scientific consensus on jack. Sorry folks. You should be glad science does what it does in spite of you.

This article is entirely meaningless. The emotional blather thrown in for dramatization including; "groundswell", "criminal", "major changes", and "wide ranging" with absolutely no attempt to substantiate any of this nonsense is pathetic. The fact that you people gobble it up like it was swiss chocolate is laughable.
ebuddy
     
monkeybrain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 10:21 PM
 
In Asia most of the washing machines only use cold water, they don't heat it up at all. People are amazed when I tell them we use hot water in the UK. Maybe we should switch to cold water too, since it seems to work just fine and would obviously save energy.
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2007, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by monkeybrain View Post
In Asia most of the washing machines only use cold water, they don't heat it up at all. People are amazed when I tell them we use hot water in the UK. Maybe we should switch to cold water too, since it seems to work just fine and would obviously save energy.
Most hot water is used in bathing. How about we take cold showers instead because some fabrics need to be washed in hot water to get food and grease out of them while humans do not need hot washing?

To be honest you can come up with thousands of ways to decrease energy consumption and in the end it means nothing when global population size keeps growing out of step with available resources. Instead of policing every aspect of our lives there should be more education about how population size is the biggest threat. But nobody wants to do that because it isn't politically correct and seems like an attack on family values, because there are idiots out there who think having many children is a family value.
     
monkeybrain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2007, 12:05 AM
 
It may be easier to wash those stains with hot water but they can come out with cold too, it just takes different cleaning liquids. If we combine points one and two that Obi Wan made we can have a solution: more cold showers means calmer men, thus less babies and less strain on natural resources.

Quickly, let's turn this thread into a debate on housework, it's about as fruitful as debating climate change here (actually it could be very useful, we could learn some valuable tips). Here's one: stick a brick in your loo to save a bit of water (to Doofy: don't worry, this is entirely optional and you are entirely free to not do it).
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2007, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by monkeybrain View Post
It may be easier to wash those stains with hot water but they can come out with cold too, it just takes different cleaning liquids. If we combine points one and two that Obi Wan made we can have a solution: more cold showers means calmer men, thus less babies and less strain on natural resources.
If only. We need to get rid of the Selfish Gene. That damn part of a person that insists it must spread its genes everywhere it can. We need to educate people that having less children increases the quality of life (as in, save money and use less resources) and helps a child connect better to their parents and children of other couples.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,