Newsflash: Hydro-electric dam.

I just had to save this post for posterity so it will remain in its original, unedited form.

Best,

Kurt

Yeah. It's a doozy. Can you believe this guy actually uses his fingers to type such "enlightenment?" :rolleyes:

There was a question from lendaddy about how long the rain forest will last. I understand it to be less than thirty years. It will die in our lifetime because of unsupervised human cultivation of the land.

I have to disagree with global warming as a religion. It is more a cause. Like eradication of typhoid was a one-time cause, where the cause had a large wide-sweeping effect on virtually everyone. It's the same with global warming.

Religion, on the other hand, should be, in its correct and purest form, personal. Religion should never equate to a cause.

I think that's about right. Somewhere around 1.6 billion hectares of rain forests once existed and about half of that exists today. I have read that in about 20-25 years only 10% of basically undamaged rain forests will remain with about the same amount of "damaged" rain forests remaining - estimates, of course.

There are many really good reasons we don't want to lose these ecosystems and I think most people would agree if they were made aware of the situation.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

Funny, but most people agreeing doesn't change squat when a few with chainsaws in the rainforest don't agree. Besides, the church of Gore says the problem is that there aren't enough well-minded Prius drivers.:rolleyes:

I think we just need to but all that CO2 in a big lock-box. :D

how can it be science if there is no proof?

what some struggle with is accepting that there are a lot of things about our world we don't understand and can't control.

LISTEN:

I agree, we should do everything we can pragmatically to protect the environment. And we have done a lot! Look at the EPA, look at the cars today over 20 years ago, on and on. We could have more nuc based power rather than coal or natural gas but the same people who say they want to protect the environment normally don't support nuc power.

If we saddle this country with the burden's of the world be they military, social or environmental, we will become like other first world countries in europe that can't compete, that have GDP growth that is 2% at best and in which people don't climb past the level they come into the society.

Look at China, they are one of if not they worst nation when it comes to the environment.

Wasn't it 30 years...thirty years ago?:p

No one wants to saddle you "with the burdens of the world". Fact is the US generates by far the most CO2 emissions in the world. In absolute terms - more than twice that of China - and on a per capita basis it exceeds China by a factor of eight!

So perhaps there is some room for improvement. Just perhaps.

Have you reviewed a picture of any medium sized city in China lately? Give me a break, apply some basic logic here, the US can not be the source of all the problems in the world, that is just bunk.

We do need to continue to raise cafe standards, we need to push to have vehicles that are more clean, again, this has been happening. And it was done before our friends in Europe starting telling us we needed to do it.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people love to blame the US for everything, these same people often wouldn't even have the freedom to blame the US that they have without the US... too funny. The French are a great example of this...

I haven't been to any country in the world with air as good as we have here. Anywhere you go in China, except for up in the mountains, the entire place smells like you're pushing an old lawnmower. You see people there wearing surgical masks everywhere. The Yangtze river is permanently brown. I walked across a creek in Nanjing once that looked like it was nothing but undiluted antifreeze. I spent plenty of time in eastern Europe in the 80's and early 90's and it was just like that there too. Brown coal used for everything, the Trabbis and Ladas took oil mixed with their gas, puffed blue smoke when they were running correctly. The only place I've been that had air almost as good as we have was Austria. There's a place with six million people, most of whom live in one city. The rest of the country in pristine.

A big problem here worth noting is what this "movement" is going to do to our faith in the [environmental]scientific community 10-20-30 years from now. The claims have just been too strenuous and defined to walk gracefully away from.

First: Yes I have travelled in China. Yes it is frigging awful. No I wouldn't want to live there.

Second: No the US is not the source of all problems in the world. Far from it. The statistics I cited were for CO2 emissions only. There are many other forms of pollution.

Third: There is much more the US can do to show some leadership on the issue of climate change. That is Gore's simple point - and it is a point that is really really difficult to argue with.

Cheers

That is a form of solar power.

According to some sources China has already passed the US re CO2 emissions and several sources claim it will happen by 2010 if not sooner. China's growth continues to defy predictions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1962439.ece

China has a population around 7 times the USA (1.2B vs. 300M) and is becoming a CO2 producing monster at an increasing rate.

The US has much stricter environmental controls than China and is adapting more rapidly to green and renewable resources.

Just wanted to rationally present valid positions and views that are sometimes lost when the US is portrayed as the evil monster of the world. :D

Best,

Kurt

"California Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Context

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased significantly since the industrial revolution. Although all three gases are produced by natural sources, the rapid increase in atmospheric concentrations of these gases is believed to be a result of anthropogenic sources. Preliminary analyses of natural emissions of greenhouse gases in California support this hypothesis.

California has a very large population and a healthy economy; as a result, California’s emissions are very high, second only to Texas. California is also characterized by a moderate climate, industries that are relatively moderate carbon dioxide emitters, and active energy and air quality programs capable of directly and indirectly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For these reasons, California’s emissions per capita and emissions per gross state product are actually quite low compared to other states.

In the international arena, California emissions per gross state product are much lower than U.S. emissions per gross domestic product, but comparable with several modern European countries. California emissions per capita are also lower than national emissions but higher than emissions from most European countries as shown in Figure 5."

This from the 7th largest GDP in the world, where Canada, the 13th has ten companies that emitted 120 million tons last year.

The ten highest polluting cities in the world aren't in the USA.

I don't care if he is right or wrong, I still don't like algor

It could have been. I'm not sure. I think the difference now is more proof, more evidence, better accuracy etc. The worse part is there are more people.

Puny humans. :mad:

Jeez I wish you wouldn't be so thin skinned. No one is portraying the US as "evil monster of the world".

Your statistics are more current than mine - which were the IPCC 2005 stats. Your stats show that by 2010 China will have overtaken the US in the absolute production of CO2 - up from half of that just 5 years previously. That IS something to be worried about.

It also means that on a per capita basis the US will still be producing 4 times the CO2 of China in 2010.

That's what you should be focussed on.

12 / 3 =! 7