|should we be concerned?||MJ|
Oct 24, 2003 12:38 AM
America produces a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, the population has risen by 100 million since 1970 and when an area three times the size of Britain was recently opened up for mining, drilling, logging and road building, no one took much notice. What does the Bush administration do? It ignores all attempts to curb environmental damage. In a major investigation that took him from the Salton Sea in California to Crooked Creek in Florida, Matthew Engel reports on how America is ravaging the planet
Oct 24, 2003 6:24 AM
|Gee, the Guardian wants to b!tch about America. Stop the presses.|
|point of clarification?||DougSloan|
Oct 24, 2003 6:27 AM
|Does America produce 1/4 of all total CO2 emissions, or just 1/4 of all combustion CO2 emissions? The article isn't clear. To be meaningful, I think we need to also know the volume of natural CO2 emissions, too, like from volcanos, animals, etc. How significant are the American combustion emissions?
Statements such as "It ignores all attempts to curb environmental damage," are usually false and what amount to yellow journalism. "Ignores all?" Doubtful.
Part of the problem is that we have been saturated with too many "chicken little" exaggerated claims of impending doom for too long. Credibility is a large concern, not only with some scientists, but with some of the media, too, with the Guardian at the top of the list of those to ignore.
|Impending doom? Have we run out of oil yet? (nm)||TJeanloz|
Oct 24, 2003 6:29 AM
|No, sadly. But here's the truly radical position:||OldEdScott|
Oct 24, 2003 6:40 AM
|ENCOURAGE consumption! Buy Hummers! Burn it all!
The only way we'll rid ourselves of this pernicious scourge is to burn every drop of it. Capitalism works -- we'll come up with a replacement. But it won't happen till there's economic incentive to do so. And THAT won't happen till we can really see the end of our oil reserves.
Liberals have falled into a 'conservation' trap vis a vis oil. Hell, that suits the oil companies and the Robber Barons just fine. They make fun of it, but they secretly think it's swell. Preserves their privileged status into an indefinite future.
Up on your hind legs, Eco-Reds! Don't fall into the imperialists' trap! Burn oil! Burn baby burn!
|I actually 100% agree with it...||TJeanloz|
Oct 24, 2003 6:43 AM
|I'm eagerly awaiting a time when oil is too expensive to be used as a common fuel (as long as there's still some available, at a price, for my classic cars). We'll be forced to come up with something better. 150 years ago, whale oil became scarce and expensive - hence petroleum. What's next?
I have every confidence that there are better sources of energy out there, but until we're forced to look for them, we won't find them.
|didn't you hear?||DougSloan|
Oct 24, 2003 6:40 AM
|Of course; the following have already happened (where have you been?):
*ran out of oil
*polar ice caps are melted, and ocean levels are 100 feet higher
*10 nuclear power plants have exploded, killing 2 billion people
*SUV's are killing 5 million people a year
*social security fund is dried up and gone
*every single person on the planet is dying of skin cancer
*the USSR and the USA vollied ICBM's at each other in 1998, killing 100 million people and rendering radioctive 2 million square miles of land
*trees have become extinct
|Mother Earth goes through cycles on her own||Live Steam|
Oct 24, 2003 7:00 AM
|Global warming is nothing new. It has happened before and nothing can stop it. The same goes for the coming of the next ice age. They have both been repeated in the history of the Earth. Man made carbon emissions represent but a small fraction of the total.
For the record, though I am not a tree hugger, I am somewhat environmentally conscious. I may drive a big Tahoe, but the back is often filled with garbage that I have collected along my journeys. I hate seeing trash anywhere, but especially in natural areas. I often pick up trash on fishing expeditions and other such treks into nature. I also don't like polluting by big industry. That is not acceptable and is avoidable.
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."
|Hello? What have you done with Steam?||OldEdScott|
Oct 24, 2003 7:18 AM
|I expected at LEAST a passing slap at 'environmentalist whackos.' This sounded almost reasonable!
Five percent is a lot, by the way, when you're working at the margins.
|I'll leave that to Rush :O)||Live Steam|
Oct 24, 2003 7:27 AM
|There are a lot of things that I don't like about the positions the "environmentalists whackos" positions as well as those from big industry. Both side are too rigid in their stance.
Just as you say you are, I'm probably more middle of the road than you'd expect. That's no fun here though :O)
|Maybe we avoided an ice age by driving our cars and running AC||Continental|
Oct 24, 2003 8:02 AM
|Or maybe we triggered a warming cycle that will doom the coasts; or maybe we have had no effect at all. But the CONSERVATIVE thing to do is to reduce consumption. If we need more CO2 in the air to avoid an ice age, we can do it fast and easy by burning every carbon source we can find. but if we need to remove CO2 to reduce greenhouse effect, we're in trouble.|
|Moderator!!!! We need to figure out who is posting this ... ;-)||sacheson|
Oct 24, 2003 9:08 AM
|... it obviously isn't Live Steam! We need to do an IP search pronto and block this liberal so Steam's reputation isn't tarnished!|
|we all have moments of rationality once in a while ;-) nm||DougSloan|
Oct 24, 2003 9:16 AM
|Even STEAM?? Naaaaaaw. nm||OldEdScott|
Oct 24, 2003 9:31 AM
|'Prebubescent tripe' was the givaway.||128|
Oct 24, 2003 10:07 AM
|and coming close on the heels of 'global community' and 'irresposible', whew.|
|As we all know, trees cause most pollution.||OldEdScott|
Oct 24, 2003 6:31 AM
|And 'ignores all' is indeed factually wrong. 'Beats back' is more accurate.|
|include forest fires? nm||DougSloan|
Oct 24, 2003 7:36 AM
|A little dig at Ronnie? (nm)||DJB|
Oct 24, 2003 11:57 AM
|Ever smelled the Salton Sea? Peeeeeeeee-uuuuu.||OldEdScott|
Oct 24, 2003 6:27 AM
|This story says
'But not all California is overpopulated. Back by the threatened sea, Salton City has fewer than 1,000 people, though there are 22,000 building lots. "We have no place to go to work," says Char McGinzie, who is writing the Salton Sea's centenary history. The scene is desolate: the golf club must be the only one in California in danger of closing through underuse. The sand blows in the hot breeze, and the silence.'
More likely no one lives there because of the unbearable stench.
|Plus, it's a fake lake||mohair_chair|
Oct 24, 2003 6:37 AM
|The Salton Sea was created by accident when a canal broke. It did not exist in nature and no one wanted it in the first place. Seems to me that anything other than letting it dry up is just compounding environmental disaster. But you won't read that in the Guardian.|
|Yeah, but the stench is man-caused||Cory|
Oct 24, 2003 4:50 PM
|Took a bunch of high school kids down there a few years ago. Nice....
But the lake is dead(ish) because of ag runoff. Selenium, mainly, I think, but I can't remember for sure. Some damn Republican chemical, anyway.
|I think the chemical is a-political :O)||Live Steam|
Oct 24, 2003 5:33 PM
|I don't know anything about Salton Sea. Firt time I've ever heard of it was today. Checked it out on my mapping software. Looks like tons of canals run to it. I guess they may be irragation ditches? Anyway, I am sure there are democratic farmers as well as republican farmers spraying their crops with what ever they need to keep the money flowing and food on their table. It is a bummer that it has to be such a mess though.|
|'Some damn Republican chemical.' !!!LMAO!!!||OldEdScott|
Oct 25, 2003 8:45 AM
Oct 24, 2003 6:48 AM
|The author has captured nearly every aspect of our current way of life.
It really is a scenario eh?
One point I will object to, is that made which claims we are destroying the planet.
The planet will still be here, long after we are gone. We are destroying us. We render the planet inhabitable for ourselves, while taking many species along with us. Cockroaches and jackrabbits may survive...
One analogy shows our predicament. We are like a batch of wine yeast pitched into the sweet nectar. We live, We flourish, We consume the sugars and excrete carbon dioxide and alcohol. In time it is likely we will succumb to our alcoholic excrement. We have certainly been doing our best to hasten the process.
|China, India, other developing economies are gaining fast||Continental|
Oct 24, 2003 7:51 AM
|Economic success, especially in China and India, is creating an explosive demand for cars and fuel that will soon dwarf our consumption. We humans are so stupid that it will take a severe crisis before we change our ways. Even if there's only a 1% chance that the worst case global warming scenario will occur, the only rational response is to reduce consumption and develop new clean sources of energy, like nuclear.|
|re: should we be concerned?||MJ|
Oct 24, 2003 8:02 AM
|the difficult thing for me when I read articles like this is that, as this article points out, the science has become politicised ("left" and "right" though I don't think environment is a straight left vs. right issue) - it's hard to come to a conclusion when you have to look at who funds research to understand their objective (and likely conclusion)
it's easy to ignore and/or question the concerns of enviromentalists - it's also just as wrong not to recognise that resources should be used
presently is there sufficient balance between using and conserving resources? - if the answers aren't known which side of the debate should we err on?
|Only if people read and put much stock into this rag. nm||No_sprint|
Oct 24, 2003 10:59 AM