Life w/o oil

[MonteZuma]

Still, there is no sufficient reason for the US government to get up and rearrange the US economy because Europe is asking them to, and not even politely asking.  If Europe doesn't offer the US any carrot, it shouldn't blame the US for not tagging along.

The threat of global warming and all consequent impacts, including the inundation of whole countries, isn't enough of a reason to cut emissions?

 

Europe doesn't need to offer a carrot to anyone. Frigging around with the atmosphere is wrong. It is common sense.

 

Monte.

[madhaha]

Studies show that global warming has ceased to be artificially reversible (for practical intentions). Switching energy source will have no major impact on our current rate of global warming, also its important to note that it takes a full 15 years to work out if there has Been a change in global warming. As such, global warming falls out of the scope of this debate.

 

Let me go through this one last time: Solar energy is NOT viable because we don't have the time, money and locations availible to make it useful. Nuclear energy is NOT viable because we don't have the time or the money to make it useful nor do we have the correct political climate for it to be a likely choice. We can NOT use hydrogen as an energy source until fusion research is usable. We can NOT use unviable energy sources for the production of hydrogen to subs!@#$%^&*ute our current fuels!

 

Has anyone looked at previous changes in powersource? As far as I know, all previous crisis have either been averted by a switch to a new form of energy or ended in disaster.

[Dav]

sola is viable, but expencive, wind and tidal are however very viable.

 

as far as fossil fules goes, yes we do still need them but countries should aim to increace effichancy to minimise required fuel and reduce toxic emmisions. Thats somthing that can be done it just the US chooses not to.

[MonteZuma]

Studies show that global warming has ceased to be artificially reversible (for practical intentions). Switching energy source will have no major impact on our current rate of global warming, also its important to note that it takes a full 15 years to work out if there has Been a change in global warming. As such, global warming falls out of the scope of this debate.

 

Let me go through this one last time: Solar energy is NOT viable because we don't have the time, money and locations availible to make it useful. Nuclear energy is NOT viable because we don't have the time or the money to make it useful nor do we have the correct political climate for it to be a likely choice. We can NOT use hydrogen as an energy source until fusion research is usable. We can NOT use unviable energy sources for the production of hydrogen to subs!@#$%^&*ute our current fuels!

 

Has anyone looked at previous changes in powersource? As far as I know, all previous crisis have either been averted by a switch to a new form of energy or ended in disaster.

Global warming is reversible - but not with current patterns of land and energy use.

 

It will take *more* than 15 years to confirm that global warming is occuring but that is not a reason to avoid action now.

 

Solar energy will be *more* viable if we invest money in it. But it will never provide the same amount of energy as fossil fuels. That may not matter if we use energy more efficiently than we do now. That is where I believe our efforts should be concentrated - energy efficiency.

 

Nuclear energy will be viable (including politically viable) if/when 'the oil runs out'.

 

In any case - define 'viable'. New technology, economies of scale, better efficiency and supply/demand issues can rapidly change the unviable to the viable.

 

As for previous changes in power sources. It is virtually impossible to learn from the past in this situation because we have never had a problem like this before. In any case, those previous changes were often unexpected. One day all of a sudden civilisation gave us iron, coal, trains, electricity, radio, internal combustion engines, rockets, computers. Nobody....NOBODY....knows what will be next.

 

How on Earth can anyone know what will be viable in 5, 10 or 20 years time?

 

References:

Precautionary Principle

 

Post-normal Science

 

Monte.

[Dav]

Studies show that global warming has ceased to be artificially reversible (for practical intentions). Switching energy source will have no major impact on our current rate of global warming, also its important to note that it takes a full 15 years to work out if there has Been a change in global warming. As such, global warming falls out of the scope of this debate.

 

Let me go through this one last time: Solar energy is NOT viable because we don't have the time, money and locations availible to make it useful. Nuclear energy is NOT viable because we don't have the time or the money to make it useful nor do we have the correct political climate for it to be a likely choice. We can NOT use hydrogen as an energy source until fusion research is usable. We can NOT use unviable energy sources for the production of hydrogen to subs!@#$%^&*ute our current fuels!

 

Has anyone looked at previous changes in powersource? As far as I know, all previous crisis have either been averted by a switch to a new form of energy or ended in disaster.

Global warming is reversible - but not with current patterns of land and energy use.

 

It will take *more* than 15 years to confirm that global warming is occuring but that is not a reason to avoid action now.

 

Solar energy will be *more* viable if we invest money in it. But it will never provide the same amount of energy as fossil fuels. That may not matter if we use energy more efficiently than we do now. That is where I believe our efforts should be concentrated - energy efficiency.

 

Nuclear energy will be viable (including politically viable) if/when 'the oil runs out'.

 

In any case - define 'viable'. New technology, economies of scale, better efficiency and supply/demand issues can rapidly change the unviable to the viable.

 

As for previous changes in power sources. It is virtually impossible to learn from the past in this situation because we have never had a problem like this before. In any case, those previous changes were often unexpected. One day all of a sudden civilisation gave us iron, coal, trains, electricity, radio, internal combustion engines, rockets, computers. Nobody....NOBODY....knows what will be next.

 

How on Earth can anyone know what will be viable in 5, 10 or 20 years time?

 

References:

Precautionary Principle

 

Post-normal Science

 

Monte.

ok it may take 15 years but considering we know it has happend, and the possible effects of our emmisions its surly best to do somthing now before the "possible" damage becomes proven and also irrivercable. Also using less fossil fules will save oil reservs for use in plastics because when oil runs out plastics such as ployethane (more commly called polothene) cannot be made, the we will have alot of problems.

[madhaha]

Global warming should not be confused with air pollution, two seperate issues. Studies show that global warming is happening so fast that even if we stopped all air pollution the earth would continue to warm considerably. No amount of government policy will be able to stop global warming (probably because we aren't the cause). This isn't to say that we aren't accountable for any of the global warming but its kind of a moot point now, we can't do anything about it, it is time to accept the changes as inevitable. This has nothing to do with ozone layer depletion and acid rain etc.

 

We can subs!@#$%^&*ute plastics such as polyethene or polythene (note spelling) by changing through redesign (we can subs!@#$%^&*ute most of it anyway) providing we have a cheap power source and the expensive oil can be used to smooth the transition. Our main problem is with agriculture It took a stroke a nobel prize standard genius to come up with the Haber process (of course he didn't get the prize since the work was so heavily linked with the military). Anyone want to explain how we're meant to make fertiliser from nuclear waste?

 

Every "solution" seems to be "wait and someone will do something in time". Again I'm asking people to look at history.

[Dav]

the point is that nothing can be done because govennments are not willing to, the reason is the economy.

 

I dont see the logic in that witb the US, they wont spend mioney cutting emmisions (although they consume HUGE amounts of oil) but will spend money goig to war with iraq without UN backing. Thats just stupid! they damage their economy with the war and damage the iraq nation in the prosess by not restoring law and order quick enough. It seems that the US will only do things that favor its economy and political power instrad of worring about the environment.

 

Lets look at the uk insentive for a moment to be implimented in the future. Compinied are given a cirtain quota for emmistions each year which thay must keep to or recive a heavy fine. Compinies that are below the quota can sell credis to compinies who know thay cannot meet it. This aims to cut emmisions by somthing like 16% which may not sound like much but its a very big start.

 

You also said about global waroming and air polution.

 

Global warming is insulation caused bu "greenhouse g!@#$%^&*es" mainly CO2.

 

A major toxic chemical is CO (carbion monoxide) fored bu incomplete combustion, emmissions of this are reduse by catilists in exhausts and more effishant combustion ultimatly creating CO2.

 

Acid rain is another environmental problem, buring of nitrogen from the air, and sulpher in fules causes nitric and sulphuric acid to be persent in rain. This can reach lakes and soil and destroy ecosystems causing the carbon and niitrogen cycles to be disrupted causeg us even more problems.

 

I think saving the plannet is mpore important then the US economy and political power, if there is no plannet then there is no US on it either.

[MonteZuma]

Global warming should not be confused with air pollution, two seperate issues. Studies show that global warming is happening so fast that even if we stopped all air pollution the earth would continue to warm considerably. No amount of government policy will be able to stop global warming (probably because we aren't the cause). This isn't to say that we aren't accountable for any of the global warming but its kind of a moot point now, we can't do anything about it, it is time to accept the changes as inevitable. This has nothing to do with ozone layer depletion and acid rain etc. ...

Global warming is related to air pollution. In this case, the main pollutant is carbon dioxide, but of course other gases also contribute to the problem.

 

I disagree totally with the suggestion that we can't do anything about human-induced global warming, and I disgaree that we aren't the cause.

[Dav]

Global warming should not be confused with air pollution, two seperate issues. Studies show that global warming is happening so fast that even if we stopped all air pollution the earth would continue to warm considerably. No amount of government policy will be able to stop global warming (probably because we aren't the cause). This isn't to say that we aren't accountable for any of the global warming but its kind of a moot point now, we can't do anything about it, it is time to accept the changes as inevitable. This has nothing to do with ozone layer depletion and acid rain etc. ...

Global warming is related to air pollution. In this case, the main pollutant is carbon dioxide, but of course other gases also contribute to the problem.

 

I disagree totally with the suggestion that we can't do anything about human-unduced global warming, and I disgaree that we aren't the cause.

Although it is argued thet the earch heats and cools natrually, it has been seen in the polar ice caps. It can be agued for this reason we are not the cause however it is clear thay we are accelerating the process and that alone can have servere concequences fir the whole plannet. Much more climate change could shut down the gulf stream, plunge europe into ice age and turn the rainforest into a desert.

[Aileron]

The thing we need to ask is, !@#$%^&*uming it is caused by pollution and industry, what can be done about it?

 

What needs to happen is that environmental groups and industry should come to a compromise. Both, particularly the environmentalists, are far to extreme and have their heads shoved too far up their own posteriors to make a reasonable deal with each other. Thus, environmentalists call for virtually shutting down every factory on the planet, while industry for the most part barely moves.

[Bacchus]

sry ail, but i think you're a bit misinformed about environmentalists. Most of them aren't preaching a "back to the trees" philosophy but better sets of laws and regulations to protect the envionment.

 

Like the Kyoto agreement for exemple. Now, i'm no specialist, and i heard kyoto wasn't a big deal after all. But the point is that US ...Bush for the most part...is being very protectionnist particularly toward laws and regulations which would affect the biggest economy, pollutors in the whole world..namely: US. More regulations = more production costs, which isn't good.

 

Btw, did you knew that the biggest polluting state in US was Texas? When they tried to change the laws (i don't know which one, sry...i'm not an american, this data wasn't quite a part of my daily news watch ) company ceo asked a friend to intervene...this friend was Bush. And the laws were rewritten following a report. This report was written by those same companies and the guidelines were never implemented.

 

so much for cooperating with each other.

 

And i would rather see the economy crash then stop breathing, or having to fight for water or limiting my diet to wheat. etc.

[Aileron]

I didn't say "back to trees". What I said was that what they are asking would put factories out of business. Yes, asking that a factory install a multi-billion dollor filtration system isn't the same as calling for the factory to be shut down from a political standpoint, but in terms of economics, it is.

 

However, that is an irrelevant technicality. The point is that there is no desire to compromise with industry in the environmentalist camps.

 

 

You are mostly right about Kyoto. However, you shouldn't blame Bush for that. It is, after all, one of his jobs to look after the US economy. Maybe if the environmental need were more dire, or the rest of the world willing to offer some kind of compensation, would it be a good idea for the US to support Kyoto. Until then, I really don't see why we would want to sign on.

 

 

As for that report, I usually don't like those type of reports, because they might leave out certain facts that change the overall picture. Is the pollution per capita, per area, or per production? Also, did the report say that Texas PRODUCED the most pollution or that it HAD the most pollution? The later could have been caused by maquilladoras, which places the problem on Mexico. (Maquilladoras are American factories located just south of the US-Mexico border so as to get looser labor and pollution laws.) Overall, I am reluctant to make judgement over that kind of report because I don't know what is being edited out.

[MonteZuma]

I didn't say "back to trees".  What I said was that what they are asking would put factories out of business.  Yes, asking that a factory install a multi-billion dollor filtration system isn't the same as calling for the factory to be shut down from a political standpoint, but in terms of economics, it is.

 

However, that is an irrelevant technicality.  The point is that there is no desire to compromise with industry in the environmentalist camps.

 

 

You are mostly right about Kyoto.  However, you shouldn't blame Bush for that.  It is, after all, one of his jobs to look after the US economy.  Maybe if the environmental need were more dire, or the rest of the world willing to offer some kind of compensation, would it be a good idea for the US to support Kyoto.  Until then, I really don't see why we would want to sign on. 

 

 

As for that report, I usually don't like those type of reports, because they might leave out certain facts that change the overall picture.  Is the pollution per capita, per area, or per production?  Also, did the report say that Texas PRODUCED the most pollution or that it HAD the most pollution?  The later could have been caused by maquilladoras, which places the problem on Mexico.  (Maquilladoras are American factories located just south of the US-Mexico border so as to get looser labor and pollution laws.)  Overall, I am reluctant to make judgement over that kind of report because I don't know what is being edited out.

Get a grip. The world pay compensation to the US for asking the US to stop polluting the globe? What a crock. The US is the biggest greenhouse gas polluter in the world. Yes...CO2 is pollution.

 

It is the US who should be paying the compensation.

 

Blaming Mexico is ridiculous... and borderline racist.

 

Monte.

[Dav]

the global situation is becoming dire, nations sign up for it for conservation and it costs money, but money isnt as important as the world.

 

Another problem that contributes is destruction of the rainforests, tey are becoming critically depleated now, i think aid urgentally needs to be sent to train people to use the land thay have and to conserve the rainforests before its too late.

[Bacchus]

Ail, the environment IS in dire needs! MAybe not from our point of view, it may not be that visible right now but it doesn't mean either that the world isn't polluted.

 

The point is companies are lobbying against ecological regulations. Those are restraining the comp. growth and more so, would require some major structural changes in existing factories. So those comp. lobbyists are "buying" their way through politic avenue...the overall objective being: No regulations whatsoever. that's the point of "liberalism". But it has been shown that it's not working well with the environment...

 

Try impleting new rules for oil companies (the biggest pollutors) when the almost all the Bush admin. is coming from the oil industry.

 

It's not even hidden knowledge. I can't understand why you're still arguing...

 

 

and yea, blaming the maquilladoras is preposterous and borderline racist. i agree.

[Aileron]

How the heck is it racist? Those are United States companies! The only difference is the location and the laws. Yes, the employees are Mexican, but it is owned and managed by US citizens, who have the sole power to make decisions.

 

Unless a US citizen in Mexico is of a different race than a US citizen in the US, that view cannot be racist.

 

 

 

My point was this:

 

The US doesn't have to sign on to Kyoto for economic reasons

The US is not legally obligated to sign on to Kyoto

The US is not in a position that one can threaten them to sign on to Kyoto

 

Thus, the rest of the world has to PERSUADE the US to sign on to Kyoto. Since Kyoto is cleary not in our best interest standing alone, you are also going to have to add something else to make it worthwhile. Gripeing about how whe SHOULD sign on or how the world will be better off if we sign on isn't going to help.

 

If the world's pollution were worse, maybe. More likely, however, we would make our own policy and clean things up when we feel like it.

 

Don't like it? Too bad. You not likeing it isn't going to help. I see no reason why we should really give a rats @$$ right now. If the rest of the world doesn't get their heads out of their own rear ends and try to compromise, it is never going to get done. I realise you guys don't have the same bargaining chips as we do, but life never was fair, was it?

 

 

Oh, and don't try to label this post as another example of "American arrogance". We are talking the policy of a sovereign country here. The US has a right to run their own country, just like every other country in the world. YOU are trying to dictate a policy on US.

[MonteZuma]

Greenhouse gas emissions are a global issue. This isn't a case of the US and other western countries -*BAD WORD*-ting in their own nest....We are -*BAD WORD*-ting in everybody's nest. Its wrong.

 

Aileron. Your post is the perfect example of American arrogance.

 

From a geopolitical perspective, this type of at!@#$%^&*ude by your governments is why many of your folk sew Canadian flags on their backpacks when they travel - and why Canadians wear "I am not American" t-shirts when they travel.

 

Your country's arrogance is counterproductive. Bush and his supporters just don't realise this yet.

 

Monte.

[Dav]

well added insetive and comprimise, the comprimse is that the nations that have signed are spending money to cut emmissions not because they are threatend or bribed but because its for the greater good, thay see the money going in as an investment in the plannet.

[Aileron]

Monte, you don't understand. What we are discussing here is US domestic policy. As a sovreign nation, we have a right to set our domestic policy to whatever we feel like, and the rest of the world has a right to set their policy the way they feel like. While sometimes the domestic policy of a country may have been compromised throughout history for one reason or another, it was never held that the country was arrogant for wanting to set their own policy for themselves.

 

Nations are by defignition sovreign, and thus have a right to their own policy. It is in no way arrogant for any nation to want to control their own policy.

 

If the US is arrogant, this is not an example of it, because we are discussing US policy which the US has sovreign right to control.

 

(BTW, before you reply to this, take a CLOSE look at the first paragraph. I think I already replyed to what I think you are going to say next.)

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree Kyoto is probably what is best for the world. I also see how better air quality would benefit the US.

 

However, the US can get better air quality by changing our policy by ourselves, especially if we are producing most of the pollution as you claim. The rest of the world can be excluded from the decision making process, their importance is proportional to the amount of pollution they produce. That isn't an arrogant opinion either, because fate has given us the power to make that decision.

 

I think what should have happened was what Tony Blair's policy before going into Iraq. He thought he could exchange British support in Iraq for American support in Kyoto.

 

If the US gave support in Kyoto, and Europe gave passive support in Iraq and active support in the War on Terror, that would have been a well-balanced policy. Both the US and Europe would have given something and taken something, and the world would have been rid of both pollution and terrorists.

 

However, Blair dropped the ball. He didn't put enough political force upon the decision makers, and for that his policy collapsed into the joke it is today.

[Bacchus]

When US is against another country domestic policy, like Iraq's for exemple, it either put A LOT of pressure (like cuba for exemple) or "invade" or else. When another country criticize US domestic policies it's all a question of traditional values, good politics and right of sovereignty. And your answer are always on the "victim side"...i mean it's always because US was losing the deal, being poorly treated or misunderstood.

Nations are by defignition sovreign, and thus have a right to their own policy. It is in no way arrogant for any nation to want to control their own policy.

True. what is arrogant is saying that US have rights over a foreign country policy under certain cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. "watch it kids, if papa doesn't agree, he'll ground your "sovereignty" rights".

Both the US and Europe would have given something and taken something, and the world would have been rid of both pollution and terrorists.

Ail, get your facts right. US wasn't after terrorists in Iraq, it was about WMDs..which were never found. Iraq = terrorists...where does that come from?

 

US can get better air quality by changing our policy by ourselves' date=' especially if we are producing most of the pollution as you claim[/quote']

 

Try impleting new rules for oil companies (the biggest pollutors) when the almost all the Bush admin. is coming from the oil industry.

[Ancient Power]

the way it looks right now IRAQ will be another vietnam.

[Dav]

you say the US doesnt need kyoto as they can make thier own policy. fair enought however i dont see any ogf that happening.

[MonteZuma]

Monte, you don't understand.  What we are discussing here is US domestic policy.  As a sovreign nation, we have a right to set our domestic policy to whatever we feel like, and the rest of the world has a right to set their policy the way they feel like.  While sometimes the domestic policy of a country may have been compromised throughout history for one reason or another, it was never held that the country was arrogant for wanting to set their own policy for themselves.

 

Nations are by defignition sovreign, and thus have a right to their own policy.  It is in no way arrogant for any nation to want to control their own policy.

 

If the US is arrogant, this is not an example of it, because we are discussing US policy which the US has sovreign right to control.

 

(BTW, before you reply to this, take a CLOSE look at the first paragraph.  I think I already replyed to what I think you are going to say next.)

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree Kyoto is probably what is best for the world.  I also see how better air quality would benefit the US.

 

However, the US can get better air quality by changing our policy by ourselves, especially if we are producing most of the pollution as you claim.  The rest of the world can be excluded from the decision making process, their importance is proportional to the amount of pollution they produce.  That isn't an arrogant opinion either, because fate has given us the power to make that decision.

 

I think what should have happened was what Tony Blair's policy before going into Iraq.  He thought he could exchange British support in Iraq for American support in Kyoto.

 

If the US gave support in Kyoto, and Europe gave passive support in Iraq and active support in the War on Terror, that would have been a well-balanced policy.  Both the US and Europe would have given something and taken something, and the world would have been rid of both pollution and terrorists.

 

However, Blair dropped the ball.  He didn't put enough political force upon the decision makers, and for that his policy collapsed into the joke it is today.

No....we are disussing energy use and the implications !@#$%^&*ociated with that.

 

Pollution that crosses international borders is not a domestic policy issue.

 

A country is arrogant if their domestic policy is responsible for avoidable hardship - even calamity - elsewhere in the world.

 

Nations aren't sovereign by definition and they don't have any moral or ethical right to change the Earth's atmosphere regardless of the consequences.

 

This is a perfect example of arrogance.

 

Excluding 'the rest of the world' from the decision-making process because they are not big polluters is illogical and undemocratic. The logical and democratic thing to do is to involve all affected parties in the decision-making processes. If it was my small island nation that was about to be drowned by rising sea-levels I'd sure as -*BAD WORD*- like my voice to be heard even if I belonged to a nation that did not cause any pollution whatsoever.

 

Iraq has nothing to do with Kyoto. I doubt that Blair's main reason for supporting the US was because of Kyoto. In fact I doubt that any government would be stupid enough to join a war just to get support for their geenhouse gas policy. Sheesh. You watch the wrong do-*BAD WORD*-entaries.

 

Blair didn't drop any ball..... He went all the way with GWB all the time and is now going to wear whatever fallout (or kudos!) comes from that.

 

Monte.

[Aileron]

Bacchus, I never said Iraq had terrorists. I as a matter of fact agree that they pretty much were not in there, and referred to the war in Iraq as a seperate conflict from the War on Terror. But Iraq not having terrorists has nothing to do with my point. Please quit putting words in my mouth, and please focus on the purpose of my discussion so that you stop making irrelevent statements.

 

Monte, yes nations ARE by defignition sovereign. A nation requires four things under basic political scientific principles - land, population, culture, and sovereignty. A nation that isn't sovereign is a province.

 

 

Also, Bacchus, these rights cannot be taken away by anyone. They may be overridden by some greater purpose, as in the case of a just war. They may also be violated, as in the case of simple conquest. Taking away a nations sovereignty and taking away their RIGHT to sovereignty are two entirely different things.

 

My point is that never in the course of history has it been properly held that the victim nation was arrogant in wishing to conduct their own policy. Their policy may have been morally reprehensible in every way possible, but it is still their right to conduct. The only thing the rest of the world can do about it is force a policy on such nation. That can be done in a just way by saying that there is some greater moral purpose that overrides the nation's sovereignty rights. Even if this is done, those rights still exist, they are merely overidden.

 

 

Note that I did not say the US was right in not signing on to Kyoto, I was merely saying that we have a right to not sign on if we don't want to. Thus, you would need some overriding moral purpose, which Monte has already instictively tried to form.

 

I will admit that were pollution such a dire problem that sea levels were rising over small islands, that would be proper grounds. However, at the moment the problem isn't near those levels. Global warming occurs at a rate about one degree every ten years. This rate is slow enough that diplomacy should be tried first.

 

This brings me back to what I said in my last post. The reason why the rest of the world should support these conflicts (btw, I will agree that the world has the right to not support it if they don't want to) is to be diplomatic. Such an agreement would bring political profit to both sides, and you have a moral duty to explore such possibilities before you go around acting like we are wrong in acting upon our own rights.

[MonteZuma]

...Monte, yes nations ARE by defignition sovereign.  A nation requires four things under basic political scientific principles - land, population, culture, and sovereignty.  A nation that isn't sovereign is a province.

...

[rambling deleted]

Sovereignty

 

1) Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.

2) Royal rank, authority, or power.

3) Complete independence and self-government.

4) A territory existing as an independent state.

 

Do you think that Iraq and Afghanistan are sovereign nations? No. They are occupied nations.

 

Do you think Taiwan is an independent state with complete independence and self-government? Does its government have supremacy of authority or rule?

 

Do you think East Timor is an independent state with complete independence and self-government? Does its government have supremacy of authority or rule?

 

According to your own CIA even American Samoa is a seperate nation. Heh. Sovereign my -*BAD WORD*-.

 

What about Holy See?

 

I think you lost it totally with that last post. It is almost incomprehensible, but it is obvious that you have no idea about geopolitics or climate change.

 

Monte.