Readers’ Responses to Our Question (51)

preinvestment maybird besra uncritically campine melebiose modiolar unchangeability
Three-star general may be among Pentagon dead
http://members.aol.com/bmfanorth/

It is useless to assign blame. ALL humans are responsible for their lack of stewardship of this planet. Global warming and the impending (term based on the time humans have been able to affect the planet)gas crisis are intertwined. It is now generally accepted that in the next two decades, there will be no more petroleum products available. There will be no gas for national defense, for transportation of humans or crops, for energy to heat or cool homes; or, for distribution of the nation's food supplies. Forget about global affairs, we need to solutions to these questions:
What about illegal aliens who will compete with Americans, not just in employment, but more seriously in areas that will become more scarce: food, water and medical care. What happens when Mexico’s situation becomes worse and more and more illegal aliens overrun America’s borders?
What about rising water levels-where and how will this affect property usage and values?
What is going to happen to coastal military installations when the water rises?
How is the expected loss of petroleum going to be dealt with, ie: what if there are major forest fires, but no gas available to get resources to the affected areas to put the fires out?
With dwindling gas, how are our military jets going to fly? How are our military ships going to move? How are troops going to be moved? And for that matter, the troops need to be brought home now-while we can still afford to get them back, and so that they can be trained to protect America.
What are different communities doing to not only conserve what energy sources we currently have, but to utilize alternative sources? What alternative resources available or are being developed?
What is going to happen health-wise when food can no longer be trucked across the nation because of prohibitive gas costs? How is the health of the American people going to be affected? What can be done or is being done [by communities or the government] to offset this situation?
What is going to happen when medical supplies can no longer be trucked?
What is going to happen when critically ill or injured people can no longer be flown to another health facility?
What energy sources are currently being used to make sure that clean water flows through the pipes? How is water cleaned and do communities have alternative resources in use or in place to continue the process?
What is the status of FEMA, and how will it be used when we run out of oil?
What needs to be recycled, what is currently being recycled and what uses are there for recycled products?
What could happen when people no longer have gas to commute out of their neighborhood to get to a job?
What is going to happen to businesses when their employees can no longer afford to get to work?
What is going to happen to all the people in prison when guards can no longer get to work, and food can no longer be trucked in to them?
What is going to happen to travel in the winter when communities can no longer get enough gas to operate sand-and-salt trucks?
What are communities doing now or preparing to do to train law enforcement and military people to deal with gas, water, food shortages and the problems that will arise desperate people develop?
What will happen to mail delivery when the post office can no longer afford to operate those millions of trucks?
The recent problems with pet food shipped into the nation bring up another problem. What is going to happen when pet food is no longer available, and people release their animals into the environment (you KNOW they will)?
What about food that is sold in cans? What is the industry going to do when they can no longer get raw materials and food ingredients trucked in? Or, get the foods distributed?
What websites (government or otherwise) are available or being planned to offer solutions to the problems that will arise?

Ha 16 part in 1000000...!

Waaa this was just the argument that could change my opinion about global warming.

So, since only 0.00016% of CO2 is man-made, we (as a global collectivity) should not adress the issue? Well...

Need I remind you that:
-CO2 is far from being the only GHE.
-The immense majority of the byproducts of the industrial civilisation is harmful for the environnement in general. (GHE are popular now but I remember of the acid rain debat not so long ago...)
-The industrialo-corporative system promotes perceived comfort & leisure as opposed to real human needs (physical, mental, social or spiritual)
-& lastly... Water dosn't boil at 99.999 degrees but at 100.

96% of Global warming comes from natural sources. 3.6% is from humans. Sign the Oregon Petition today!!!!!

96% of Global warming comes from natural sources. 3.6% is from humans. Sign the Oregon Petition today!!!!!

1st a little correction. This is not a "planetary emergency "but a "man made disaster".If it was an asteroid falling from the sky then yes we can predict that the nations will unite. However with such catostraphic damages the mistrust and blame game between rich and poor nations will continue.

Before coming to 2nd point that why to jump on US a practical example.

Imagine a small one room office having few staff and a boss, all sitting in one air conditioned room. Now the boss is a chain smoker and the room is filled with smoke. Although one or two staff member are also occasional smokers but the blame will go to boss because 1st he is the main culprit and 2nd his action is encouraging to other staff to enhance pollution.

The problem is not so simple. Economics of the world is changing dramatically. Europe is 1st time facing a serious challenge from asian emerging nations after industrial revolution.

Now any move at this point for curailing carbon emission will be considered by asian nations as a decoy to curtail their economic growth. This is definite that they will not agree for any such measure very easily.

Since the objectives of both camps are opposite on issues of global warming therefore as the debate will continue the bitterness will definately increase in relations.

At this point I have one suggestion that emerging economies should volunteerly abide the emission parameters with out accepting or signing the protocols untill it is in their intrest.

A DRAMA !!!

1 to 2 :

Based on the latest U.Ns' IPCC report the damage is serious .The antarictic glacials are melting in an unprecedented rate .We are releaseing CO2 molecules into the atmospher in an unconcievable rate that our planet never exprienced it before.

2 to 1 :

Well, I think thats not the result of our action .I mean thats not just the result of current generation .As Sir Winston Churchil truly says we live in the age of consequences.

1 to 2 :

You are right ,the current crisis as many scientists and laymen agree with is an accumulative effects of our modern civilization .

But many believe the consumer-oriented Market Economy System of industrial nations is the NO.1 culprit.

2 to 1 :

So what?IPCC report says the global temperature has increased just 0.6 C in the last centurey.

1 to 2 :

And Please stop it here.You r not worry? . But another f***ing report says the global petroleum reserves is depleting in an unprecedented rate.

2 to 1 :

So what?

1 to 2 :

So what , what? You can't understand that we don't need to rely anymore on those Islamo-fascist stonage muslims oil.

2 to 1 :

Sorry , but So what?

1 to 2 :

Oh , no just please.Stop.

2 to 1 :

I am a little bit confused , do u mean we have another alternative.I mean instead of oil.

1 to 2 :

Not exactly.I mean not a substitute to oil.

2 to 1 :

Ah ,Sorry , just sorry but so what?

1 to 2 :

Well ,a substitute to our civilization .

2 to 1 :

Kidding me?And to our everything you mean?

1 to 2 :

Well, Somehow!

2 to 1 :

Ok, but thats just a piece of fantasy derived from a masturbational mind like u.How could we leave this convenient way of life ?

1 to 2 :

I don't know yet .But someday we will find away.I am sure.But hey please we are going out of gas.Ah f*** .I will never buy a stupid hummer like this , no never anymore, anymore .May be a prius next time.

2 to 1 :

So what.?

Increasing CO2 production + decreasing oxygen producers. A question of global warming or of global breathing?

Francis Mulhare,
"If we adopt policies that seek to reduce the negative polluting effects of economic growth we know that economic growth will continue, albeit at a reduced pace..."
Just how do we really know that? It kind of depends on what those policies are. For instance, if we took the Cuba approach and replaced all out incandescent lightbulbs with florescent ones, that would probably be minimal. If we joined the emission trading scheme (or as i call it, global wealth transfer via productivity taxes), then we could crash the economy. Or not. Maybe we should all just take the Gore approach - it doesn't matter how much energy you use as long as the enegy you use is "carbon neutral". Somehow, so i am told, all that energy he uses is ok for the earth. The point is that there are things each of us can do to to help the environment. Things like turning off the lights/TVs/PCs when you leave the room, turn down the AC and the heat, drive less, buy hybrids, work closer to home, build more roads and more public transit, etc... Sending our money abroad to non-productive (and thus non polluting) nations is not one of them. Putting ourselves in a depression is not one either.

The Global Warming dilemma is a classic problem. How do you make decisions with incomplete information? In this situation it is easier than you might think.We do not know with 100 % certainty that if we continue on the current path that it will lead to environmental disaster but we do know that there is a significant probability that this is the case. If we adopt policies that seek to reduce the negative polluting effects of economic growth we know that economic growth will continue, albeit at a reduced pace, while at the same time giving us a chance at reducing potentially catastrophic consequences of unrestrained growth.Most studies on the subject of happiness show that you do not need to be rich to be happy-you just need to have enough to live comfortably in your society and maybe a little bit more.We can have all that if we minimize our polluting footprint with the added benefit of potentially avoiding self-induced destruction.

PG

As most people know, the earth went through many natural heating and cooling cycles prior to industrialization. The cycles were manifested by periods of cooling and glaciation, and warming followed by melting of the glaciers during interglacial periods. The earth is currently in a warming cycle. Heating of the earth has also been shown to occur due to man made introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere. Some modeling of man made global warming has predicted dangerous rises in sea level, and changing weather patterns world-wide that could lead to human starvation and mass human migration as well as species extinctions.

1. In my opinion, global warming is real, but there is no consensus on the consequences of global warming. There are wide variations on even how much the oceans will rise. I am not convinced that we can achieve the goal of significantly reducing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere even by following Kyoto, and we certainly are paddling upstream if the developing countries are let off the hook.

Paul Driessen, January 28, 2007:

“…But the European Commission wants still more draconian reductions by 2020, since even perfect compliance with Kyoto would keep global temperatures from rising only 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050...”

George Will, April 7, 2007, Washington Post:

“…We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions 0.3 percent…”

California's economy ranks somewhere between the sixth and tenth largest in the world.

2. Due to globalization, the developing world is contributing more and more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even if the US joins the fight against global warming, the efforts by countries committed to reducing greenhouse gases may not be enough to offset the contributions from the developing world.

From Robert J. Samuelson, Feb.7, 2007, Washington Post:

“…Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009...”

From Emma Graham-Harrison and Gerard Wynn, REUTERS NEWS AGENCY, March 24, 2007, Washington Times:

“…China's rapid rise of carbon emissions is threatening to outweigh efforts by the European Union and others to slow climate change. EU leaders said earlier this month they would cut the bloc's greenhouse gases by at least one-fifth by 2020.
But China between now and 2015 will build power-generating capacity equal to the entire existing capacity in the 27-nation European Union, the IEA estimates…”

In addition, China is predicted to surpass the US in greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere THIS year. Thus, the EU, which is a global leader in greenhouse gas reduction, may be bearing the cost of reducing the rise of the earth’s temperature for nothing. Besides China (second largest economy) other developing countries “…including the fourth-, 10th-, 11th-, 13th- and 15th-largest economies…” in the world are also contributing significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, and getting worse.

In conclusion, even if the cost of preventing, or reducing the heating of the earth is deemed worthwhile, then the cost must be born by everyone including the developing world if we are to be successful.

Yes in a day we earthly beings united in thought can dispel the evil doings world wide.
The mass power in united thinking, for one second go into your inter house of thought. In your minds eye, see a ship in the middle of the ocean on calm waters. This is your ship safe and secure, this is our world safe and secure. If every person around the world did this simple thought formula for one powerful second, the world of evil doers will be dispelled from mother earth and from man kind. Peace and Prosperity will be restored worldwide. Forward this seed of one second thought formula around the world for change By Paul Runninghorse Vigil PO box 1481 Westminster, Colorado 80036 USA

I consider myself a conservationist, but not an environmentalist. I recycle and reduce gasoline useage. When I can afford a hybrid car I will purchase one. I want clean air for my children. We plant trees.

While anti-capitalists are frantically screening "An Inconvenient Truth" and declaring the topic of Global Warming "closed", more and more in the scientific community are bailing out. The say that Global Warming is not manmade. Their numbers are no longer insignificant.

Unfortunately, the Global Warming hype is breeding apathy among those who feel "politically left out." Earth day is tomorrow, the events being hosted by an interest whose bumpersticker reads "Compost Bush." I will not attend; they will preach to their choir.

The US should hop on the Koyoto bus, as there's profit to be made in greening up. By not doing so, our products become less competative in the long run, as they take more energy to produce. As for China, it's about time we stopped letting them use our air as a garbage dump for their coal fired power plants. We have a great deal of leverage with them, as we are a large consumer. If we implemented a VAT tax on any of their un-green imported goods, they would realize they need to do more to become competative in our market.

All you really need to know about the Great Global Warming Scam.

All you really need to know about the Great Global Warming Scam is 16 parts per million. That is the total amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

You could go into the fact that temperature readings in the troposphere are increasing faster than the correspondent surface temperature in direct contradiction to the man-made carbon emissions theory of global warming.

You could point out that global temperatures actually declined during the first four decades of the post-World War II industrial expansion and that three-fourths of the global warming measured in this century occurred during the relatively low carbon emissions era of 1900 to 1940.

You could mention the fact that changes in solar activity not only correlate perfectly with observed climate changes on Earth but on the other planets of our solar system as well. Yes, Mars is indeed warming at an even faster rate than Earth and Virgin Atlantic has yet to land a single flight there.

You could comment on the fact that the ice core sample data presented by Al Gore in his propaganda piece actually show that CO2 content increased subsequent to (and not as a precursor of) the noted increases in temperature. Post hoc ergo propter hoc issues notwithstanding, you could correctly observe that Dr. Gore has his theoretical cause confused with his hypothetical effect.

You could even point out that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.054 percent (540 parts per million) of which over 97 percent is attributable to natural sources.

But most of these arguments are too complex for the average eco-zealot to understand.

So just lay up that 16 parts per million number and let it sink in.

Need something to help you put 16 parts per million into some sort of context?

The average chicken dinner contains between 33 and 43 parts per million of arsenic. That’s more than twice as much poison in your KFC as man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

The Al Gore theory of global warming is a scam to promote nuclear power, expand the scope of government, increase academic welfare, tax every bit of energy productive people use, derail third world development and create unearned fortunes via a government-mandated carbon credits market… all based on the bizarre notion that reducing man-made CO2 content from 16 parts per million down to say 12 parts per million is going to counteract the power of the sun.

Yes, P.T., there really is a sucker born every minute.

Often neglected in these conversations are the other good reasons to wean ourselves from foreign oil. Most of this imported energy comes from some of the world's most unstable and least free countries. Cutting back on oil imports by using alternative energies would have a positive foreign-policy effect.

A carbon tax is probably the easiest way for governments to impose change without actually picking winners and losers among various alternative energies. For example, the current subsidy system for corn ethanol will ultimately be seen to be a mistake.

China's manufacturing boom is driven in large part by world-wide consumerism and the throw away mentality that goes with it. I'm not quite sure how to tackle the problem, because economies around the world are based on continuous growth. Clearly, however, this cannot go on forever and something must be done to build a stable system that does not depend on consuming more and more and more. China shouldn't get off the hook simply because it is a "developing" country. Everybody will have to pitch in to deal with this problem.

Often neglected in these conversations are the other good reasons to wean ourselves from foreign oil. Most of this imported energy comes from some of the world's most unstable and least free countries. Cutting back on oil imports by using alternative energies would have a positive foreign-policy effect.

A carbon tax is probably the easiest way for governments to impose change without actually picking winners and losers among various alternative energies. For example, the current subsidy system for corn ethanol will ultimately be seen to be a mistake when its carbon footprint is calculated, along with its introduction of other pollutants into the atmosphere.

China's manufacturing boom is driven in large part by world-wide consumerism and the throw away mentality that goes with it. I'm not quite sure how to tackle the problem, because economies around the world are based on continuous growth. Clearly, however, this cannot go on forever and something must be done to build a stable system that does not depend on consuming more and more and more. China shouldn't get off the hook simply because it is a "developing" country. Everybody will have to pitch in to deal with this problem.

When and if America reduces its contribution to this world disaster to be proportunal with its population; then it can begin to point fingers at others! I am appalled that the American greed can look for any excuse to not do nothing. Do you think the water will not rise where you are standing because you are favored by God? Just reducing our vehicles to be the size needed to haul the people actually in the car would reduce our oil imports from the ME to zero, reduce our carbon consumption and related polution to be close to a reasonable goal. Instead I hope to live long enough to see the arrogance of Americans rewarded; as you sow, so shall you reap!

The President of the United States, or POTUS, is famous for his fart jokes in the White House. (flatulence) George Junior has quit his drinking and driving, cocaine snorting days to become a dry drunk bible thumper. But his flatulence (fart) continues. The sprawl industry supports the emissions coming from the White House and opposes clean energy.

The amount of ignorance on this board is horrific. This isn't a question about what do you believe - it's what the overwhelming majority of scientists have been able to prove. Some people will never be convinced of anything.

Global warming is real. It is caused by human activity. Where there is uncertainty is whether it will destroy the lives of our grnadchildren, or our great-grandchildren.

The only silver lining of this discussion board is that it shows that dittoheads actually read the Washington Post (on occasion).

Pathetic.

As a Scientist, it is alarming to see how many people - who are, incidentally, NOT scientists - dispute the volumes of data gathered thus far to support Global Climate Change.

I imagine that these are the same folks who told Columbus that he would sail off the edge of the flat earth - This is a real problem and it is only going to get bigger and bigger.

Watching the international finger-pointing going on from my fellow Americans is somewhat shamefull. We produce fully a third of the worlds warming gasses. We pay less for fuel than most people in developing countries do. We pay less in taxes than any developed country. America is the worst co2 polluter and the first thing everyone does is point fingers at the developing world.

Yes, China is going to be bad but it isn't yet. Yes, India is going to be another major polluter, but it isn't yet. If we as Americans want to climb up on a high horse about emmissions and point fingers at the developing world for emmitting CO2, then perhaps we should examine our own backyard first.

As long as short term potential for profit outweighs environmental concerns, the USA and it's 'business-first' priorities (which really translate into profit and shareholder value - which is yet another front for the wall street interests)nothing will change. There is a group of business and political (Republican to a memeber)interests who do not care, nor will they ever.

I have actually overheard evangelical co-workers say that they do not care what happens to the planet as the rapture is coming and only the evil ones will be left behind. My response was, of course, to pick up my jaw and continue down the hall, but what's clear is that a large number of forces (be they economic, political or socio-religious) have a vested interest - or more likely greedy self interest - which is overwhleming the voices of reason. Additionally, and I know this will not be a popular viewpoint, but I simply believe that most of the powerful in Washington (and again, this is regrettably a republican viewpoint - you would be hard pressed to find a Democrat who thinks Global Warming is some vast left wing environmental conspiracy - whereas you can't swing a cat by it's tail without hitting a republican ostrich who has his head firmly planted) - most of the powerful in Washington don't care, mostly becasue the people who will be most negatively impacted by todays projections are not the people who matter in their eyes (after all, the USA has a fairly unpleasant history in recent years when it comes to brown people and bombs *Credit to Greorge Carlin for that one*) The American Aristocracy doesn't care about poor people (be they brown or otherwise) beyond what it takes to write a (small - relatively) check. They are not going to drive more fuel efficient cars, live in smaller more energy efficient houses or willingly pay more in taxes to insure that their children HAVE a future. They are going to want escalades, $2 gas and McMansions and only 10 or 20 Katrina size disasters hitting city after city after city (and it needs to hit the rich ones, I loved N.O. but it was not a "Rich" city - Watch a Cat5 hit New York City!)would change their collective consciousness.

Get prepared. Move closer to large sources of fresh water. Move away from coasts. Leave low-lying areas. Learn to love sunscreen. Global warming is real, its happening now, and our opportunity to do anything about it is short, quick and never to return. Since the people in charge are NOT going to do anything about it, until it is far far far too late, prepare yourself to survive.

If the US continues it's full tilt greedball ways, of course this will drive rich and poor nations apart.

If Al Gore and company want me to take their human induced global warming alarmism seriously, they all need to set a much better example.

Carbon credits is nothing more than gimmickry and I promise you it will be abused - human nature.

When I see the wealthy down-sizing their living space, giving up the jet ski, boat, snow mobile, privat plane, gas guzzling automobiles; only then will I lend a concerned ear.

Without action your philosophy and theories are just cheap rhetoric.

I can always refute what you say; but I can not refute you do.

India and China should learn from the mistakes of the developed countries and not repeat them. Of course, the developed countries, mainly the U.S. need to work on their policies as well as the incessant consumerism that has been responsible in creating this problem of C02 emissions. That said, India and China could do well and not play the blame game. They should instead worry on how not to let the same thing happen in their countries and look at eco-friendly alternatives in the power sector, public transport, urban and rural planning, sustainable development and most importantly checking population growth!!

If the world has to save itself from the ever aggravating "planetary emergency", then both the Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1 countries will have to work sincerely towards reducing their contribution to the global green house emissions (GGH emissions) by adopting the methods laid out in the Kyoto Protocol.

(Emission trading i.e. buying Carbon Credit is a good strategy.)

The 'rules' need to be made 'binding' on all nations: developed, under-developed and the emerging economics alike, in spite of the 'common but differentiated responsibilities' clause of the protocol.

And, of course, the US should not be allowed to remain a 'non-commital' signatory by not agreeing to ratify and, therefore, enjoy its non-binding privileges. After all, the US alone contributes to almost 30% of the GGH emissions and is letting the world slip towards the grave dangers of global warming.

Askgees: There are too many factual misstatements on global warming to run them all to ground, but Mars is something I know about. So I'll pick that one.

Mars is warming because of a change in albeto; that is, its reflectiveness. How does that happen? The Martian winds blow light-colored dust off of dark-colored surfaces, resulting in more solar absorption, higher temperatures, and more dust storms, eventually planet-wide dust storms. That starts the cycle over again. Mars has gone through these cycles many times while global warming on Earth has steadily increased over the last 140 years.

The current warming of Mars has nothing to do with Earth's global warming.

Global climate change, so called "global warming", is a fact. All that people are arguing about is whether the cause is man made or not and what percent is due to human actions. The problem is, if we wait until we have positive proof that it is soley or only partially human caused and by what percentage, we will have done irreversable damage to this planet and life on it. To wait for China or India to act is just insane. Someone has to be the adult here and take steps to cut their use of processes and technologies that cause (or, if you are a skeptic, "may cause") global climate changes. In the end, this makes economic sense, too. If we develop new technologies and cut our consumption of fossil fuels, it will lead to new jobs and may even lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and our involvement in that unstable part of the world.

The scientific evidence for global warming is much more astounding than most people realize. It is necessary to look up the topic if you are unsure of where you stand on it. Whatever the severity of the effects of global warming, it is necessary to combat it effectively because, unfortunately, evidence suggests nothing we do will be immediate.

This isn't one of those situations where we can back out when it's finally TOO warm. Our effects now will likely last for generations. This requires significant action in the near future with the understanding that nothing will change for possibly years. And this is where undeveloped countries come into play.

Developed countries are a mess. Take my little city of Columbus. Given our woefully inadequate public transit system (COTA) and disgusting zoning procedures, you cannot do ANYTHING in Columbus without driving. The city was, for the most part, built around the car. To make our city eco-friendly would require complete reinvention of the car and its subsequent gas stations, because public transit systems will not fit. It would take billions to reconstruct Columbus into something that could be economically friendly intuitively instead of working in patches.

Developing countries have that luxury, however. They can develop with an eye on public transit over private transit as their wealth hopefully grows. This must be stressed to every developing country's civil planners, architects, and engineers. It's easier to build eco-friendly than rebuild eco-friendly.

Hopefully, developed countries will recognize that potential and fund projects to make this sort of development possible. And maybe they can even reform their own towns into something sustainable. We can only hope.

The current weather hype will not influence the world stage.

In the long history of the earth’s weather the new phenomenon is ice ages. Compared to warming an ice age would truly be a disaster. One of the alleged threats of warming is flooding. It is interesting to note that most of the Artic ice is already floating as is 40% of the Antarctic ice. When floating ice melts there is no change in the level of the water since the ice has already displaced the water. There is a good chance that the Antarctic will actually accumulate more ice since this most southern desert continent will probably see an increase in moisture, which will fall as snow.

The current warming trend, which started after the last ice age will continue until the earth enters a cooling trend ending in another ice age, probably of longer duration, until the earth starts to warm again and so on until the “candle” goes out.

This new reason, global warming, to be against progress (being human)will pass when the current leaders that are running this and other developed country end their time - Castro is close - and we can finally bury the commune idea.

Dealing with global warming requires a unique human quality: the expression of concern and compassion for another human being even if such expression diminishes one's own personal gain. In other words, a compassionate person willingly makes personal sacrifices (by, for example, driving a gas-sipping economy car to minimize carbon emissions) in order to help the generations that are yet to be born. The full impact of global warming will be felt by future generations, not the current generation.

Therein lies the reason that the Chinese reject steps to protect the environment. The typical Chinese cares only for himself. Anyone else be damned.

You can see this selfish attitude in how the Chinese treat helpless North-Korean refugees. They hurt no one and are simply trying to escape poverty and growth-stunting hunger by transiting through China to reach sanctuary in the USA, Japan, or another democracy.

What do the Chinese do? They snatch the refugees and send them back to certain torture and death in North Korea. Few societies are as callous and morally bankrupt as Chinese society.

http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#116274437809631696

Climate change dilemma

Its causes will determine how states respond to it

Climate change is real. There is a fair amount of scientific and policy debate on how much, but no reasonable person today can deny the upward trend in average global temperatures. This leads to melting ice-caps, rising sea levels, drying rivers and unusual weather conditions. [See this report on the impacts of climate change]

An important determinant of how states will respond to climate change has to do with how the discourse over its cause is framed. The dominant, and at least the popular view, is that climate change is primarily the result of human activity: atmospheric pollutants—nasty byproducts of human progress—cause global warming. If only human beings stop or reverse the course of environmental damage, it is possible to prevent the disaster from happening.

An alternate view is that rising temperatures are part of a geophysical cycle that has little to do with human activity. It is part of the same cycle that caused the climate to change dramatically in the Middle Ages, the melting ice allowing Vikings to sail across the Atlantic and land in America. They called the landmass they found en route Greenland, not because of some kind of medieval sarcasm, but because, well, it was green with forests when they found it. Newfoundland is frigid today. But the Vikings called it Vinland after the fine wine it produced. Today, like Greenland, Newfoundland is under ice most of the time, and certainly not because of anything the Vikings did. The element of geophysical inevitability underlying this explanation of climate change implies that there is not much that we can do about global warming, other than perhaps, invest in Siberian real estate.

If it comes to be accepted that it is human activity that causes climate change, then states will find it in their interests to co-operate with one another, as their survival becomes contingent on it. Although channeling this into an effective international mechanism will pose an unprecedented challenge, there is still room for optimism as all states will have similar incentives.

But if its all geophysics and human beings can at best buy more time by changing their behaviour, then the game quickly becomes one of ‘every country for itself’. Countries that can afford to prepare for the deluge or the drought—the large ones, and the rich ones, generally—will do so even at the cost of worsening the conditions of those that can’t. In this scenario large-scale international co-operation is impossible, and conflict inevitable. And the world’s poor will suffer the most.

Without even considering their economic priorities, given these uncertainties, states are likely to be cautious about international co-operation on climate change. It is, of course, possible to make a disarming middle-ground argument that the two potential causes are not mutually exclusive, and irresponsible human activity is only accelerating the environmental doomsday. This will allow the world to do something about it until science delivers a definitive verdict.

Global warming is like the Y2K bug. It's a hoax.

Reports last week stated that Mars is experiencing global warming??? Yet nothing live on the planet nor are there any fossil fuels being used/burned.

Seems this report clears up the issue. It's non existent. This is a normal occurrence. The earths and solar system have been around for millions of years and been through numerous changes.

reporter, USA -- "The full impact of global warming will be felt by future generations, not the current generation. Therein lies the reason that the Chinese reject steps to protect the environment. The typical Chinese cares only for himself. Anyone else be damned."

How daft can some talk! How ignorant can some be!

Asia (more particularly China) is where, in this world, the sense people have of the duration and of the continuity of life and of humanity, through generations, is the most developed. That has got reflected in poetry to the highest degree, for centuries.

It is ironic that someone from the most individualistic society on earth consider selfish, those who have, traditionally, the highest sense of the community! It is common knowledge that currently, the typical American is he, who "cares only for himself" so that "anyone else be damned"... Ask anyone in the Middle East, in Africa, in South and Central America, in...

We can't even get people to quit smoking, so how are we going to do what it takes to reduce our carbon footprints, reduce emissions, and halt or reverse global warming?

I think that Global Warming began about 20,000 years ago. That's why ice is no longer a thousand feet deep along the Canadian border.

While there are a really lot of places on Earth that would benefit from some additional warming, one can't help giving sympathy to the masses of humans and other biological developments who have adapted to the status quo by crowding the seashores.

And let's hear it for the Permafrost, too. Much of that stuff is water, sometimes 80% water. If the permafrost goes, say goodby to much North Slope real estate.

Our basic problem is the plentitude of cheap carbon based fuel--coal, oil, bitumins. The operative word is CHEAP. If we could get by that, there is plenty of wind and sunshine.

Forget Atomics for now. That dead horse will be buried within 50 years. Wind and Sun will be around a while longer.

Peace.

What can we do for our future generations?

$12 billion can provide education for every kid on earth; $15 billion can provide access to water and sanitation; and it only cost $19 billion to end global poverty, according to The Borgen Project.
Comparing to the $522 billion U.S. military budget and $340 billion for Iraq War thus far, these annual costs of improving the world is very little.

Unfortunately, our political leader is not making enough commitment to Kyoto Protocol to stop global warming, or the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty.
The United States, as the leader of the world, should set a good example to the rest of the countries in the world.
It is really not so hard if we are truly willing to make it happen!

The current weather hype will not influence the world stage.

In the long history of the earth’s weather the new phenomenon is ice ages. Compared to warming an ice age would truly be a disaster. One of the alleged threats of warming is flooding. It is interesting to note that most of the Artic ice is already floating as is 40% of the Antarctic ice. When floating ice melts there is no change in the level of the water since the ice has already displaced the water. There is a good chance that the Antarctic will actually accumulate more ice since this most southern desert continent will probably see an increase in moisture, which will fall as snow.

The current warming trend, which started after the last ice age will continue until the earth enters a cooling trend ending in another ice age, probably of longer duration, until the earth starts to warm again and so on until the “candle” goes out.

This new reason, global warming, to be against progress (being human)will pass when the current leaders that are running this and other developed country end their time - Castro is close - and we can finally bury the commune idea.

The current weather hype will not influence the world stage.

In the long history of the earth’s weather the new phenomenon is ice ages. Compared to warming an ice age would truly be a disaster. One of the alleged threats of warming is flooding. It is interesting to note that most of the Artic ice is already floating as is 40% of the Antarctic ice. When floating ice melts there is no change in the level of the water since the ice has already displaced the water. There is a good chance that the Antarctic will actually accumulate more ice since this most southern desert continent will probably see an increase in moisture, which will fall as snow.

The current warming trend, which started after the last ice age will continue until the earth enters a cooling trend ending in another ice age, probably of longer duration, until the earth starts to warm again and so on until the “candle” goes out.

This new reason, global warming, to be against progress (being human)will pass when the current leaders that are running this and other developed country end their time - Castro is close - and we can finally bury the commune idea.

The current weather hype will not influence the world stage.

In the long history of the earth’s weather the new phenomenon is ice ages. Compared to warming an ice age would truly be a disaster. One of the alleged threats of warming is flooding. It is interesting to note that most of the Artic ice is already floating as is 40% of the Antarctic ice. When floating ice melts there is no change in the level of the water since the ice has already displaced the water. There is a good chance that the Antarctic will actually accumulate more ice since this most southern desert continent will probably see an increase in moisture, which will fall as snow.

The current warming trend, which started after the last ice age will continue until the earth enters a cooling trend ending in another ice age, probably of longer duration, until the earth starts to warm again and so on until the “candle” goes out.

This new reason, global warming, to be against progress (being human)will pass when the current leaders that are running this and other developed country end their time - Castro is close - and we can finally bury the commune idea.

Supporting global warming requires a unique human quality: the expression of concern and compassion for another human being even if such expression diminishes one's own personal gain. In other words, a compassionate person willingly lowers his wealth (by, for example, driving a gas-sipping economy car to minimize carbon emissions) in order to help the generations that are yet to be born. The full impact of global warming will be felt by future generations, not the current generation.

Therein lies the reason that the Chinese reject steps to protect the environment. The typical Chinese cares only for himself. Anyone else be damned.

You can see this selfish attitude in how the Chinese treat helpless North-Korean refugees. They hurt no one and are simply trying to escape poverty and growth-stunting hunger by transiting through China to reach sanctuary in the USA, Japan, or another democracy.

What do the Chinese do? They snatch the refugees and send them back to certain torture and death in North Korea. Few societies are as callous and morally bankrupt as Chinese society.

http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#116274437809631696

The US is disproportionately responsible for greenhouse gas production (30% contribution by only ~5% of world's population).

Equally ironically, as one of the world's richest nations we are far more capable, economically and technologically, of implementing meaningful emission reductions.

Adding insult to injury, many Congressional leaders and US energy corporations have been among the most ardent holocaust-deniers re impending climate change impacts.

Legislators and policy makers who have essentially ignored highly probable, disasterous consequences of global climate change should be held legally liable - applying the legal standard that they "knew, or should have known".

If, as seems increasingly likely, man-made climate change eventually results in human suffering, deaths and property loss on a massive scale worldwide - those individuals should be indicted and tried for "crimes against humanity".

All candidates for national elective office should be required to publicly state their position regarding legislation waiving any presumptive immunity against such prosecution for any official (ir)responsible for such US policy consequences.

The US alone is responsible for about 30 percent of the increase of greenhouse gases caused by humans. We are the worst offenders in emissions per capita and per dollar of economic output. Americans consume a quarter of the world oil production. We spend a trillion dollars a year on oil, most of it from overseas, and yet we somehow fear that using less of it will harm our economy.

We like to think ourselves as the leaders of the world, the essential superpower. In my view, we reliniquished our world leadership in our bipartisan rejection of Kyoto ten years ago. I love this country, but we have shrunk in stature and are seen by the world for what we have become: an economy and a culture driven by consumption and debt. Eisenhower warned us. We are a rogue nation.

Some will view that statement as unpatriotic. But it is not unpatriotic to want your country to be great and to protect and restore its greatness. It is unpatriotic to hide in illusions and refuse to face the truth of the harm we are doing to ourselves and others.

We must deal with this problem in the most aggressive way. We must do it to earn back our respect, and it will reap so many other benefits: a more efficient economy, less poison in our air and food, less debt, and fewer enemies to send our children to kill.

If each shepherd waits for the other shepherd to cut down on his flock's grazing the unregulated commons, then the commons will be grazed bare and all the sheep will die.

We can't wait on others. We must lead by example.

The US should see this as an economic opportunity and lead the world in innovation. Moreover, I was taught in grade school that 2 wrongs don't make a right. This problem is far more serious to ignore and we're in dire need of real honest leadership. Hopefully the planet can wait another 2 years.

People jump on America for dragging its feet on global warming; what about developing countries like China, India and Brazil? Will this planetary emergency bring rich and poor nations closer together or drive them further apart?

A very sad state of affairs. I am pessimistic in general concerning the relationship of man to technology. Obviously a change in man's behavior is out of the question, so we must concentrate on technological advancement--and that obviously falls to the most advanced nations because developing nations do not have the science to improve on current technology and can only imitate what advanced nations are doing now.

Of course many of the less technologically advanced nations can just return to a premodern era--try to dispense with environmentally ruinous technology in general--but...it does seem absurd I just wrote that...

It falls to the advanced nations to solve the problem. The advanced nations are the biggest abusers of technology and are the only ones to solve the problem. If the problem is not solved by the advanced nations then a gulf will increasingly open between advanced and poorer nations as ecosystems collapse and weapons spread in an increasing power struggle over resources, etc.

What I want to concentrate on though is how poorly integrated our thinking is concerning environmental problems, WMD, terrorism, etc.

I am more and more inclined to see all these problems as interrelated and capable of being categorized as man not coming to terms with his technology. Taking America as a model for future human development--something of America spread to the world--we would like the world to become democratic, everyone believing in personal responsibility, but when we look in America itself we see a very profound tension, a reluctance to embrace science and positively transform, a reluctance to dispense with weaponry (firearms are rife in America), and in general no real sense of how to solve political or technological problems.

Perhaps the most ironic and touching thing is the liberal party in America which expects the American population to just disarm (laws against firearms, hostility toward the military in general) and basically just ruin its economy to take the lead on global warming--as if the rest of the world is just good and is not morally flawed as America!

This is not to say the Republican party in America is positive. It just chugs full oil ahead and with firearms waving and good old-fashioned religion. It must be the roaring twenties or something...

I am extremely pessimistic. The goal is for the advanced nations to technologically progress to where environmental problems are put at bay--as well as the spread of increasingly dangerous weaponry--but even if the advanced nations take a profound step forward on these problems, can they uplift the developing nations without an increase in present worldwide violence?

The advanced nations are contemplating doing away with ruinous technology in all its manifestations--from what causes global warming to WMD and firearms--before many nations have even entered the truly scientific and modern era, so how can these developing nations just be expected to have their lives radically changed without something of violence done to them?

Take the Islamic world. We expect this world to dispense with Islamic fundamentalism, embrace science, embrace democracy, dispense with technology which runs on oil (contemplate the irony of that one), and to not take to weaponry...

Reflect on what is being expected in general...

The 21st century is man and brain; man and religion; man and science; man and technology. Pick your paradigm. Pick your narrative. Pick your problem.

We can even construct a myth for our time: Man against the incineration of the world by his own hands. He globally warms the very planet he lives on, but even if he manages to get that under control weapons leak and the world is incinerated just the same. But if he does not make the attempt to get the world to cool, weapons will perhaps spread all the more and the world will incinerate.

A classic conundrum. Man must alter his relationship to technology within the advanced nations, but perhaps not so much that he cannot prevent these problems from occuring elsewhere. The democratic party in America would castrate Americans and ruin the economy and disarm America before the entire world is in line to handling technology, and the Republican party just chugs ahead devil may care, ruining the environment and increasing military might to step on whoever might threaten America. And this is just America we are speaking of. Multiply this by all the other nations, all the nations now having a grand old time criticizing America.

I can tell you right now America, the E.U., Russia, China, India, Japan, Brazil, etc. had better get it together--had better work on this dual environmental/security problem together. That is the only hope. And I can tell you I am damn angry that not a single newspaper is capable of integrating these rapidly multiplying problems before us into a single coherant narrative which implicates all of us--for we are all at fault and it was fairly easy for me to observe the above.

Where are all the PHDs? We hear the American system is the best university system in the world and no one can tie WMD, terrorism, the environment, science, religion, etc. into a single argument? Pathetic--that can be the only word to describe it. Pathetic. The problem is beyond and shot through all political parties. We should have the courage to recognize that now.

Global warming is the greatest lie since the sky is falling ever put out by a so called rationale media.

An insult to think the United Nations could ever put out anything other than a gross lie.

Global warming has been presented that if you do "not believe" you or I are the cause, you must also be a denier of the Holocaust(Ellen Goodman--Boston Globe and David Ignatius in the Post almost the same).

With the science purportedly so sure why would a journalist have to resort to such vitriol?

It is a fact that America, the most important polluter in the world, both at home AND ABROAD, is still dragging its feet on pollution control and on global warming. While it is an excellent reason for people to “jump on America”, this is of no real interest. As for what developing countries like China, India and Brazil do not do and should do, on global warming, it is no more what should concern us the most. In terms everyone can understand, the question that needs and does concern US, in relation to global warming, is the following: How can WE, the WEST, be part of the solution, instead of remaining, until the end, the major part of the problem?

Judging by OUR dominant values (those most of us generally profess), I do not believe this "planetary emergency" will bring us any closer to poor nations. On the contrary, it is my opinion it will drive US further away from them.

For US, western nations, to be part of the solution, we should have to be able to act, on the world scene, in a spirit of international cooperation towards achieving world objectives. For that to be only possible, we need drop all our major beliefs relative to life, to humanity, and to what living in a community of human beings and of nations is about. That means, abandoning slogans like, “in this jungle, only one law prevails: that of the survival of the fittest”, “here, it is all against all”, “we need have no human (ethical/moral) values and concerns, only national interests”, “all that matters in business is maximum profit in the shortest possible time”, “we must keep on increasing sales”, “people must continue to consume more and more”, “rich is good, speculation (though creating no wealth) is praiseworthy”, “ big is beautiful”, “biggest is best”, etc. I may be wrong, but I see no sign we are about to abandon those slogans.

We cannot resolve global planetary problems while still being alienated from nature, from ourselves and from others. Such a degree of dehumanization will not allow it

Developing nations, more particularly major ones like China, India and Brazil cannot, will not, and must not take the lead in solving the problem of global warming. Only the West can and ought to play that leading role. Developing nations must first and foremost ensure the vast majority of their own people can, as soon as possible, not only survive but lead a decent life. Their duty to their people is therefore to develop, not to help the West continue to overdevelop. I believe all developing nations have to do is wait for the West to move and take a leadership role. The West is so much more dependent and vulnerable than we assume it to be. It needs developing nations for natural resources, for cheaper manufactured goods, and soon for leading edge technology and know-how. Developing nations will therefore wait rich nations out, knowing the latter stand to lose so much more than they, from global warming.

As I wrote before, time is running out. Massive worldwide mobilization is urgently required. All the precursory signs of profound climatic, natural and social disorder are already there for everyone to see. Yet blindness prevails and like cowards, deniers and accomplices alike have already cut and run, screaming: “it’s all happened before, we’ll adapt, there is nothing we can do, anyway!” Unfortunately, only when major catastrophes strike in rapid succession (they soon will), will large numbers be awaken and forced to massively move and demand action; but by then, we will be well beyond the point of no return. It will simply be too late. "The revenge of Gaia" (Lovelock) will then prove formidable, irresistible. Let us all see, then, what becomes of our tune, once our world cracks and begins to crumble.

It is necessary that the world's countries act in unison to fight Global Warming. Without doubt there is a need to develop nuclear power generation until a time comes that Fusion is viable.

In the USA two changes are necessary to achieve this purpose. First, the culture of scaremongered anti-nuclear citizenship has to be reassured that Nuclear power is both safer than coal [per Gigawatt generated, nuclear is the safest world wide].Second, the USA has to change her reaction if countries other than her vassals [e.g IRan, Argentina, or Brazil etc] wants to develop Nuclear power.

While it is possible that Saharan and Persian Gulf nations could develop industrial size Sun light utilizing power generation, this mode of generation does not help either China, N. India or other countries far from the equator with cloudy/rainy weather. Possibly Chile, Peru might also benefit from this generation..

However, the cost of Nuclear and other such power generation modalities are very expensive to develop and to dismantle after usage.

Therefore World Bank, IMF should be reformed to be financiers of non-carbon based power generation in poor and or developing nations, where the developed countries pick up the tab [for they caused the most CO2 emission sincve the Industrial Revolution]. The developed countries can afford this yearly 30-60 billion dollar INVESTMENT, for it reflects but a timy faction of their gross armament budgets [armamant investment is a loosing proposition anyway, for the product is useless except to destroy lives and infrastructure -- always someone else's].

Perhaps with respect to globalization the developed world should not outsource so much of their power intensive industries, thus saving India, China, Vietnam etc the need for supersize energy investments, where they can not afford to do this with anything else but coal and oil.

It might be necessary also that the developed nations forgo some intellectual property commissions to allow the developing world to cut costs in non-coal/oil power generation.

Finally, the developed world should completely give up on ethanol production from any organic material which could be used directly/indirectly for food production. For if the price of food goes up world wide, then the chances that developing and poorer nations could afford steps to fight Global Warming would decrease immensely.

The reduction of global warming is linked to the various economies. The rich countries seem to be very reluctant to address the problem vigorously and the poor countries add to the problem by the deforestation of their areas because they use the
wood they can collect for their different needs. Brazil which know that the Amazon forest is one of the most important lung of the world, close their eyes to the massacres of the indians which occupy the land, so that the new declared and powerfulf landowners can be able to clear vast areas for agriculture and the raising of cattle. Strong protests, local and international, have been lodged with the government and local authorities. In spite of all the promises to do something about it, they have not been able to control the killings and deforestation. The ecomic interests seem more important. China and India wish to keep their economies going and will, perhaps, do something when the old developped countries will start to do something seious about the problem All the various international meetings - including Kyoto - finally amounted to almost nothing. When humans will realize that the future - which includes their children and grand-children - is more important than the immediate gratification, perhaps we may expect some improvements.

You mean other nations on the earth contribute to global warming? Everyone knows that its all America's fault. The global warming and keeping the poor nations poor. Seriously though, emission trading, er, i mean wealth transfer schemes, oops, global productivity taxes are not going to bring rich and poor together. Heck, that doesn't even happen between people in America where we try to make it possible for everyone to become rich. This "planetary emergency" (nice use of quotes btw) will divide us because the only acceptable solution, Kyoto-like policies, pit rich/productive countries against poor/unproductive countries by design.

If you were a country that was poor and you wound up getting money expressly because you were unproductive (and thus non-polluting), where would the incentive be to become productive? Well, many say that these countries would become productive in an economically friendly way. The problem is that carbon-based technology is substantially cheaper (for now and the forseeable future) than econ-friendly technology. This kind of welfare is not going to bring counties together.