attitudinize applause hydrobromic nephrologist unvictualled scleroblastemic alascan electroscission
Stumped: Necessary Roughness
http://cnn.com/2001/WEATHER/08/04/tropicalstorm.barry/

Sorry, but I cannot live without my SUV! If I drive a smaller car, people will start talking things behind my back......

Try to use the phone and video conference as much as possible, buy and do things via the Internet and regular old-fashion mail and keep in touch electronically. If we all cut back 10% of our driving, that will be a good step forward. If we reduce our electricity consumption by 10%, that is another good step.

Finally, we have to simplify our lives. Too many gadgets and too many headaches surround us and we have forgotten how to enjoy life and our heath.

We must conserve and save now and invent and invest immediately to preserve our future.

The incandescent light bulb is probably a prime example: nothing has been changed fundamentally since it was invented by Edison 100 years ago. It is a highly inefficient item as it generates lots of heat vs. the light that it produces. Other modern methods, such as LEDs and florescent lights (that now come in lots of varieties) must replace those old bulbs and the saving on power usage is 4-for-1 for florescent bulbs and up to 18-to-1 for LED replacements.

Imagine the impact if 50% of all lights were converted. Just a simple step and a good start.

The comments of David Goodhart next to this article makes a compelling case for a complete revisit of our values and our definition of success, material gain and general definitions of good and good deeds vs. harm.

Since the 1990s, the world has gone into a frenzy of consumption. But, as David Goodhard clarifies, are we happier because we drive a bigger car?

Thanks to both for their views on this important matter.

It is time to rethink the entire model of consumption, return on assets and investments and the cost-benefit ratio. If necessary, we have to accept that it will be more costly and less convenient to live, as the alternative to life is not all that promising!

All of this mass pollution has happened over a period of about 50 years, as the writer said since 1950s. We have indeed borrowed against the future. I wonder if it has been a responsible and well-designed plan, or just one for short-term, if we look at history as we know it.

What are you talking about dude? This is the age of gangsta' rap and you have to have Hummers and limos on the scene....you want us to roll in Volkwagons? We are from the polluted ghettos, so cut me some slack, jack!

Peace n' no shootin' in the hood....

We only have one planet and we have to be careful, think long term. Rain forests must be protected. God's amazing message is in the beauty of nature.

I lived and studied in Texas for 20 years but I never understood why people drive big pick-up trucks as personal transportation vehicles-- in cities like Dallas or Houston. These people never went out of town. Just drove from home to the office or the university, to the local market, etc. for ordinary daily routines. Was that really necessary when they could drive a small or medium sized car?

Here in SA, we have a cleaner air, but some parts of town are badly polluted. Environmental education must start in schools. The risks must be disclosed at a young age for the next generation of consumers.

Is any one following the problems we have here in Australia? Acidic water is killing off the Reef, and we have water shortages.

The writer is correct. If China and India reach the levels of European or American consumption of energy or raw materials, prices will be very high and we will soon run out of materials such as copper ores or zinc, iron, aluminium, etc.

Wise consumption is the way to go forward. We have to think things thru before we go on wild consumption sprees. The private jet craze, for example, is getting out of hand, creating lots of fumes to move one or two people around.

Buses, cars and trains should be electric or hydrogen powered. Geo-thermal energy must be captured to replace fossil fuels.

We must consume wisely. Your point about irresponsible energy consumption is a true and stark point for all to consider. The so-called economic miracle of 1980s would have not had a chance if oil prices remained high, in their high 20's and 30's like it was in late 1970s.

Funny that we have lots of news bout banning fox hunting in UK, but car racing is not talked about, even though car racing is a lot more harmful to the environment. Ditto for truck races and motorcycle races. Hardly a sport!

We must appreciate what we have and think about consuming wisely. Beauty is in simplicity. The rat race is not what life is all about.

I also agree with the poster above about a grading and ranking system for producers, a kind of environmental grade and ranking for every product that we buy.

We must adjust our consumption patterns. We all must think and act responsibly.

We all have to come up with a system of ranking and grading producers according to a sort of environmental efficiency grade. Buy from those that have the highest score and the most acceptable environmental pratices and not buy, even boycott, the ones that have poor practices.

The scoring system must value their entire production system, their office practices, packaging and percentage of recycled or recycleable materials in the product or its packaging. And the system must be one worldwide grading and scoring system as we are now trading globally.

A tough grading system will force companies to adopt better standards and emit less CO2.

To R. McCoy

The fact is that Europe and Japan started with energy efficient techniques after the 1970s crunch but America relapsed back to its old ways with bigger cars, SUVs and more outlandish ways of consuming energy.

Why is it that per capita consumption of oil (excluding gas) in America is 48 barrels per year but only 24-36 per person in Europe and Japan (depending on which country you look at)?

The Jazz age of irresponsible energy consumption....well said indeed.

Remember that Condoleeza Rice was a senior advisor to Chevron during 1980s and a Chevron-owned tanker was named after her for her contribution to getting the Saudis to play nice....and Rumsfeld was the man that shook hands with Saddam and built a pipeline to take Iraqi oil across Saudi Arabia and load in the Red Sea......So, these two people have been around.

Conservation is the key. I am not sure if our world can accept car racing as a sport any longer. Things like Indy 500, for example! Just watch cars to go around and around a track for 500 miles while the pollute! What is wrong with a nice horse race instead?

Other bits of life styles must change to reduce consumption: a walk or a bike ride to the supermarket instead of driving, lighting of streets with solar-powered battery chargers, wind generators and geo-thermal sources. Thre is lots of heat energy deep in the ground and we could all use it. Islandic people are very advanced in using geo-thermal energy.

You are right about cars. Ford was the first company that brought us the assembly line and the new way to build cars. They have made cars for the last 100 years or so in the same manner and they are now losing about $35 bil. a year. Why? Because they have not embraced the realities of today.

That may prove to be an example for other industries and the change-or-die choice that is faced by us all. Thanks for your article.

Bravo.

Well said: we have to reconsider how we measure success. Here in Scandinavian countries, we have always believed that less is more and tried to have high standards in efficiency. This means appreciating life and the resources that we have.

As the author mentions, the mentality is the same: financial borrowing to have tomorrow's material things today, which means spending tomorrows resources today, and pulling forward tomorrow's pollution towards ourselves.

Do we all have a morbid desire to see the end as soon as possible?

Yes, we must find better and more clever ways. More efficiency, new products and not just small adjustments to old products like car engines.

Water shortages will be a serious problem as we all need water to live. Deforestation of the Amazon and rain forests is also a stupid way of doing things.

Most interesting to read.
We must reduce consumption and have higher efficiency. Expanding sources to wind and solar is essential.

Right now, many villages in Spain and southern France are facing water shortages, even during this time of the year which is winter and the rainy season. I don't know what are they going to do in the summer.

Recent reports about Australians in Sydney and other places are similar. This means the problem is global as Australia is a very big land and not as industrialised or compact as Europe.

The author has pointed out certain stark facts:

First of all, we have to start thinking again and come up with new products and solutions, not just make slight improvements in products that were developed during the last century. Cars, as we know them, are now luxuries. We need smaller, lighter means of transport to move around our cities, preferably running on batteries or hydrogen.

Secondly, we have to realise that our liberal capitalist economic models were good for their own era and period when there was a race between countries to produce more. Now we are in a global village and highly interdependent. The world community must now go back to the drawing board and come up with a master plan of conservation. This also means sharing technology and innovative thoughts and licenses for design, if necessary. Something akin to free software. Otherwise, we will all choke on the pollution produced by our brother or competitor.

Thirdly, we have to think about efficiency and conservation. Do we really need that fourth TV set or the second SUV?

We need to keep the long term impact in our sight at all times when we decide to do something.

To R McCoy (Poster above)

The author has pointed out measured consumption to befit the need. It does not matter if the economy is centralised or a free market economy. What matters is how materials are used and for what benefit vs. what negative impact.

Eastern European countries happen to be some of the most polluted places on earth simply because thre was no element of conservation or long-term planning and there was cheap supplies of energy, mainly from Russia and Poland. Those countries are still struggling with the residue and junk and hazardous waste left behind.

Let's compare Sweden and USA: both are very advanced industrial countries. Both have competitive economies and produce excellent Grade A products. Why is it then that per capita, or even per dollar of GDP, consumption of fuel and energy is higher in USA than in Sweden? Is it because Sweden decided that it didn't need Las Vegas and all the consumption of energy that goes with it? Or is it because the Swedes have conservation and efficiency higher up on their list of priorities? Ditto for Denmark, Germany and Norway (which is an oil and gas exporter and producer).

The Sun is all that we need......

and what others said is true... it is just a cycle of which the earth is going through. It is natural. And we can't stop it.

if we have to go through another Ice Age then let us! it's all just a cycle after all...

Yes,and we pay a fortune for it. The oil that we PAID for is then shipped to the US in big tankers. Why is it only Americans that are to blame. We may create a lot of CO2,but guess where the big brown smog cloud is covering a half a continent? Its not here its in Asia.

Its also the case that the United States exports a large quantity of goods. These goods take oil to make. In the overall picture this oil should not be counted as consumed in the US,but instead consumed by the end users of the products.

Still,our usage of oil is vastly greater than any other nation. We should of course reduce our oil usage as much as we can. The fact is,the average American has proven that he cannot be trusted to act responsibly where his energy consumption is concerned. If you don't need a giant truck,you shouldnt be allowed to buy one. If you need one to move your furniture,you can go rent one for a day. If you need one for work,thats fine. You should have to justify it and get a special permit.

People like to talk about the economic impact of reducing emissions and fuel usage,but in many cases,it will save money. Driving small cars,or even larger cars with smaller engines would save money AND help the environment. Minivans work just fine with four cylinder engines. Small SUVs work fine with them too. You don't need a giant SUV with a giant engine, you just want it.

"A two year supply shortage in 1970s, leading up to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, was dismissed as an anomaly."

The supply shortage in 1973 was caused by OPEC, which stopped shipping petroleum to nations that had supported Israel in its conflict with Syria and Egypt (i.e. Western Europe and the US). It was not "dismissed as an anomaly", it was accurately identified as the creation of a monopoly through government cartel. The objective in creation of any cartel is to prevent competition, thereby allowing the cartel to charge more for something than what it is worth, and/or influence world policy through coercion. Middle-East royalty created OPEC with both of these objectives in mind.

Also, as director of an investment company in emerging markets such as Eastern Europe, you of all people on this panel are well aware of the benefits of capitalism over central planning. In fact, you wouldn't have much of a business had it not been for the overthrow of socialist governments in Eastern Europe, and a restoration of the only natural economic system. How is it then, that you can advocate for more central planning worldwide? You spoke of an industrialized India and China as a terrible prospect - completely ignoring the FACT that industrialization brings a dramatic increase in quality of life. The least polluted countries in the world are those which have already industrialized - not the other way around.

Do your homework next time.

From searching out and reading on the subject, I can't say for sure whether or not if there is a problem, if we are the problem, or if we are doomed. I question whether we understand enough to really predict the long term effects.
However, say it is true that fossil fuels are the problem.
From what I've read, the Kyoto protocol will provide very little benefit. It appears to shift carbon production from developed countries to undeveloped/developing countries, but doesn't insure a reduction in worldwide emissions.
Seems that the core problem is that we are taking carbon that was "sequestered" in the ground and releasing it in the environment.
Nuclear is an energy source that could replace some carbon consumption. So are solar, wind, etc.
However, none of those really reduces or prevents the sheer volume of carbon emitted. They provide alternatives, but they also reduce cost of petroleum and coal, by reducing supply. They make industrial growth cheaper by making more energy available.
By suggesting adding taxes, we are suggesting using market forces (by increasing the cost) to encourage reduced use of fossil fuels. However, we really don't insure any reduction.
This would probably never fly politically, but what about putting a cap on production, e.g. at 2006 levels? If there were a worldwide cap on production, prices would increase, which would encourage conservation, and would make alternative renewable sources more competitive. There could be a gradual lowering of the cap over many years to lower the total carbon emissions.
There are lots of implications for our economy, abilities for other countries to develop, etc. However, it would guarantee a reduction of carbon emissions. It would also be easier to police, i.e. policing companies producing the carbon sources rather than trying to police all the companies and individuals (driving cars, etc.) consuming the fuels.
It also doesn't necessitate use of nuclear and its potential risks (though it doesn't preclude it either).
I'm a believer in capitalism, but I don't think that "anything goes" capitalism is always right. Having some rules is ok, and with the right rules, the market can be effective in finding good solutions.

"Harsh reality", not likely. There are many in the scientific community that say this is just the natural cycle to which the earth is subject to. It happened before, so what makes you tree hugging dirt worshippers think that we can stop the natural process that the earth itself has?

If you look at next site you can find how a sun collecter with chimney can solve the energy needs in the arab nations.

Nu nukes, no petrol. Only sun do you need.

www.sbp.de/en/fla/mittig.html

Good luck

VIRTUAL SHOPPING

VIRTUAL LIVING

VIRTUAL GOV

VIRTUAL DRIVING

THE BEST GLOBAL WARMING'S RESOLUTION

ONE EMAIL: permaID.com

ONE EMAIL-ID(MY INVENTION)
ONE EMAIL-PHONE(MY INVENTION,SKYPE)
ONE EMAIL-MICROCHIP(MY INVENTION!)
ONE EMAIL-TATTOO(yourcellphone#@permaID.com)
ONE WEB PAGE(YAHOO.COM)
ONE BLOGZONE(FLICKR.COM)
ONE WEB-TV(YOUTUBE.COM)

log-on with your fingerprint or retina image
into www.permaID.com

I remember in the early 1990's that all the "prominent scientists" said global warming was entirely man-made. When that was shown not to be completely accurate, the story has now become global warming in man adding to a naturally occurring trend. Global warming is a theory. A theory is a hypothesis supported by data. Theories change and evolve as more data is gathered, collected, and analyzed. We know so little about the earth's history and climate over the last 5 billion years. The data we have right now would be like looking at the first two days of your new infants life and knowing what will happen 60 years from that day. I support change in energy and policy, but not on scientific principle. Econimically more effiency means better returns. We all know money changes the world faster than science anyday.

Changing how we measure economic activity and how we classify economic "success" is a vital part of solving this problem. Thank you for pointing that out! It's easy to make a fast buck if corners are cut: meaning energy is cheap and the environmental impact is ignored.

The problem mankind now faces needs to be tackled on all fronts: Energy Efficiency, development of renewable and free (wind/geothermal) energy, and changing our culture of consumption.

America consumes an outrageous amount. Don't you think it owes the rest of the world something for what it's doing to the planet?