T Nation

Bush to Switch Tacks on Global Warming?

That’s the rumor.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1604092.ece

If the U.S. decides to go for a national policy of emissions restrictions, I think it would be more likely that it would follow a non-Kyoto (and perhaps thus non-global) path – either by pacts with allies, such as the one announced previously with Japan, Australia and certain other countries, or even just take some unilateral action by itself.

The more pertinent question, at least to me, is whether China, India, and Brazil (among certain others) would follow suit.

This smells of a the elections are two months away ploy to me.

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
This smells of a the elections are two months away ploy to me.[/quote]

Unfortunately, most people don’t have the same acutely sensitive sense of smell intelligent people like you do… So it will probably work.

[quote]
BigPaul wrote:
This smells of a the elections are two months away ploy to me.

hspder wrote:
Unfortunately, most people don’t have the same acutely sensitive sense of smell intelligent people like you do… So it will probably work.[/quote]

I admit I tend to be a skeptic, but you guys are obviously well into the cynical stage.

I think I’ll wait for the proposal – you guys are dismissing it at the rumor stage…

At any rate, as I posted above, I highly doubt the administration would embrace Kyoto – but I am interested to see what, if any, proposals they put forth, as I gather that any major change would come in the form of an actual proposal, and not just some statement to the effect that we are open to the idea.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I admit I tend to be a skeptic, but you guys are obviously well into the cynical stage.[/quote]

So?

Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
[center]- Ambrose Bierce

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s the rumor.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1604092.ece

If the U.S. decides to go for a national policy of emissions restrictions, I think it would be more likely that it would follow a non-Kyoto (and perhaps thus non-global) path – either by pacts with allies, such as the one announced previously with Japan, Australia and certain other countries, or even just take some unilateral action by itself.

The more pertinent question, at least to me, is whether China, India, and Brazil (among certain others) would follow suit.[/quote]

All this with no scientific consensus that global warming even exists? Nice!

Clearly a political move.

Maybe as part of the plan they should make people exhale only once per minute to cut down on the C02 emissions!

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
This smells of a the elections are two months away ploy to me.[/quote]

The Dems have been playing politics with this issue for years. It is no surprise the Reps are going to finally join in.

I’ll bet both sides also have a solution to illegal immagration.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I’ll bet both sides also have a solution to illegal immagration.[/quote]

Harness illegal immigrants to pull cars and trucks and you’ll solve both problems at once.

I hope he does.

It’ll make him a flip-flopper, along with everyone who supported him.

Ohhh, so when we told you so before, WE were wrong, right? We were enviro-whacko libs, yeah? Is that it? And Saddam Hussein had Al-Qaeda links too, and Iraq and WMD, right? Oh wait, you mean…? Oh, so now they don’t? Now global warming is real? Well, oh great leader, we’re so happy you stick to your guns.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

At any rate, as I posted above, I highly doubt the administration would embrace Kyoto – but I am interested to see what, if any, proposals they put forth, as I gather that any major change would come in the form of an actual proposal, and not just some statement to the effect that we are open to the idea.[/quote]

It’s money for R&D judging by this story:
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=59621&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2
No CO2 restrictions though which needs to be done basically yesterday.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=dem&id=263255

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

All this with no scientific consensus that global warming even exists? Nice!

[/quote]

That IS the beauty of science. It is ALWAYS open to new ideas - look at what happened to classical physics. But, if you look at the VAST majority on this issue…

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

At any rate, as I posted above, I highly doubt the administration would embrace Kyoto – but I am interested to see what, if any, proposals they put forth, as I gather that any major change would come in the form of an actual proposal, and not just some statement to the effect that we are open to the idea.

It’s money for R&D judging by this story:
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=59621?=fra&NewsRubrique=2
No CO2 restrictions though which needs to be done basically yesterday.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=dem&id=263255

[/quote]

R and D is exactly what is needed. Both for developing alternate enery sources and climate research.

CO2 restrictions are ridiculous.

…look, if the deforestation of this planet wasn’t an issue, than CO2 emissions wouldn’t be one either. We’re cutting down the arboreal forests in Canada, Alaska and Siberia. Clearcutting in Indonesia is a huge problem, as it is in Africa. Throughout Asia, rainforest are cut, and despite valliant efforts, the Amazon rainforest is still shrinking by the day. Even if CO2 emissions aren’t really that big of a deal, we are undercutting this planet’s ability to deal with the polution, and thus it becomes a problem…

Oh come on, everyone can see it’s just a ploy so that come the next election cycle they’ll be able to claim they are involved in environmental issues in a positive way.

It is so sad to watch this stuff get lapped up like milk when it’s really just dog piss.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…look, if the deforestation of this planet wasn’t an issue, than CO2 emissions wouldn’t be one either. We’re cutting down the arboreal forests in Canada, Alaska and Siberia. Clearcutting in Indonesia is a huge problem, as it is in Africa. Throughout Asia, rainforest are cut, and despite valliant efforts, the Amazon rainforest is still shrinking by the day. Even if CO2 emissions aren’t really that big of a deal, we are undercutting this planet’s ability to deal with the polution, and thus it becomes a problem…[/quote]

It is too bad all those pesky people live there.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…look, if the deforestation of this planet wasn’t an issue, than CO2 emissions wouldn’t be one either. We’re cutting down the arboreal forests in Canada, Alaska and Siberia. Clearcutting in Indonesia is a huge problem, as it is in Africa. Throughout Asia, rainforest are cut, and despite valliant efforts, the Amazon rainforest is still shrinking by the day. Even if CO2 emissions aren’t really that big of a deal, we are undercutting this planet’s ability to deal with the polution, and thus it becomes a problem…

It is too bad all those pesky people live there.
[/quote]

…what??? I really don’t understand where you people are coming from. I have an National Geographic issue where one article shows a Chinese woman cooking food on a solarcollector [a couple of bucks wholesale] and the next one shows african women carrying bushels of firewood out of the jungle. IOW, the technology is available, just not to everyone. Let’s make it available to everyone for the benefit of all!

…besides, do you really think it’s just about the people who live there? Clearcutting forests is a commercial endeavour. If it would just be about the livelyhood of it’s inhabitants, i think the forests could easily sustain them. Take a look at the big picture for a change…

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…look, if the deforestation of this planet wasn’t an issue, than CO2 emissions wouldn’t be one either. We’re cutting down the arboreal forests in Canada, Alaska and Siberia. Clearcutting in Indonesia is a huge problem, as it is in Africa. Throughout Asia, rainforest are cut, and despite valliant efforts, the Amazon rainforest is still shrinking by the day. Even if CO2 emissions aren’t really that big of a deal, we are undercutting this planet’s ability to deal with the polution, and thus it becomes a problem…

It is too bad all those pesky people live there.

…what??? I really don’t understand where you people are coming from. I have an National Geographic issue where one article shows a Chinese woman cooking food on a solarcollector [a couple of bucks wholesale] and the next one shows african women carrying bushels of firewood out of the jungle. IOW, the technology is available, just not to everyone. Let’s make it available to everyone for the benefit of all!

…besides, do you really think it’s just about the people who live there? Clearcutting forests is a commercial endeavour. If it would just be about the livelyhood of it’s inhabitants, i think the forests could easily sustain them. Take a look at the big picture for a change…[/quote]

Yes it is the people that live there that are cutting down the trees. It is a big problem. They want to join the modern world and get use out of their land.

While the World Bank and evil business can fund the destruction it is ultimately the locals that are carrying it out because they believe it will give them a better quality of life.

I don’t see Europeans willing to give up their modern lifestyle to let nature take over. Why do you feel you can tell others they cannot have the same economic advantages that you have?

It all boils down to the fact that there are too many pesky humans on this ball of mud.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Yes it is the people that live there that are cutting down the trees. It is a big problem. They want to join the modern world and get use out of their land.[/quote]

…if it would just be the people, then it would not be such a problem as it is today. It’s the big corporations that do the most damage. You do realise that, don’t you?

…again, if it only would just be the locals, but the paperindustry and the demand for hardwood is destroying so much more forests than the locals ever can…

[quote]I don’t see Europeans willing to give up their modern lifestyle to let nature take over. Why do you feel you can tell others they cannot have the same economic advantages that you have?

It all boils down to the fact that there are too many pesky humans on this ball of mud.[/quote]

…there are many projects aimed at returning farmland to their natural state. It’s already happening in Europe on a grand scale. I’m going to bed now, but will look for links tomorrow…

God Dammit.

If we’re gonna talk about this again can we please get our stories straight?

#1 “Global Warming” is not accelerating out of control. The only thing we know for sure is that we are putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere due to our consumption of fossil fuels.

#2 I’m sorry, liberal brethren, but the climate DOES NOT follow CO2 levels, as shown very very plainly by the Keeling Curve which I have produced at the top of the post, courtesy of wikipedia. Here we see a linear rise of CO2 levels which is not what we have seen in temperature. The climate is a complex interplay of many different factors of which CO2 is just a small but important part.

#3 There are a shitload more total plant life in the oceans and elsewhere due to the big-ass levels of CO2 which plankton and friends will greedily gobble up. If anything is out of control, it is the algae blooms and shit which are choking up shorelines and rivers and whatnot.

#4 If we suddenly cut off our CO2 emissions, all these photosynthesizing plants will suck it out of the atmosphere lickety split, fucking up climate like you have never seen before. Don’t forget, we are hanging out between glacial periods right now. If there was anything to suddenly remove our protective blanket of greenhouse gases, we would plunge into an ice age rather quickly.

#5 The only thing that makes sense as far as managing our ecology is to SLOWLY reduce our emissions to where that Keeling Curve becomes a flat line (and then maybe starts to drop), whilst simultaneously selectively deforesting the shit out of the rain forests to prevent all those damn plants from fucking anything up. It’s a lot easier to cut down plants on the land than to kill off algae blooms and plankton. We will have to trust to Mother Nature to match our reduction of CO2 emissions with decreased algae and such as the Carbon cycle evens itself out somewhat, and then we can let the rainforests grow back – which they already do.

I think maybe the key here would be the word “adaption”. I know all my hippie friends want to make everybody drive hybrid cars and switch to solar power, etc., but that would be a very bad idea to do unless we do it slowly.

Greenhouse gases = Good

Loth,

While I agree it is good to look at the big picture and not panic due to rising CO2 levels, I also feel that you make unfounded claims yourself.

The degree of “safety” we have is certainly unknown right now. We also don’t know that the CO2 will actually be gobbled up as suggested.

Please, if you are going to accuse the entire scientific community of talking out of it’s collective ass, don’t start talking out of yours to counter it.