By MARTHA MENDOZA (AP National Writer) From Associated Press December 01, 2005 2:04 PM EST Activists demanding urgent action on global warming plan to take to the streets Saturday across the United States and beyond, with hybrid car parades, parties and marches.
The demonstrations are planned to coincide with a 10-day United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Montreal. ...
The spikes in temperature have never happened this quickly. There is a ton of scientific evidence saying that this is way out of the normal range for Earth, and that the spike since the Industrial revolution is ridiculous.
This adminstration is no worse than Clintons in environmental matters. They both have strong points and weak points.
Clinton raised the CAFE mileage standard for cars but ignored trucks and SUV's. Bush ignored cars and raised the standard for SUV's.
Clinton ignored arsenic in drinking water for his entire term and signed an executive order to reduce the allowable maximum on his way out the door. Bush actually is implementing the standard.
Clinton had an all or nothing approach regarding air scrubber systems in power plants. If you weren't going to upgrade it all the way, you were not allowed to upgrade it at all. Bush loosened this standard and power plants have actually been spending money for equipment to upgrade. There is a mini boom going on for this type of environmental equipment.
There is a ton more like this. All administrations have a very mixed records on environmental issues.
I am not yet convinced that global warming due to mans production of CO2 is something to worry about. I think it is more of a distraction from the real environmental problems we have.
How much of the Earth's history is documented? Science is proven wrong each day. Not agreeing one way or the other. But I guess I don't see it as 'end of the world type' or anything for sure quite yet.
I understand that. As I've stated, I am no fan of Clinton. I don't think either of them do enough for the environment. Of course, balancing that with the economy is hard, and I understand that.
And it isn't exactly an immediate doomsday thing. But if it is heading that way, why let it keep going to the point that it becomes one?
Anyone see the recent pictures of the ice caps? I forget where the hell I saw it- but massive sections are gone (I'll try to find a link). I don't know how unusual that is for the Earth. But I would imagine it not to be a good thing.
It's my understanding that for the last 10 000 years the earth's climate has been unusually stable, whereas previously ice ages would come and go within centuries.
This doesn't mean that we can't have an effect on the earth's climate though. And I really doubt we're doing ourselves any favours by releasing 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year.
Unrealistic, in that they were unfair to certain countries. The US would have lost something like 2% of it's GNP, while it would only cost most countries in Europe 1.5%, and Japan 1.2% of their GNP to implement Kyoto.
They weren't thinking long term enough when Kyoto was created, and they didn't seem too concerned with economic feasibility either.
We could stop all CO2 production today and we are locked into a massive temperature rise for the next century.
As I have said before I am not convinced this will happen. Every predictive model has been wrong, so they keep revising the computer models and claiming they have it right and then they are still wrong.
This system is so much more complex than we have the capability of understanding. This doesn't mean the alarmists are wrong, but they have been overstating their case.
I think, if you go back to the basics, it is such that the Majority of the scientific community fully agrees that the climate is changing, towards global warming.
If you have a few hours, look up global warming/ climate change on Slashdot ( /. ) Lots of informed/uninformed people post on there, and its not too hard to find the really good and smart posts from the bad ones.
Also, seeing as how the USA is the single largest contributor (I bet China is fast approaching tho), I belive that they have serious attitude problem to global warming/climate change. The economy is not important enough to sacrifice the enviroment (to what extent, I do not know).
What we realy need to rally against are volcanos. Those damned things are a short term disaster to the areas they affect and a serious threat to the environment in the long term too. They have been spewing forth humongus amounst of ash and toxic gasses ever since the earth developed a crust! There is even evidence suggesting that entire continents have been coated with ash from their blasts. We even had a record breaking winter a few years back from ash that was luanched into the stratosphrer from the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Fillapenes. Hows that for and enviromental Holocaust? Menacing sons a bitches. They MUST BE STOPPED! [end hyperbole littered rant]
Yep, the most destructive forces are beoyond our control. There are HUGE fires burining in coal deposits in places like China that are almost impossible to get out (they either have to bomb them, or look for where the air goes in/out [which is really hard because the area is so heavily forested] and put concrete in there). These fires contribute mabey 3% of the total CO2 in the enviroment. They exist all over the world, not just China.
Also, water vapour is a much greater contributor to global warming than CO2, its just that the atmosphere is already saturated (I think) with water vapor, or that its really hard to reduce the ammount, so targeting CO2 is a better idea. (Ever hear of the sun evaporating water from the ocaean?)
Russia also needs a bit of an attitude adjustment, if you want to look at it that way, although I don't think their economy could take the hit implementing Kyoto would deliver. I think they are the second largest CO2 emitter and basically acknoledged global warming was happening but refused to have anything to do with Kyoto because 1) it would stall their extremely fragile economy and 2) Some warming could actually be beneficial to Russia economically.
Unfortunately it appears we'll have to wait for some extremely adverse environmental events to take place before some of the worst offenders decide to take action. As Zap said though, by the time we take action it will still be decades before we reap the benefits of reducing emissions.
This article is a little old, but according to an article I read on msn.ca (last week, can't find the link) Canada has purchased some of these credits because we are doing so poorly with meeting our "targets".
I'm not a big believer in Kyoto. As a lifter setting goals and targets is good - gives you something to shoot for...it's just the science is so conflicted about CO2. Global warming is fact, but CO2 causing this temperature increase? Jury is still out.
I'd rather see money being spent on Kyoto going to more research into increasing efficiency and using our resources more effectively. Becoming more self sufficient energy wise...at least it has economic benefits.