Uk Dunce of the enviroment?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dauphin


What were France's targets? I only ask as France has a very low CO2 output already when compared to the UK and Germany due to its heavy use of nuclear power (75%+ of its energy is nuclear).

Yeah, it is the one advantage of nuclear power, however if one of those plants pops it's lid we're all in trouble. We need to get a move on and develop fusion

We need to move away from the car and towards public transportation systems, and also develop alternatives to flight (being able to get from one place to another by high speed train for example, which seems to be beginning in Europe).

And stop damn fuelguzzling cars or tax them to buggery...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The skyrocketing out put by the 3rd world (easily 2/3s of global out put and growing fast is completely untouched).

The USA accounts for over 25% for the worlds CO2 pollution. Are you telling me that the rest of the first world combined only accounts for 8%? More than that, are you saying that doing nothing on 25% is fair on the grounds that a population 20 times the US is producing 3 times the pollution?

[Jon Miller]

CO2 is not a big deal (there is no evidence that 'global warming' exists on a level that is dangerous to us)

their are other air pollutants and water polutants that are a much bigger deal (there is no question about the dangers of toxic substances..)

JM

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So if some guy is gonna shoot you, you think you should shoot yourself first?

Only in the foot, and only after having removed it from the mouth first.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
We need to move away from the car and towards public transportation systems, and also develop alternatives to flight (being able to get from one place to another by high speed train for example, which seems to be beginning in Europe).

And stop damn fuelguzzling cars or tax them to buggery...

Add more insulation to homes, find some use for all that wasted heat coming out from generator plants, replace concrete slabs with trees, have homes install solar panels and/or wind turbines, etc.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
their are other air pollutants and water polutants that are a much bigger deal (there is no question about the dangers of toxic substances..)

Aren't water pollutants a localized ecological threat?

I thought we went for CO2 in Kyoto precisely because atmospheric pollution is the kind that inherently has worldwide consequences.

[Jon Miller]

I question the statement that CO2 is a serious pollutant

I mean compare with Acid Rain or the like, we can see the damage that does

what has CO2 done? maybe raised the temperature of the earth a bit, maybe not?

and the earth has been hotter in the past, so I dont' see the cause for concern

Jon Miller

[Spiffor]

Pollutants affected by Kyoto:

CO2
CH4
N2O
HFC
PFC
SF6

We talk about CO2 in this thread, but Kyoto is about all main human-made sources of atmospheric pollution, that can lead to global warming.

Last time we had a thread about Kyoto, btw, Oerdin showed us charts that showed how human activity, despite creating only a small part of these materials, offset the natural balance between the atmosphere and surface.

[Provost Harrison]

SF6? Do we put out much of that?!

[Spiffor]

Dunno, but it's part of the agreement.

Actually, the countries must reduce their emissions that are calculated in CO2-equivalent. So, any country that manages to significantly reduce methane will get a big boost to its rating (I dunno to what extent SF6 pollutes the atmosphere, as my chemical knowledge sucks donkey balls)

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
SF6? Do we put out much of that?!

Its weighting is in the tens of thousands CO2 equivalent, but even then its not even 1% of greenhouse emissions.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dauphin


The USA accounts for over 25% for the worlds CO2 pollution. Are you telling me that the rest of the first world combined only accounts for 8%? More than that, are you saying that doing nothing on 25% is fair on the grounds that a population 20 times the US is producing 3 times the pollution?

There's another thread floating around from a month or two back in which I linked several great articels which had graphs of greenhouse gas production by major regions. The US and EU each produced something like 15% and their output was just barely rising. China's output was expoding as was the third world.

[child of Thor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4407421.stm - the crazyness continues

I can understand the arguments along the lines of 'why should we destroy our economy when others will take no notice'etc.

The problem i have with this arguement is that the countries that can do something should. They will most likely be the leading industrial and economic countries in the world(the west basicaly).
And part of china's pollution problem can be lain at our feet as well. Where is china's economic growth coming from? much of the recent rise is because western companies have taken their business to china, to increase their profits.

I think we should stand up in the world and lead by example, not hide our heads in the sand pointing(innacurate) fingers at 'them'.

And the bottom line is this, unless we make that enviromental stand(and change the way we live, which isn't that uncomfortable), then we are dooming our children(yes its that close) to live in a world with soaring skin cancer rates(you let your kids go play down the beach with no sun-screen these days and see what happens), riseing sea levels and mass deforestation.

And for the finacial types, that see money as the be all and end all - money is only good if you have stuff worth spending it on. When in a toxic desert i doubt it will do you any relative good.

man we are so weak to let this happen, to the only one good planet we have. think of your kids and your grandchildren, what world do you want to leave them, what legacy, how shall we be remembered?

If your answer is 'screw them, i'm alright' then indeed i hope you get the skin cancer or get flooded

[Jon Miller]

but we only have so many resources to fight pollution

and the evidence I have seen is not conclusive relating to CO2 being a major issue

but polluting our water sources and acid rain are

JM

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
but we only have so many resources to fight pollution

and the evidence I have seen is not conclusive relating to CO2 being a major issue

but polluting our water sources and acid rain are

JM

Sorry Jon, my last rant( ) was about all the types of enviromental damage we do, not just CO2 emmisions.

I just think we are being incredibly dumb if we just do nothing.
Most of the objections come from the financial cost arguements. But thats just not acceptable, not when governments are perfectly happy to spend Billions on weapons and or activities that make the enviromental situation worse(deforestation etc).
So the financial arguement is BS i believe - we've got the money to do it, just not the will.
Still that's where its up to us to force our politicians to do something about it imho.