Certain individuals believe (consciously or not) that to acknowledge global warming is equivalent to offending two institutions which they revere more than Catholics revere the pope: The oil and automobile industries. And, let's not forget that they'd also have to kick the jambs out from under our entire belief system, which says we have a god-given right to own any car we like, no matter how stupid it might be, and to hell with the consequences.
Global warming is a political issue. It's been around ever since they talked about a new ice age coming back in the 70s. They changed that because of no interest and global warming replaced it. Kyoto was supposed to be the answer and now it's all but dead. The signees of the treaty have not reduced any of their emissions but they still blame the U.S. for it's failure even though everybody acjknowedges it wouldn't cure anything. The whole movement is seen by many to be a continuous money supply in order to keep all those "experts" from having to drive cabs for a living.
The warming may be somewhat real to some degree but it has been explained by many knowledgeable people as climate cycles (and there are many of them) and cycles within cycles. Sun output, orbital variations and other known factors have been cited but no one really knows how and why climate has changed natuarally over the eons. Climate change is always happening.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed --and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken
OK, but at the other extreme, discounting it completely is the mantra of idiots who want to drive an Escalade or a Hummer, and pretend they don't belch more fumes than more sensible vehicles.
That seems to be a point that a lot of people make for some reason but I doubt anyone driving an SUV pretends anything. I believe they just want to be in on the SUV fad while it lasts.
The message from "James" contains these words:
You're mistaken. KYOTO is only the tip of the iceberg; it's acknowledged here as too little too late. FYI, the whole of Europe is committed to much tighter emission reductions than KYOTO. In Britain, we're working on three different reduction commitments ,international (Kyoto), European and UK, at every level of the community (from business to individual households). CO2 reduction , and moving to renewable , sustainable, non-polluting energy sources are already huge business here, and America risks being left very far behind.
Janet.
Fumes are manly. Fixing the problem is wimpy. This is the attitude of the administration, and quite a few members of a generation that needs to die of old age as soon as possible.
Yes. I know Europe is much more rabid about it than we are. But from what I've read, no one has yet met their Kyoto targets. Though Kyoto has only been in actual effect for a year, it has been committed to for some time now. I would have thought they would be further along. It will be interesting to see how well they perform in coming years. I misspoke saying they haven't reduced emissions. They just haven't met their goal according to the timetable.
Don't hold your breath waiting for perfection. Some of the provisions require improvements to coal-burning facilities, and it's so much easier and cheaper to simply purchase the public officials who can make the enforcement go away. That's what's happening here.
The message from "James" contains these words:
That's unsurprising since the target date is still 4 years away. Latest assessments are that Britain and Sweden are on target to meet their Kyoto commitment by 2010 with Austria a close third.
Janet
As I understand it, there are target dates year by year and none have been met. Britain started out pretty well when they converted to natural gas but failed to meet their target. The ultimate outcome is in doubt. Ditto for Germany as the old belching plants were converted to more efficient methods.
Thank you for a little voice of reason here. You will probably get flamed by the more emotional who have been convinced (rightly or not) that global warming will be our demise. I say if global warming is going to put an end to us all then let's just go ahead and build a whole crapload of nuclear reactors and at least breathe easier as we meet our end. Oh wait that may reduce greenhouse emissions! Oh noooo! Then global warming might not come around quickly enough to be our demise.... Oh but then the nuclear waste will kill us!
And if you copy and worward this email to everybody on your list Bill Gates will give you a hundred dollars!
Really this is not the place to have this discussion anyway. You see it has turned into a political discussion. This is a gardening group.
Just my two pennies worth, whatever it is worth. Duh, tow pennies of course? What was I thinking?
Mr. Bill
This much is true. Well we had better get cracking over here now! With the presidents call last night for just what you opine, maybe some of the decreasingly great minds of our nation will come up with something big!
I hope so.
Mr. Bill
I agree. One doesn't have to venture much of an opinion on such minutia in order to get a heated response.
alarmed --and
Agree completely with your assessment and logic you present, James. When I was in grade school the fear was an Ice Age coming again and *soon*. When that didn't generate any bucks the tone changed. Amazing how many people can be duped by this. I believe there is a problem though and it is the fact of the population explosion. I will say that the 6 billion + humans on the earth today is 50% more than when I was a freshman in H.S. Hmm 50% increase in CO2 emissions in 28 years? Every day... 50% increase in CO2 exhalation and steadily rising from this point forward? - forever? Wow that MUST be having an alarming effect on greenhouse gases? What to do about it though? That is the real question. Fact is that the human race will indeed overcome this planet's sustaining capability. Population explosion is the problem.
The "ice age" theory was never signed onto by the majority of climatologists and earth scientists, because it didn't have sufficient data to support it. Global warming does have sufficient data and virtually the entire climatology scientific community agrees that is is real. To pretend otherwise reminds me of the current debate about evolution in the US, in which the fundamentalists who favor creationism pretend that there are equal numbers of reputable scientists on both sides of the question. But, if you prefer to bury your head in the sand out of some interesting notion that denial is healthy, please be my guest.......
The message from "James" contains these words:
. Kyoto was supposed to be
Then you're misinformed. The Kyoto agreement happened 1997-99, 30 years AFTER Britain converted to natural gas. Our undersea gas fields are now declining. Next year we'll become a net importer of natural gas :-(, so that's another unsustainable, expensive, limited energy source which we need to reduce dependence on (like coal before it, and oil currently). Especially after what just happened in Georgia.
Janet
I agree with Bill, the Garden Banter is for gardening, not politics. A much as I like to talk politics, I am going to refrain as of today. To of the day to all
-- golddog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
climatologists
The "new ice age" story was a trial balloon. If it had gotten any traction, the data would have come. That's why there were never any real scientific papers issued on it.
,international
The conversion occurred in the early 90s. The targets are shooting for 1990 levels. The UK's legally binding Kyoto target is to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the main one, to 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2009-2012.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.