Why is the US so fucking stupid?

[Kuyuk]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051210/ap_on_sc/climate_change_clinton



I hope our next president makes better choices.


K.

[StrayRogue]

I'm waiting for the typical republican nonesense about how the rest of the world is dumb and how the Kyoto accord is stupid.

[Warriorbird]

Armageddon is coming so we don't have to worry about protecting the Earth. Jesus was all about the wanton abuse of natural resources, so he won't care when he looks down upon us to yoink us up on Judgement Day. I mean, Judgement Day will be all about destroying everyone who isn't us, everyone who we hate or doesn't believe exactly the things we believe. They'll all burn in hell because we're so compassionate. Judging us too? Fuck no. We haven't commited the sin of pride by fucking up nature and being convinced our diety won't give a fuck, either. Really.

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Warriorbird]

[StrayRogue]

You've converted me.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Kuyuk
Why is the US so fucking stupid?

I bet if you took it to a popular vote instead of it being up to the president, you'd likely get a different response.

[xtc]

Australia is another nation that hasn't signed the Kyoto protocol. I expect the usual response from the pro-Bush crowd about China and India haven't signed but that is bullocks. If Bush signed Kyoto and moved towards meeting their targets he could introduce a tax on all goods imported from countries that haven't signed Kyoto to level the playing field. It wouldn't be popular but it would put pressure on China and India to conform.

It seems Bush isn't the only one dragging his heels on reforms that help the environment. Several north eastern states have agreed upon a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that would reduce carbon dioxide by 10% by 2020. Republican Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney has been dragging his heels on signing it.

Boston Globe article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/04/action_is_sought_on_emissions_pact/)

[StrayRogue]

Does the Bush administration even ACKNOWLEDGE the green house effect yet? Last I heard they considered it BS from treehugging hippies.

[Warriorbird]

Nope. The existence of 5 energy industry funded studies that contradict it versus several hundred that support it clearly means it doesn't exist.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Kuyuk
Why is the US so fucking stupid?

I bet if you took it to a popular vote instead of it being up to the president, you'd likely get a different response.

not a professional gambler, are you?

Byrd-Hagel Resolution

Sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations... (Passed by the Senate 95-0)

105th CONGRESS


while not a popular vote, 95-0 in the Senate is pretty indicative of public opinion. Oh, it was 1997 back when we had more enlightened leadership.

C/Valth

[Sean of the Thread]

Read up on the scientific evidence of the climate cycle that the earth has been through in the past 4 billion years.. errr 6000 years you can draw your own conclusions.

[Bobmuhthol]

WTF? People think the Greenhouse Effect isn't real?!

What does not exist is global warming, but you'd have to be a fucking idiot to say that the Greenhouse Effect isn't happening. :(.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
WTF? People think the Greenhouse Effect isn't real?!

What does not exist is global warming, but you'd have to be a fucking idiot to say that the Greenhouse Effect isn't happening. :(.

I'd say the greenhouse effect does exist and has exisited the entire span of the earth. Global warming does exist as well and is part of the cycle.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Global warming does exist>>

I disagree 100%.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Global warming does exist>>

I disagree 100%.

Guess it depends on the definition...I was going by the climate does in fact warm AND cool in the cycle that has been documented in its 4 billion years. So in one form or another it naturally warms then cools then warms etc.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'd also like to say that people who think the human race has PWNT the climate in a 200 year span out of 4 billion plus may need to rethink their ideology. For all we know there may have been other cycles of civilization on this planet come and gone. That's alot of years. And if we truly did pwn it in the past few hundred years we're fuked no matter what anyways.

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Xyelin]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Guess it depends on the definition...I was going by the climate does in fact warm AND cool in the cycle that has been documented in its 4 billion years. So in one form or another it naturally warms then cools then warms etc.>>

Sure, the climate is cyclical. What people seem to think is happening that clearly isn't is the Greenhouse Effect is becoming too strong and the world is getting globally warmer because of it. The main thing is that it suggests that the environment is at high risk. It's total bullshit.

<<I'd also like to say that people who think the human race has PWNT the climate in a 200 year span out of 4 billion plus may need to rethink their ideology.>>

Then you're in total agreement with me.

[xtc]

Certainly the earth has been through climate changes before humans even existed. That isn't in question. There is more than ample evidence to suggest that humans have had an enormous effect on the environment for the worst in the past 150 or so years. We have been on the planet only a blip in its history, and the industrial revolution has been a milisecond of that blip. Yet in such a minute period of time we have managed to increase CO2 emissions by at least 25% and increase the planet's temperature.

This goes beyond global warming, the effect to our health is paramount as well. Last year in Toronto we had a record number of days that the smog was so high that it was suggested not to spend times outdoors. What is the increase in disease because of these pollutants in the air?

How about how we are eating through the earth's natural resources at a record rate. It has taken millions upon millions of years for the earth to produce coal and oil, we are eating through supplies of both like oil and coal could be replicated in a 100 years.

There are many reason we should be concerned about the change to our climate and increased emissions.

[Bobmuhthol]

Until the world explodes, I'm going to consider these changes negligible. There has yet to be evidence that such a negative impact on the world spells out its imminent doom.

And for every person who complains that we have no resources there are two professionals who say, "Hey, we have a bunch of resources."

[Unique]

Originally posted by Xyelin
I'd also like to say that people who think the human race has PWNT the climate in a 200 year span out of 4 billion plus may need to rethink their ideology.

Do I need to pull up the statistics on CO2 and other emissions for the last 200 years?

I suppose I do. And I will later.

However, the original greenhouse gas calculation was performed by a Swedish scientists Svante Arrhenius more than 100 years ago. Specifically,

"Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5 degree C temperature rise."

That's important. Read it again.

His calculation was based on the results of the established science of thermodynamics and stands with only minor correction today.

We are well on our way to doubling the baseline CO2 concentration present during Arrhenius's time.

I'll find the data later when I'm not doing more important things.



Originally posted by Xyelin
For all we know there may have been other cycles of civilization on this planet come and gone. That's alot of years. And if we truly did pwn it in the past few hundred years we're fuked no matter what anyways.


"..." is all the response this deserves.


Unique.

[Warriorbird]

If we could destroy the planet with a weapon, or have the planet vaped with an asteroid, progressive climactic change doesn't seem terribly farfetched. I'm not one of those people who's all rabidly environmentalist, but there's some common sense shit that we don't do that's just stupid.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Until the world explodes, I'm going to consider these changes negligible. There has yet to be evidence that such a negative impact on the world spells out its imminent doom.

The earth will survive, the questions is will man and the other creatures inhabiting it?

The waiting till it explodes theory leaves a lot to be desired. If my car starts acting up, I like to address quickly to minimize damage and cost. If I ignore the small signs that my car isn't functioning well and needs attention it isn't long before I am well and truly fucked.



And for every person who complains that we have no resources there are two professionals who say, "Hey, we have a bunch of resources."

Yes big oil has deep pockets that make large campaign contributions and pay for studies. There are lots of pro-oil scientists and I have found one. He has a lot of "the sky isn't falling on his website" but even acknowledges that oil isn't a renewable resource (not unless you have a few millions of years).

From his website, remember this guy is pro-oil, not some commie environmentalist.

"If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056."

He goes on to say that the estimates do not include non-conventional oil sources like tar sands and oil shales. OK so if we include them how does the picture look?

"but the world contains enough petroleum resources to last at least until the year 2100"

2100, only 95 years away, now that may seem like a long but lets not forget that it tooks millions and millions of years for the earth to produce all that oil and it has taken us less a few hundred, if that, to eat through like a Fat Guy at an all you can eat buffet.

Remember these time lines are from a guy who is pro-oil.

LINK (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/)





[Edited on 12-11-2005 by xtc]

[Latrinsorm]

Arrhenius also invented a definition for acids. I think most people use Brönsted-Lowry though.

We had some guy give us a lecture on the Antarctic ice sheet the other day (in a course called Space Exploration, naturally). His big points were: global warming makes the ice sheet thicker, ice is actually a viscous liquid, and ice is flowing off the sheet and into the ocean at a rate that would take 1000 years to move from the center to the coast. There's also this stuff called North Atlantic Deep Water that's getting in to the weak underbelly of the Antarctic ice sheet and as a result the ice shelves are thinning and busting off.

In short, while melting the Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea level worldwide by 5m (or something), it would take 1000 years to do so. Just to put some of the global warming stuff in perspective.

As to the first post: You're free to leave at any time if the country is so unpalatable to you.

p.s: We're not that predictable, Stray. The rest of the world is stupid. The Kyoto accord is dumb. :)

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Remember these time lines are from a guy who is pro-oil.>>

I'm pro-oil and I love that figure because I won't be alive.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Arrhenius also invented a definition for acids. I think most people use Brönsted-Lowry though.

We had some guy give us a lecture on the Antarctic ice sheet the other day (in a course called Space Exploration, naturally). His big points were: global warming makes the ice sheet thicker, ice is actually a viscous liquid, and ice is flowing off the sheet and into the ocean at a rate that would take 1000 years to move from the center to the coast. There's also this stuff called North Atlantic Deep Water that's getting in to the weak underbelly of the Antarctic ice sheet and as a result the ice shelves are thinning and busting off.

In short, while melting the Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea level worldwide by 5m (or something), it would take 1000 years to do so. Just to put some of the global warming stuff in perspective.

As to the first post: You're free to leave at any time if the country is so unpalatable to you.

p.s: We're not that predictable, Stray. The rest of the world is stupid. The Kyoto accord is dumb. :)

You have to be kidding about North Atlantic Deep Water. It is quite the other way around melting icebergs and ice sheets in the Atlantic, from global warming, are adding fresh water to the ocean, which is affecting the North Atlantic Deep water. This has caused the NADW to becoming less dense, slowing the overturning process and the circulation of the ocean. So warm water doesn't get circulated throughout the ocean. There is a theory that this can cause cold spells lasting hundreds of years.

[Edited on 12-11-2005 by xtc]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<There is a theory that this can cause cold spells lasting hundreds of years.>>

Good, it will offset the evil global warming!

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
You have to be kidding about North Atlantic Deep Water.Indeed I am not. Check it out:
http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/rbehl/NADW.jpg
Right into Antarctica. Boom!

[Back]

Kyoto makes sense to me. We don’t need to fuel the fire of a climate change not to mention just doing things clean for the sake of just doing things clean and how it affects the population in general.

The administration not joining because of the economy is weak. Whatever we want to do we put our minds to it and it can get done.

I am very proud of the mayors of this nation signing on despite the administrations ducking it. Mayors know the score and don’t want to see their coasts destroyed by rising water. It may rise anyway but again, why add fuel to the fire?

[Unique]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Remember these time lines are from a guy who is pro-oil.>>

I'm pro-oil and I love that figure because I won't be alive.


Normally I like you, A, but not today. "I won't be alive" isn't a good enough reason.

First, this pro-oil analyst says 2056 is d-day. The 2100 figure comes from utilizing oil sources that are either a) prohibitively expensive to exploit or b) beyond our current technology to exploit.

Second, this pro-oil analyst assumes a flat 1.4% yearly increase in oil consumption. However, with the emerging economies of China and India, the real rate of oil consumption will likely be significantly greater than 1.4%

Third, given the second point above, the actual d-day is somewhat before 2056 (or 2100).

Fourth, most estimates of oil reserves are just that--estimates. Pro-oil analysts tend to use the estimates that expect more oil. Environmentalist analysts tend to use the estimates that show the least oil. In other words, I expect somewhere between.

Fifth, I've read oil will run out: on the early end by 2020, on the late end by 2060. Let's be nice and put it in the middle, 2040, which is in agreement with my points above.

I'll be alive in 2040. You will too, most likely. My kids will be alive in 2040. Yours will too if you have any. Many people I love will be alive in 2040. Same goes for you and the people you love.

That's just the personal issues. I could write an entire essay detailing the ethical concerns over selfishly using our entire oil reserves but I won't bore you with a formal academic analysis.

Unique.

[Bobmuhthol]

heh.

I've never bought into any of the "shit we're ruining Earth" theories. This is no different. It's also why I haven't really argued this with any validity. I'm confident that some sort of resolve will be attained before we die, and I have absolutely no reason to know anything about it until it happens. These scenarios make me realize how true it is that ignorance is bliss.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
heh.

I've never bought into any of the "shit we're ruining Earth" theories. This is no different. It's also why I haven't really argued this with any validity. I'm confident that some sort of resolve will be attained before we die, and I have absolutely no reason to know anything about it until it happens. These scenarios make me realize how true it is that ignorance is bliss.

Oh, did I give the impression that using all the oil = ruining earth? I'm sorry if I did, because I don't believe that either.

Using all the oil = end of the American way of life as we know it...

UNLESS viable replacement technoligies are actively researched and implemented.

Unique.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<UNLESS viable replacement technoligies are actively researched and implemented.>>

I strongly believe that this is going to happen and be in place before our oil is depleted.

[Fission]

UNLESS viable replacement technoligies are actively researched and implemented.

Viable technologies already do exist. Oil is simply more available, already supported and cheaper to use than any of them at the moment. When oil becomes too expensive or scarce, for whatever reason, something else will move in to take its place.

GTL, tar sands, natural gas, synfuel, biodiesel, TDP conversion, ethanol, oil shale... and that's just staying with mostly compatible, albeit more expensive technologies or resources.

If things push even harder, they can push for exotics like methane hydrates or hydrogen power. All boils down to simple economics in the end.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. Oil is far from the most serious issue even if people hyper focus on it.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Fission

UNLESS viable replacement technoligies are actively researched and implemented.

Viable technologies already do exist. Oil is simply more available, already supported and cheaper to use than any of them at the moment. When oil becomes too expensive or scarce, for whatever reason, something else will move in to take its place.


Yes, they do exist, but it will take strong political will to implement them.

Oil has uses more suited to the betterment of humanity than being refined and put in my car.

Unique.

[Landrion]

Originally posted by Fission

UNLESS viable replacement technoligies are actively researched and implemented.

Viable technologies already do exist. Oil is simply more available, already supported and cheaper to use than any of them at the moment. When oil becomes too expensive or scarce, for whatever reason, something else will move in to take its place.

GTL, tar sands, natural gas, synfuel, biodiesel, TDP conversion, ethanol, oil shale... and that's just staying with mostly compatible, albeit more expensive technologies or resources.

If things push even harder, they can push for exotics like methane hydrates or hydrogen power. All boils down to simple economics in the end.

Yeah pretty much. The decisions are economic. Cheaper wins. Look how coal was displaced (and heaven knows how bad that shit was for the environment.)

If you want oil to go, it must either be made more expensive by scarcity, or supplanted by something cheaper. Cheaper enough to justify the costs of conversion.

Yeah, its frustrating that people dont want to bear hardship or be responsible (how can we be so stupid). Its also frustrating that water doesnt flow uphill at my convienence. Economics is the plumbing in that analogy. Get them to do the smart thing by making it cheaper than the dumb thing.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Landrion
Its also frustrating that water doesnt flow uphill at my convienence.Don't forget how gravity makes things so doggone heavy. Stupid gravity.

[Sean of the Thread]

There is also a very valid argument that oil is infact abiotic and self renewing.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Xyelin
There is also a very valid argument that oil is infact abiotic and self renewing.


...

Got a few million years to wait around?

Oh wait, your car will decay by then and some of your carbon and hydrogen atoms very well might be in the oil some future civilization pulls out of the ground.

...

Unique.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Landrion
Yeah pretty much. The decisions are economic. Cheaper wins. Look how coal was displaced (and heaven knows how bad that shit was for the environment.)


Oddly, coal is becoming the "wonder" fuel in some minds.

Examples (I can pull up references later if needed) from a paper I wrote a year or two ago...

China is the fastest growing consumer of fossil fuels and their growth hinges on coal consumption. 80% of their power will come from coal burning, by their own design.

Some leaders in the US are pushing coal in order to get us off middle east oil dependency.

Coal is the WORST of the fossil fuels with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal is also the WORST of the fossil fuels with respect to non-greenhouse gas but otherwise polluting emissions. Consider the Black Forest an example and a warning.

The main danger of coal is that its worst polluting effects are non-local. Burning coal in China will cause acid rain elsewhere on the planet as the pollutants travel in the atmospheric currents.

Basically, there is no "local" problem when it comes to pollution. Coal is the worst of the bunch, it's the most prevalent (will last another few hundred years, even by conservative projections) and it's actually the cheapest to extract and use.

Dangerous stuff.

Unique.

Edited a stupid word exchange mistake.

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Unique]

[Back]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by Xyelin
There is also a very valid argument that oil is infact abiotic and self renewing.


...

Got a few million years to wait around?

Oh wait, your car will decay by then and some of your carbon and hydrogen atoms very well might be in the oil some future civilization pulls out of the ground.

...

Unique.

All the plastics we make out of petroleum might return to an oil state. But yeah, a few hundred thousand to a million years. It probably will even turn into some other form that people will use as fuel or whatever.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by Xyelin
There is also a very valid argument that oil is infact abiotic and self renewing.


...

Got a few million years to wait around?

Oh wait, your car will decay by then and some of your carbon and hydrogen atoms very well might be in the oil some future civilization pulls out of the ground.

...

Unique.

The formation of oil is not particularly well understood (I hope we all can agree on that).

there are competing theories.

abiogenic oil formation is the theory that oil is formed from non-biological processes within the Earth (you can look it up).

I don't think we should base policy on the abiogenic theory, but since energy is such a contentious issue in today's world I think we need to understand the basic process by which it is formed.

C/Valth

[Artha]

Google "Anything into Oil"

I think if something like that could be made commercially viable, and it's not a scam of some sort, it'd be a great bridge between "OMG PEAK OIL!!1" and "Yay, flying hydrogen cars!"

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Artha]

[Sean of the Thread]

Just google "Abiotic Oil" and you will get plenty of scientific data to support. You liberals should actually be embracing it since for the most part it is anti govt and anti corporation.

I find it very plausible.

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I'm pro-oil and I love that figure because I won't be alive.

Just to touch on this notion, I would definately place a lot of money on a situation where we in the future, as a people, will still stand firmly by our apathy promulgations even when we're about two or three seconds away from the bitchslapped-environment-induced apocalypse.

- The Termite