Kyoto Global Warming Pact Starts

Remove all ads!

I found these on BBC's 'Have your say'

and,

and,

Taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4269753.stm

 

We are responsible for the world we live in. Be it for moral, practical or religious reasons. If we don't take responsibility for the world who will? I don't agree with every eviromentalist that comes along. But if we want a world worth surviving in we need to clean it up, take care of it. For a small example:
The community I live in uses a lot of oil heat. The tanks were built underground. Not far from me three (3) houses had to be moved because of a leaky tank. The ground had to be cleaned. It took forever and cost the insurance company a fortune. Now people are beginning to get above ground tanks. They didn't want to do it before because of the cost. It is true that being enviromentally friendly cost but polution costs more.

 

...sweet memories. I had forgotten about that particular Houston smell (petrochemicals? ozone?) you only notice upon disembarking from the plane or opening your car door after having been out of town for a while.

If you notice, the US has been hostile to any agreement that would make it liable to sanctions from an international body, from Kyoto to the ICC. Why? Because it can. One of the negative sides to this has to do not only with the US's production of pollution, but also of emerging industrial powers like China (or even Russia), who are notorious for producing industrial wastelands; China in particular has been growing like mad. If the US doesn't jump on board Kyoto, then everyone can secretly give a sigh of relief and go on doing exactly what they were doing. Hopefully they can hammer out a compromise on this.

I've always been mystified by the "environmental wackos" type characterization, which argues that scientists are alarmist only out of selfishness: to win grants. How you can play up the relatively tiny amount of money that goes into research grants while utterly ignoring the trillions of dollars that motivate the energy industry, is beyond me. I hardly see how the idea of adding more environmental controls, if done sensibly, will ruin the economy; energy producers have used the same argument against every emission control that's been put into place, and lo and behold, they're still in business.

 

Wow Tal, you've just shown that you can't read an article, ten years? Check the dates.
Oil spills, what oil spills? Read the article.

Indeed

Still, truth be told, I enjoyed irritating you...

 

On a semi-related note...

You have to love Greenpeace


Edit: Great link Beren. All sorts of good reading from the Pro and Con side.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps that would be a good thing.

On the other hand, after reading Beren's link, the developed countries at this age caused about 80% of the problem, and they have the means to at least start to solve the problem.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand I am behind the kyoto agreement 100%. No matter where you stand this IS the time to act. At this point more and more countries are climbing up the ladder so to speak. Main cause is probably globalisation, whether globablisation is the solution to many problems (unemployment, poverty, even environmental problems) or the cause (of the same issues that may solve them) is up for debate still. But in both cases it is now time to act whether you believe in global warming or not, it is a scientific fact that we can AT LEAST TRY.

Thing is I think that 'natural' things are always happening for a reason. If that would mean ultimate destruction for human kind it would not be the first time. Maybe not with humans but many other species have come extinct in this earths time without the influence of man. I do not doubt that we are ****ing this world up big time but on the flipside of that coin I also believe that nature will take measures to ensure that it won't come to the ultimate destruction of the planet. What is 3000 (advanced) human years on a planet that has been around for about a few billion years. I am not so arrogant to believe that we can destroy a planet.

 

It's not even what we'll leave for our descendants - it's also what we're leaving for ourselves in a few years. From a purely selfish point of view, we should be worried about such things as running out of oil and natural gas, the loss of wilderness areas to relax in, increased health problems from polluted air, loss of certain animals that are interesting to look at, loss of plants that may provide cures for human diseases. There are any number of environmental issues that could affect each of us personally, even if you don't give two hoots about looking after the earth or don't care about nature.

 

Should we? Because last I heard that cars who use pretty much the major part of these resources are perfectly capable of running on alternative fuels but are held back by several influential peoples.

I agree with acting now though, that's literally what I posted in my previous post.

 

What alternative fuels?