BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cap and Trade schemes would only make matters worse as our industries would only "outsource" work to countries with cheaper energy and no burden of a carbon cap. We would no longer import crude for example but also refined gasoline as domestic refineries closed (taking jobs with them) in this country.

For economic reasons (no other source can compete with the energy density of fossil fuels) and because of their nature (the supply of renewable energies rarely corresponds with energy demand), carbon based energy is not going away anytime soon. And to hasten its demise on the basis of speculative, politically-polluted science hardly seems prudent.

Who mentioned "cap and trade"? Certainly not I. My approach to 21st century energy is not some neo-Luddite fantasy of "simpler times," but the reality that the U.S. recipe for success--cheap oil produced by impoverished nations that consume little themselves--is over. And that means switching to new sources of energy not dependent on a limited, non-renewable resource like oil, which already exist according to current technology, and just needs some old-fashioned political will and effort.

Again, if you want $200/bbl oil prompted by increased demand from developing countries and American energy security determined by the whims of unstable third-world energy producing nations, then, by all means, let's sit back and do absolutely nothing at all.
 
global warming is only one of many reasons to move away from oil.

Isn't that the tragedy about all this? It's all about conforming to conservative dogma now, regardless of the fact that leftist concerns about climate change and right-wing concerns about energy independence have the same solution. But, like absolutely everything else about the U.S. today, it's still about bickering over superficial and trivial hot-button bullshit!
 
Isn't that the tragedy about all this? It's all about conforming to conservative dogma now, regardless of the fact that leftist concerns about climate change and right-wing concerns about energy independence have the same solution. But, like absolutely everything else about the U.S. today, it's still about bickering over superficial and trivial hot-button bullshit!



drill, baby, drill! nuclear power!

i think such things get support not because they are good ideas but because they make liberals cringe.

like Sarah Palin.
 
drill, baby, drill! nuclear power!

i think such things get support not because they are good ideas but because they make liberals cringe.

like Sarah Palin.

As you know, I'm generally supportive of nuclear power as the backbone of a new energy strategy. Nonetheless, what I really hear is....

drill, baby, drill! nuclear power!

....probably because the oil lobby is much stronger than that of the nuclear lobby, presuming that one even exists. It certainly does underscore the fact that the GOP energy policy can really only be summed up as "more of the same."
 
You know what makes conservatives cringe?
"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership."

Cringe-worthy on many levels but now that he's president hypocritical as well given that Cadillac One gets far less mpg than any SUV, given that "Even before President Obama sets foot on Air Force One tomorrow (Nov 12th) to begin a 9-day trip to Asia, he has traveled to more countries in his first year in office than any of his predecessors... made 7 foreign trips and visited 16 countries, 3 of them twice. (CBS News)" And given that senior advisor David Axelrod said of President Obama and the Oval Office, "He's from Hawaii, O.K.? He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."
To his credit the president does not yet appear to be eating as much as he wants.
 
Cringe-worthy on many levels but now that he's president hypocritical as well given that Cadillac One gets far less mpg than any SUV, given that "Even before President Obama sets foot on Air Force One tomorrow (Nov 12th) to begin a 9-day trip to Asia, he has traveled to more countries in his first year in office than any of his predecessors... made 7 foreign trips and visited 16 countries, 3 of them twice." And given that, according to senior advisor David Axelrod, President Obama keeps the Oval Office, "...warm. You could grow orchids in there."
To his credit the president does not yet appear to be eating as much as he wants.

The president certainly has unique career circumstances that require a custom-built SUV outfitted like a fortress (i.e., the average SUV isn't made to withstand assassination attempts like the Cadillac One) and the kind of regular flights required by world leaders.

But this, alone, supports my point that conservation, while an admirable goal, cannot be the centrepiece of the 21st century energy plan. We have to switch to more sustainable energy types like a combination of nuclear, wind, and solar (who says you can't do all three?) and hydrogen fuel, which is more than powerful enough to power planes, trains and automobiles. We do not have to sacrifice strength in switching away from oil!
 
The president certainly has unique career circumstances that require a custom-built SUV outfitted like a fortress (i.e., the average SUV isn't made to withstand assassination attempts like the Cadillac One) and the kind of regular flights required by world leaders.
Well. in truth I want the president to be in the safest vehicle available to him and fly to foreign countries as often as he deems necessary. But I want that same option for all Americans. Drive and travel in whatever you want and can afford and as often as you please. And I'd like that level of prosperity spread around the world. I'm glad more Chinese and Indians are driving cars. And I hope they now use some of their greater societal wealth to clean up true pollution like smog and dirty water. I wish more Africans could control the temperature of their environment as we and our president now do.
That's why the earlier rhetoric makes me cringe. That's unfounded guilt about yesterday, not hope for a better tomorrow. That's pulling some down to achieve equality rather than lifting others up.
But this, alone, supports my point that conservation, while an admirable goal, cannot be the centrepiece of the 21st century energy plan. We have to switch to more sustainable energy types like a combination of nuclear, wind, and solar (who says you can't do all three?) and hydrogen fuel, which is more than powerful enough to power planes, trains and automobiles.
Hey, I'm all for it when it makes economic sense. I went back to my college in western Oklahoma for the first time in 25 years for the U2 concert and the place is now swarming with giant wind turbines where none existed when I was there. "Ok-lahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plain." Makes all the sense in the world... but everyone still drove cars and used natural gas to heat their water. Because that still makes sense as well.

We do not have to sacrifice strength in switching away from oil!

I think you're smart enough to realize some people don't wish for us to maintain our strength. Quite the opposite in fact.
 
You know what makes conservatives cringe?


Cringe-worthy on many levels



you find personal responsibility cringe-worthy?

i agree with every word he says. and as melon pointed out, the POTUS does live under quite different circumstances than the rest of us.

use the correct light bulbs, wash your clothes in cold water, make sure your car gets a minimum of 35 mph, and put on a damn sweater in the winter.
 


From the link posted:

THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government's chief scientist.

Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint.

Australians - among the world's biggest producers of carbon dioxide - were "better placed than others to do something about it", she said.

"Australians can make an enormous contribution, so why would we not rise to this challenge and this opportunity," she told a business conference in Melbourne.

Prof Sackett refused to comment on the failure of the emissions trading scheme to be passed by the Senate this week.


No comments in reply on the site posted.



The earth is in good hands. The sun will shine. The birds will sing :)

I wish we could be a lot more concerned about treating each other as friends and stop adding to Al Gore's bank account.

Did I say that right?
 
The earth is in good hands. The sun will shine. The birds will sing :)



sea-bird-plastic.jpg
 
From the link posted:

THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government's chief scientist.

Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint.

Australians - among the world's biggest producers of carbon dioxide - were "better placed than others to do something about it", she said.

"Australians can make an enormous contribution, so why would we not rise to this challenge and this opportunity," she told a business conference in Melbourne.

Prof Sackett refused to comment on the failure of the emissions trading scheme to be passed by the Senate this week.


No comments in reply on the site posted.



The earth is in good hands. The sun will shine. The birds will sing :)

I wish we could be a lot more concerned about treating each other as friends and stop adding to Al Gore's bank account.

Did I say that right?

i only posted that so i could make the bowie reference.
 
That's unfounded guilt about yesterday, not hope for a better tomorrow.

Do you think the president should speak only about hope for a better tomorrow? Or should he actually, you know, try and be realistic?
 
Give back the award fat so.

Don't people have the right to be fatties? Now I'm confused. Actually that must be an old picture, he's lost weight. He must have listened to his inner <>

It was almost 70 degrees in Dec in MA and two days later it snowed. No, there's nothing abnormal about that.
 
Telegraph UK Dec 7, 2009

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The headline of article if Indy was editor:

WORLD ELITES GATHER TO DECIDE HOW THE REST OF US ARE TO SACRIFICE
 
OH MY GOD!!!

let's do something, in response, to these eggheads who think that with all their learnin' and politickin' and scientific facts that they can tell me how to damn live my life. i'ma go turn up the heat to 80 and open all the doors and windows and just turn on the hot in the tub and then leave the house and drive around my block until i have to refill my gas over and over.
 
uh-huh.

here's something better:


To really save the planet, stop going green
By Mike Tidwell
Sunday, December 6, 2009

As President Obama heads to Copenhagen next week for global warming talks, there's one simple step Americans back home can take to help out: Stop "going green." Just stop it. No more compact fluorescent light bulbs. No more green wedding planning. No more organic toothpicks for holiday hors d'oeuvres.

December should be national Green-Free Month. Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change. The country's last real moral and social revolution was set in motion by the civil rights movement. And in the 1960s, civil rights activists didn't ask bigoted Southern governors and sheriffs to consider "10 Ways to Go Integrated" at their convenience.

Green gestures we have in abundance in America. Green political action, not so much. And the gestures ("Look honey, another Vanity Fair Green Issue!") lure us into believing that broad change is happening when the data shows that it isn't. Despite all our talk about washing clothes in cold water, we aren't making much of a difference.

For eight years, George W. Bush promoted voluntary action as the nation's primary response to global warming -- and for eight years, aggregate greenhouse gas emissions remained unchanged. Even today, only 10 percent of our household light bulbs are compact fluorescents. Hybrids account for only 2.5 percent of U.S. auto sales. One can almost imagine the big energy companies secretly applauding each time we distract ourselves from the big picture with a hectoring list of "5 Easy Ways to Green Your Office."

As America joins the rest of the world in finally fighting global warming, we need to bring our battle plan up to scale. If you believe that astronauts have been to the moon and that the world is not flat, then you probably believe the satellite photos showing the Greenland ice sheet in full-on meltdown. Much of Manhattan and the Eastern Shore of Maryland may join the Atlantic Ocean in our lifetimes. Entire Pacific island nations will disappear. Hurricanes will bring untold destruction. Rising sea levels and crippling droughts will decimate crops and cause widespread famine. People will go hungry, and people will die.

Morally, this is sort of a big deal. It would be wrong to let all this happen when we have the power to prevent the worst of it by adopting clean-energy policies.

But how do we do that? Again, look to the history of the civil rights struggle. After many decades of public denial and inaction, the civil rights movement helped Americans to see Southern apartheid in moral terms. From there, the movement succeeded by working toward legal change. Segregation was phased out rapidly only because it was phased out through the law. These statutes didn't erase racial prejudice from every American heart overnight. But through them, our country made staggering progress. Just consider who occupies the White House today.

All who appreciate the enormity of the climate crisis still have a responsibility to make every change possible in their personal lives. I have, from the solar panels on my roof to the Prius in my driveway to my low-carbon-footprint vegetarian diet. But surveys show that very few people are willing to make significant voluntary changes, and those of us who do create the false impression of mass progress as the media hypes our actions.

Instead, most people want carbon reductions to be mandated by laws that will allow us to share both the responsibilities and the benefits of change. Ours is a nation of laws; if we want to alter our practices in a deep and lasting way, this is where we must start. After years of delay and denial and green half-measures, we must legislate a stop to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

Of course, all this will require congressional action, and therein lies the source of Obama's Copenhagen headache. To have been in the strongest position to negotiate a binding emissions treaty with other world leaders this month, the president needed a strong carbon-cap bill out of Congress. But the House of Representatives passed only a weak bill riddled with loopholes in June, and the Senate has failed to get even that far.

So what's the problem? There's lots of blame to go around, but the distraction of the "go green" movement has played a significant role. Taking their cues from the popular media and cautious politicians, many Americans have come to believe that they are personally to blame for global warming and that they must fix it, one by one, at home. And so they either do as they're told -- a little of this, a little of that -- or they feel overwhelmed and do nothing.

We all got into this mess together. And now, with treaty talks underway internationally and Congress stalled at home, we need to act accordingly. Don't spend an hour changing your light bulbs. Don't take a day to caulk your windows. Instead, pick up a phone, open a laptop, or travel to a U.S. Senate office near you and turn the tables: "What are the 10 green statutes you're working on to save the planet, Senator?"

Demand a carbon-cap bill that mandates the number 350. That's the level of carbon pollution scientists say we must limit ourselves to: 350 parts per million of CO2 in the air. If we can stabilize the atmosphere at that number in coming decades, we should be able to avoid the worst-case scenario and preserve a planet similar to the one human civilization developed on. To get there, America will need to make deep but achievable pollution cuts well before 2020. And to protect against energy price shocks during this transition, Congress must include a system of direct rebates to consumers, paid for by auctioning permit fees to the dirty-energy companies that continue to pollute our sky.

Obama, too, needs to step up his efforts; it's not just Congress and the voters who have been misguided. Those close to the president say he understands the seriousness of global warming. But despite the issue's moral gravity, he's been paralyzed by political caution. He leads from the rear on climate change, not from the front.

Forty-five years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson faced tremendous opposition on civil rights from a Congress dominated by Southern leaders, yet he spent the political capital necessary to answer a great moral calling. Whenever key bills on housing, voting and employment stalled, he gave individual members of congress the famous "Johnson treatment." He charmed. He pleaded. He threatened. He led, in other words. In person, and from the front.

Does anyone doubt that our charismatic current president has the capacity to turn up the heat? Imagine the back-room power of a full-on "Obama treatment" to defend America's flooding coastlines and burning Western forests. Imagine a two-pronged attack on the fickle, slow-moving Senate: Obama on one side and a tide of tweets and letters from voters like you.

So join me: Put off the attic insulation job till January. Stop searching online for recycled gift wrapping paper and sustainably farmed Christmas trees. Go beyond green fads for a month, and instead help make green history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom