[Optimus Prime]

I want the next President to research and invest in Maglev Trains.

The thing is, the hit is coming, sooner or later we will have to bite the bullet and say bye bye to oil.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Obama! Obama! Obama!

[Optimus Prime]

McCain doesn't even have the support of his own party. It's going to take a miracle or huge disaster on Obama's part at this point for McCain to win.

[Shinrei]

Don't worry Skywalker, we ALL need to get our shit together.

When I say that, I am not referring specifically to what India is doing now, but what India (and china) will be doing when the same percentage of the population is as affluent as the US and others.

Also, I"ll admit I said what I did without knowing much about India. China, on the other hand, is creating horrible pollution. A lot of their industrialization is taking place with minimal regard for the environment and reasonable health standards. And per some sources, like here: http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/7347638.stm
China is now putting more carbon in the atmosphere than the US.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-condition", but it absolutely makes sense that if we're going to do what's right for the planet and curb wasteful energy use and set environmental standards, there needs to be a "pre-condition" for everyone EVERYONE to follow. If it really IS about saving the planet, we all need to do equal part. For the US to have to do MORE than everyone else, just because of a bad track record, seems more like an attack on our economy than anything to do with the environment moving forward.


And back on subject: I'm beginning to think that McCain is a robot. The original McCain is in a basement somewhere while the F.R.C.A.2008* model is posing in his place.

(fake republican candidate android 2008)

[Optimus Prime]

Shin if we want to be leaders in the world we should lead in this as well, don't you think? We spend so much time going to other countries and telling them what to do....when we benefit from it of course. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Shinrei no Shintai;342832 said:

Airlines should fly slower to conserve fuel.

There are practical limits to this policy, current airliners are optimized for flight at designed altitudes and velocities, changing speed (engine thrust, braking, etc) might actually LOWER efficiency. Might. Airlines SHOULD develop lighter and more aerodynamic planes to conserve fuel.

Quote

Painting the average american (even a hummer driving jackass) as the sole cause of global warming and wasting oil is silly.

Well, this is a stereotype, but not inaccurate. Nobody paints the American as the sole cause, but as a disproportionate cause, not-representative of their population.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I agree Xander. Boycotting important global environmental treaties does make us look good.

[Skywalker]

Shinrei no Shintai;343041 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-condition", but it absolutely makes sense that if we're going to do what's right for the planet and curb wasteful energy use and set environmental standards, there needs to be a "pre-condition" for everyone EVERYONE to follow. If it really IS about saving the planet, we all need to do equal part. For the US to have to do MORE than everyone else, just because of a bad track record, seems more like an attack on our economy than anything to do with the environment moving forward.

What I meant by 'pre-condition' was this stance that the US used to take (and hopefully wont in the future with the Dems at the helm) at climate conferences, refusing to agree to, say, set emission/ mileage standards or cut carbon output because the BRIC countries wouldn't do it 'verifiably' or some such.

I agree when you say everyone has to do an equal part... but for the US to say they won't cut their emissions/ set higher standards for motown because they fear any reductions will only get balanced out by projected growth in the BRIC bloc is nonsense. They aren't comparing apples and oranges - they are saying they wont reduce what's happening now based on something that may happen in the future.

As for an 'attack on the economy of the US'... do you really think it will matter that much? Manufacturing, semiconductors, pharma, automobiles, chemicals... these industries are already moving out where they have to. It can't get any worse. If anything, committing to higher standards/ carbon caps will only encourage innovation... get the creative juices flowing. Right now, the path of least resistance is still open. I say shut the doors on it.

Besides, if you come up with 'green' technology first, you will patent it, sell it to the world, and earn a healthy profit. If not, someone else will!

Motown is an excellent example for this. They resisted mileage standards in the era of cheap oil... and Honda and Toyota laughed all the way to the bank.

[Shinrei]

Xander, that presumes that I support the idea of the US telling other people what to do. Personally, I think we have too much stuff that we don't take care of in this country to be going around messing with other countries (aside from trade agreements). I'm not an isolationist, but I have no interest in the US trying to dictate policy to anyone else. It's Bush and Cheney that want the cake and eat it too scenario, which is why the world views us with such suspicion.

[Optimus Prime]

Shin, I never said YOU. I said "we" as a country, or more accurately our govt's policies the last 8 years. Quit being defensive because I'm not attacking you.

[Shinrei]

Here are some problems for the US with Kyoto Protocol that I've run across. It's not all about protecting Motown. Refute these claims if you can, but they make sense to me:

There were less than 20 countries that are actually required to reduce emissions. For the United States to reduce emissions by 8 percent equals a much greater slice than most. This would of course cause economic hardship, and if the current markets are any indication, when the US sneezes the world catches a cold.

"The economic lifetime of a power plant is maybe 30 years," says McElroy, "and the average automobile in the U.S. is on the road for 11 and a half or 12 years. If you try to change the energy economy too quickly, you are going to have to retire equipment that is still economically productive."
(source: http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/problem...the-protoc.html )

Europeans are also given the distinct advantage in the treaty that they are able to buy and sell emission rights, which makes pollution control a profitable market for European countries. America is not allowed to trade emission rights and has a set line for emission reduction.

Furthermore, if you look at the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in...hange/china.stm

and take the time to crunch the numbers you'll see that China produces far more carbon per their share of the percent of the world's economy than the US.

Again, I believe in protecting the environment and I'm not a "global warming doesn't exist" type, but we can't just grab the USA and say "we know this'll hit you harder than anyone else, but we don't care". The typical American is becoming more and more environmentally concious (we've even led the way in many areas), but we'll do better if we do it because it's the right thing to do. If suddenly our infrastructure is in shambles and the economy is hitting people even harder, the people of the US would probably push back. Force too much on them, and it might actually set back environmental concerns even more!

Xander, STOP ATTACKING ME!!!

[paladin]

california is working on passing(may have passed already?) a cap and trade system for pollution. those are the type of progressive regulations i support because every business is different and this allows those that cannot reduce any further to purchase the emissions from those that dont need them

[Shinrei]

Why can't Ahhhnohld move closer to the capital? I understand he private jets up from S.Cal. to work all the time. He buys "carbon offsets" to cancel that out, but that's still wasting thousands of gallons of jet fuel that don't need to be spent.

[Optimus Prime]

Shin, you are one silly goose

Yeah he needs to cut that shit out. Talk the talk and walk the walk.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Arnold=Republican politician=not an environmentalist.

[Skywalker]

Shinrei no Shintai;343100 said:

Here are some problems for the US with Kyoto Protocol that I've run across. It's not all about protecting Motown. Refute these claims if you can, but they make sense to me:

Excellent. You got my brainy juices flowing. Will try to answer each one.

Shinrei no Shintai;343100 said:

There were less than 20 countries that are actually required to reduce emissions. For the United States to reduce emissions by 8 percent equals a much greater slice than most. This would of course cause economic hardship, and if the current markets are any indication, when the US sneezes the world catches a cold.

First of all, quoting Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia....yoto_protocol):

Quote

As of May 2008, 182 parties have ratified the protocol. Of these, 36 developed countries (plus the EU as a party in its own right) are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the levels specified for each of them in the treaty (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries),with three more countries intending to participate. One hundred thirty-seven (137) developing countries have ratified the protocol, including Brazil, China and India, but have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions. The United States has not ratified the treaty. Among various experts, scientists, and critics, there is debate about the usefulness of the protocol, and there have been cost-benefit studies performed on its usefulness.

...

As of January 2008, and running through 2012, Annex I countries have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a collective average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected greenhouse gas emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national limitations range from an 8% average reduction across the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland; but, since the EU's member states each have individual obligations,[5] much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries (see below #Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990). Reduction limitations expire in 2013.

So in counterpoint to your statement... 1) others are doing their bit, it just so happens that the US is the biggest carbon spouter out there so yes, they do have to do more than most. 2) BRIC are not part of Annex I - that is a travesty that will probably be addressed when the current obligations expire and new ones are drafted (this is in progress). 3) Just which economies do you think the US is competing with? Competing with India/ China for stuff like manufacturing etc. is a pipe dream. Your real competitors now are across the pond... and they are doing their bit already

Finally, note the underlined bit. I agree that the protocol is far from perfect. But it is a start... Instead of ratifying it (after signing it, no less), the US has taken to pontificating to the rest of the world on the matter and in general behaving like an arrogant child that won't give up its favorite toy. I say grow up... the way to progress issues isn't by being naysayers to the consensus, but by leading the consensus.

Shinrei no Shintai;343100 said:

"The economic lifetime of a power plant is maybe 30 years," says McElroy, "and the average automobile in the U.S. is on the road for 11 and a half or 12 years. If you try to change the energy economy too quickly, you are going to have to retire equipment that is still economically productive."
(source: http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/problem...the-protoc.html )

No argument there. But tell me this... How much perfectly good horse-buggy infrastructure had to be discarded to make way automobiles? How many perfectly working steam engines were running on railroad tracks around the time the diesel locomotive was invented?

Some obsolesence (sp?) comes with Big Change ™.. fact of life. We've lived with it before... why the special treatment for internal combustion?

Shinrei no Shintai;343100 said:

Europeans are also given the distinct advantage in the treaty that they are able to buy and sell emission rights, which makes pollution control a profitable market for European countries. America is not allowed to trade emission rights and has a set line for emission reduction.

Just what is stopping the US from creating a cap and trade system of their own? Maybe chat up their neighbours and set one up for North America (maybe as part of NAFTA renegotiation that will inevitably happen soon)?

Shinrei no Shintai;343100 said:

Furthermore, if you look at the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in...hange/china.stm

and take the time to crunch the numbers you'll see that China produces far more carbon per their share of the percent of the world's economy than the US.

No argument there... and as I said, I am all for making China, India, and Brazil part of the Annex I list... which will address more than the 61.6% emissions the protocol addresses now. But let me ask you this - do we have the time to not do anything about 60% of our problem just because dealing with a huge chunk of the rest is just a few years away?

Also, I submit that China is not your biggest competitor on the economic scene. Your biggest competitor is a) Europe.. and yourself - unless you get off your butt fast and realize that innovation - not monopoly or protectionism - is the American way.

Shinrei no Shintai;343100 said:

Again, I believe in protecting the environment and I'm not a "global warming doesn't exist" type, but we can't just grab the USA and say "we know this'll hit you harder than anyone else, but we don't care". The typical American is becoming more and more environmentally concious (we've even led the way in many areas), but we'll do better if we do it because it's the right thing to do. If suddenly our infrastructure is in shambles and the economy is hitting people even harder, the people of the US would probably push back. Force too much on them, and it might actually set back environmental concerns even more!

The 'typical american' you speak of still has a carbon footprint in multiples of anything the typical citizen of a developing nation can manage!

The world is not 'forcing too much on them'... the world is simply asking them to admit to the fact that they are the biggest offenders and tighten their belts and pitch in. Nothing wrong with that. You have to expect to be hit with withdrawal symptoms when you are addicted to something and want to quit. The US is the worst addicted, and will have to bear the pain that comes with that fact.

To close... here are three pictures (all on wikipedia) that speak volumes.

http://en.wikipedia....yoto36-2005.png

Comparing the Canada bar with the various EU bars is particularly illuminating in that first one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_P...on_map_2005.png

This serves to highlight the rather - ahem - maverick nature of the US' disagreement.

and finally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_...n_by_Region.png

Tells a grim tale.

Peace... out!

[Shinrei]

The last chart appears to show the emissions from "communist east asia" as dropping off significantly. From what I understand, China is surpassing the US in carbon emissions, not dropping off precipitously.

And you didn't address the economy factor. Our economy is huge, yet proportionally our carbon output isn't that terrible. That shows that we are already doing all sorts of controls to keep powerplant emissions and other things cleaner than they could be if we were just lazy about it.

It's like if the US were to tell China to consume as much food as we do, while ignoring the fact that they have a gazillion more people than the US.

The US consumer is cutting back, and there is definately pressure from the public on utilities companies these days. There are Ads on TV all the time now from power companies explaining what they are doing for the environment these days. There was even a (i think ridiculous) plan forwarded in my local city council to ban "drive-thrus" at fast-food restaurants because of the carbon emitted by cars waiting in line.

So if the US is moving in the right direction, and we already emit carbon at a ratio to our economy that could be better but isn't terrible, kyoto sure turns out looking like a direct threat to the economy rather than a fair proposal.

[Skywalker]

Shinrei no Shintai;343638 said:

The last chart appears to show the emissions from "communist east asia" as dropping off significantly. From what I understand, China is surpassing the US in carbon emissions, not dropping off precipitously.

I was off the forums to read TtH... but... check out this article:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages...1819688,00.html (you may need to go to slide 4 of 6... I think the URL opens slide 1 always)

and take a gander at this image in particular:



Again... China is NOT exceeding the US anytime soon... not before 2050 for sure.

As for the rest of your comment...

I did address the economic factor. I said the US needs to stop thinking about the bad effects of constraints, and focus instead on innovation. Also, yes... the US will probably feel the pinch for a while - more than most. Tough luck. It is still a small price to pay for sins committed over the past century (in which they did - and still do - lead the pack)!

[Obdigore]

Wait now Skywalker, am I reading it correctly that the US uses the second LEAST energy when compared to their GDP?

This would be showing that the US is emitting a lot of Carbon Dioxide per person but is being quite efficient with how much energy they are using compared to everyone except Japan?

Do you have a chart from a source you trust of CO2 emissions per GDP?

Also, the chinese 'Average Growth' might ramp up as they continue to bring energy plants online. How many years is this average growth calculated over? 2? 10? 20? 50? That makes a huge difference in what it shows compared to what it does not.

[paladin]

obdigore: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_car_...rbon-efficiency

DEFINITION: Carbon economic efficiency (CO2 emissions per dollar GDP)
Units: Metric Tons/US Dollar GDP

this is from least efficient to most efficient it looks like. the us is #42, china #35