Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (134892)	3/24/2001 10:57:45 PM
From: stribe30	Respond to of 1570492

Tim claimed: Its large a complex and dimly understood. So because of dimly understood and conflicting evidence you want to take actions that will cost trillions of dollars? It is only dimly understood by those who dont wish to lose a bit of profit and make the effort to chip in: (please note this article also criticizes Canada for its emissions as well) ------ Science matters: Bush's promises, promises Saturday, March 24, 2001 By David Suzuki It sounded almost too good to be true, and it was. After showing early signs that his administration agreed with the importance of slowing global warming, President Bush has reversed his course and broken campaign pledges in the process. During his campaign, Bush pledged to support "mandatory reduction targets" of carbon dioxide from power plants. And early in March, Christie Whitman, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, fleshed out that promise. On CNN, she admitted that the "science is good on global warming" and added that carbon dioxide reductions were "an important step to take." But just last week President Bush changed his mind after heavy lobbying from conservative Republicans and the oil and coal industries. Now, the president says that he made an error in his original pledge. White House spokesman Scott McClellen told the New York Times that: "CO2 (carbon dioxide) should not have been included as a pollutant during the campaign. It was a mistake." The real mistake was for Bush to break his promise. The world's most respected climate scientists have agreed that without taking steps to reduce greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, the Earth will heat up by between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius in this century. Klaus Töpfer, head of the United Nations Environment Programne, calls this increase "potentially devastating." That's why reducing carbon dioxide output from power plants is so important. The United States is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. Power plants in the United States, most of which are inefficient coal-burners, are responsible for 40 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. Bush's reversal is hypocritical. One of his major complaints about the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has always been that it puts an unfair burden on developed nations because it does not include the looming industrial power of developing nations such as China. But even if we ignore the fact that developed nations have had the luxury of 200 years of virtually unchecked energy consumption, Bush's position is clearly inconsistent with the actual energy-use patterns of developed and developing nations. For example, China's carbon dioxide emissions have decreased sharply in recent years because the nation is becoming more energy efficient. The United States and Canada, however, are moving in the opposite direction with increased emissions. In fact, the average American produces nine times more carbon dioxide each year than does a typical Chinese person. And according to the Worldwatch Institute, in the past two years the United States has surpassed China to become the world's number one coal consumer. In a letter to Republican senators, the president says he reversed his position because of the possibility that regulating carbon dioxide could lead to higher energy prices. Clearly, Bush is more concerned about short-term price jumps than the long-term costs of not acting to slow global warming. After all, he won't be in office to take responsibility when the catastrophic costs of adapting to it start to kick in. Bush also retreated from his EPA leader's earlier statements about global warming, instead stating there is "an incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change." These statements disregard myriad recent analyses, including an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report earlier this year which concluded that the economic benefits of protecting the climate will exceed the costs of using climate-friendly technologies, including wind power and energy efficiency measures such as switching from coal to natural gas-burning power plants. As to the state of scientific knowledge, even as Bush was reversing his campaign pledge, another climate study was published in the journal Nature. British researchers who wrote the paper examined satellite data on the infrared radiation flowing from Earth into space and found clear human influence on the atmosphere, including "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect." The evidence is clear about who's beating around the bush here. ----- enn.com

To: TimF who wrote (134892)	3/25/2001 12:59:04 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570492

Tim, There is conflicting evidence on this. It is not a firmly established fact that global tempetures have increased in the past century. There also is no proof of a link between tobacco and cancer. Scumbria

To: TimF who wrote (134892)	3/25/2001 9:59:09 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570492

" There is conflicting evidence on this. It is not a firmly established fact that global tempetures have increased in the past century" What do you consider to be "firmly established"? What is proven is that isotherms have, and are, shifting northwards in many areas in North America, Europe and the oceans. This affects the ecological mix in a given area, the flora in particular changes. This is well documented in Great Britain, they have very good records going back a couple of centuries. You have to remember that usable thermometers with some degree of repeatability only date back to the 18th century and they weren't really accurate until the late 19th/early 20th. Now in this century, average night time temperatures have increased, day time temperatures are, as you say, mixed. This is significant, it is precisely what you would expect due to greenhouse gasses. I will try to did out those issues of "Nature" where this is tracked. It is interesting. "So because of dimly understood and conflicting evidence you want to take actions that will cost trillions of dollars?" By the time it is indisputably proven that global warming is occuring due to human input, it'll be too damn late. As I have stated before, there are very large sinks of potential greenhouse gasses that will dump to the atmosphere if warmed too much. Check out this link on methane hydrates marine.usgs.gov The trillions of dollars is something to be disputed. There are some offsetting things that can be done, i.e. encouraging planting of trees, alternates to slash and burn in tropical regions and possible iron enrichment in polar oceans. Certain tax breaks for alternate energy sources like fuel cells and solar panels would help. Like with our current budget surplus, you have to first decrease the rate of increase. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. We are still in the house, arguing over whether or not "outside" has been firmly established as existing...