<<They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You have much feelings and far less thought. Seems the best that can be said for you two is that you have paved the road to hell twice.>>
Duncan, Del is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, so I would just like to say in my own defense that even though this is called the Feelings thread, my arguments about serious issues are really usually pretty intellectual and thought-, not feeling-based. I think it is very easy for you and some others to engage in ad hominem arguments, and not take this thread seriously because of its name, but really the discussions here about politics and religion and global warming and all the other weighty subjects are quite intellectual, and if you want to be taken seriously it is important to present logical, point-by-point refutations, not keep saying people are wrong.
I personally think that the road to complete ecological collapse of our planet is paved with the utter selfishness of Libertarians, Republicans, and other fiscal conservatives here and abroad, but I don't consider that an actual argument. However, the following article which I posted to Michael Cummings a few days ago offers a lot of substance about environmental issues. These large companies, some of which make tons of money on fossil fuels and fossil fuel use, have come around to the position that human-caused global warming is real, and are determined to do something about it, even though there is certainly a real possibility that their profits will be lessened as the result.
I think that if governments and businesses all over the world join in and get on somewhat the same agenda, they will all be able to stay profitable, because they will still be competing against each other, under pretty similar environmental regulations. There is also a large and growing industry of companies which make products which are kind to the environment, another way to make money. The real risk for a chaotic and out-of-control environmental ruin is for nations to not agree, based on greed and shortsightedness, and that is what we are seeing now with the Kyoto agreement. How pathetic that the United States, which consumes the planet's resources, and pollutes its environment, way in excess of its population, is dragging its feet when we should be leading the way!
But that paragraph includes some of my emotional feelings. My essential argument is logical, as yours needs to be if you expect it to be given any credence here. Can you explain why these following companies have come to support halting ecological damage, in a way that logically supports your argument against global warming, refuting each point they make in their statement, one by one?
13 companies form climate coalition
Toyota, Boeing, BP among those to join new group
MSNBC STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
WASHINGTON, May 8 -Breaking rank with much of
industry, 13 large corporations announced they
will work together to convince the business
community to address climate change in ways
that do not harm the economy. The potential of
climate change, they said, is "our most serious
challenge at home and abroad."
SEVERAL OF the partners come from the oil,
automobile, aviation and power industries - industries that
have been most skeptical about global warming.
Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Enron, United
Technologies, Toyota and British Petroleum were among
the corporations brought together by the Pew Charitable
Trusts, a non-profit foundation that contributed $5 million to
create the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
The other partners are: 3M, Sun Oil, American Electric
Power Co., Intercontinental Energy, U.S. Generating Co.,
Whirlpool and Maytag.
"We want to be the credible voice on climate change,"
said Eileen Claussen, the center's director. Claussen was
closely involved in climate-treaty negotiations until last July
when she stepped down as an assistant U.S. secretary of
state.
"These are all progressive, constructive companies that
decided the time had come to make some kind of a
statement of 'Let's get on with this and find solutions,' "
said Claussen.
One of the participants, British Petroleum, for some
time has embraced the view that the threat of global
warming and potentially disastrous climate change should
not be dismissed out of hand.
Claussen said the center will focus on educational
programs about global warming, including ad campaigns
designed to attack the threat without harming the economy.
"Instead of choosing between business and the
environment," she said, "we want to draw on the ingenuity
and expertise of all sectors to both address the climate
change problem and sustain economic growth."
"These companies are in business to make money, but
they think if you do this right we can keep growing the
economy at the same time," Claussen added.
COALITION'S PRINCIPLES
In a joint statement Thursday, the corporate
participants said:
"First, we accept the views of most scientists that enough
is known about the science and environmental impacts of
climate change for us to take actions to address its
consequences.
"Second, there are steps businesses can and should be
taking now in both the U.S. and abroad to assess emission
reduction opportunities, establish and meet emission
reduction objectives, and invest in more energy-efficient
products, practices and technology.
"Third, the Kyoto agreement represents a first step in the
international process, but more must be done both to
implement market-based mechanisms that were adopted in
principle in Kyoto and to more fully involve the rest of the
world in the solution.
"Fourth, we can make significant progress in addressing
climate change and sustain economic growth in the United
States by adopting reasonable policies, programs and
transition strategies."
INDUSTRY, GOP OPPOSITION
Their stand is in marked contrast to much of U.S.
industry, especially oil, auto and power companies, many of
which have pressed Congress to block U.S. endorsement
of the Kyoto agreement as negotiated by the Clinton
administration.
The Global Climate Coalition, whose members are
from many of the same industries, has waged ad campaigns
and lobbied Congress against the treaty. That group
contends that science has yet to show a climate problem
exists and that compliance with the Kyoto agreement would
cost billions of dollars in higher energy prices.
The Kyoto accord would require the United States to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions - mainly carbon dioxide
- to 8 percent below what they were in 1990 by 2008 to
2012. That would be about a third below what they would
be without any intervention.
Key Republicans in Congress have blasted the Kyoto
agreement as potentially devastating to the U.S. economy,
warning Clinton that he does not have the support to get
Senate ratification of the treaty.
They contend U.S. industries will be hammered and
jobs lost if the nation is forced to slash its use of coal and oil
to reduce carbon emissions.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to
this report.
msnbc.com
|
