Faced with this crisis

[Areometer]

Instead of denying climate change is happening, the US now denies that we need proper regulation to stop it

George Monbiot
Tuesday July 12, 2005
The Guardian

One day we will look back on the effort to deny the effects of climate change as we now look back on the work of Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet agronomist who insisted that the entire canon of genetics was wrong. There was no limit to an organism's ability to adapt to changing environments. Cultivated correctly, crops could do anything the Soviet leadership wanted them to do. Wheat, for example, if grown in the right conditions, could be made to produce rye.

>> Full Article @ The Guardian (UK)

[kirbinster]

Sorry but Bush's arguements are correct - there is no way the US should be penalized while China and India and other countries can continue to pollute at much higher levels. While there may or may not be a real problem - that is still not truly known, all should agree to similar outputs per unit of GDP. If other countries don't like our stance there is nothing stopping them from acting unilaterally - except they know if they do that then their economies will take a hit and they rather have ours take a hit. So, those that claim there is a problem and do nothing until we do are the biggest hypocrits.

[finman2]

my feeling is that global climate change is already hitting the pocketbooks of EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET. We are all in this together, why can't we act that way.

The few that are polluting more than their fair share seem to ignore what is happening around the globe. By destroying our eco systems, we destroy our way of life. By destroying the air and causing the thousands of asthma related illnesses and deaths, well, that's fewer people to contribute to the "precious economy".

Without an environment to support human life...you get Mars. That planet certainly has an economy problem...

[Marlin]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Areometer\";p=\"106518)</div>

Instead of denying climate change is happening, the US now denies that we need proper regulation to stop it[/b]

I'm curious. Give me an example of what you would consider "proper regulation".

And please don't cite the Kyoto Agreement. That is simply an agreement between countries to reduce emmissions, it doesn't define how to do it. What I'm looking for is an example of a regulation that would be used by the US to achieve the Kyoto emission goals.

[KMO]

Pretty pathetic and hypocritical yourself, kirbinster.

As the biggest polluter by far, don't you feel you have any moral responsibility to set an example? Why should other countries polluting far less than you feel any obligation to do anything when a far worse, and far richer country is too selfish to do anything?

The next step after Kyoto was always going to be to pull more countries into future agreements, but if you can't even manage that first step...

And since when did the US start demanding that everyone obey the same rules? Rather out of character, what with their stance on nukes, chemical weapons, international criminal courts...

You really should be ashamed of your government and corporations. When climate change hits, you can bet it won't be the Bush family or Exxon that suffers the brunt of it.

[skruse]

Amory Lovins' "Factor Four," clearly identifies that if you want to double your profit, you double your efficiency (Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org). Rather than attempt to regulate or steer inefficiency and "waste," we should be subsidizing and encouraging efficient alternatives. Let the profit incentive help to drive how we function in business, agriculture and our personal lives.

Example: compact flourescents (CF) vs. incandescent light bulbs. CFs have a higher up front cost, but a 10X greater life (10,000 vs. 800 hr) and use 80% less energy (18 vs. 100 watts). Costs avoided are "profit".

Bush et al., are driven by ideology, not cost or profit. Nuclear fission is neither a constructive alternative nor profitable, even when subsidized. Using fission to produce electricity is like "using a chainsaw to cut butter." The approach is overkill, produces a messy waste and doesn't easily accomplish the task. Long-term approaches are more cost-effective, don't require massive subsidies and are immediately more profitable.

Kyoto is short-term thinking and politics. Bush is right to avoid Kyoto, but we must easily set better, more profitable examples by doubling our "profit" through efficiency and constructive alternatives (solar, wind, hydro and conservation).

[dreichla]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse\";p=\"106601)</div>

Kyoto is short-term thinking and politics. Bush is right to avoid Kyoto, but we must easily set better, more profitable examples by doubling our \"profit\" through efficiency and constructive alternatives (solar, wind, hydro and conservation).
[/b]

Very well said. I agree!

[GreenLady]

Well, speaking as an environmental professional who deals with regulatory compliance on a daily basis, I have to say that incentives and encouragement only go so far. Some people/organizations will never do anything that they perceive as costing them money (even if they are wrong) if they don't have to, and even then, there are still many organizations that are not following the regulations we do have.

What we really need to do to address this problem is to effectively enforce the regulations we already have. Even still, simply levying a fine does not do the job sometimes. What the EPA and the states need to do is to temporarily shut down business who are out of compliance until they are in compliance. I have shut people down for violations and that is the only thing that will set a fire under them to change their ways.

I'm not saying incentives are bad, they just don't take care of our worst polluters.

[kirbinster]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO\";p=\"106592)</div>

Pretty pathetic and hypocritical yourself, kirbinster.

As the biggest polluter by far, don't you feel you have any moral responsibility to set an example? Why should other countries polluting far less than you feel any obligation to do anything when a far worse, and far richer country is too selfish to do anything?

The next step after Kyoto was always going to be to pull more countries into future agreements, but if you can't even manage that first step...

And since when did the US start demanding that everyone obey the same rules? Rather out of character, what with their stance on nukes, chemical weapons, international criminal courts...

You really should be ashamed of your government and corporations. When climate change hits, you can bet it won't be the Bush family or Exxon that suffers the brunt of it.
[/b]

No need to attack me personally just cause you don't like my views. So what are you doing to help the environment - beside driving a prius as we all here do that. Me, I have a 10,000 watt PV array on my roof which generates about 15,000 kilowatt hours of electricity annual (green power) so please don't talk down to me.

As far as world economics it would be criminal for the president to do anything that puts us at a significant economic disadvantage. Look at China that illegally pegs its money to ours and then floods the world with cheap products made with the most polution of any country. What you are suggesting will just make more production shifted there and create more net pollution. The world turns on money - don't kid yourself. Anything that does not maximize total return is suboptimal. I again say that any nation that does not like our approach should feel free to cut emissions right away -- why do they have to wait for us???

[tomdeimos]

It's getting a bit late to fix this now, but it is really simple to do:

1 Make all cars with speed governers, set to some national speed limit.
They could easily allow emergency situations to bypass it, but have a fine at the next inspection to provide enforcement. And the cops could stop writing speeding tickets most places and concentrate on more serious problems.
2 Tax gas guzzlers at high rates and set lower weight limits for private vehicles.
3 Get hydrogen from solar going for aircraft mainly, and ships.
4 Bring back electric cars for commuters and remove the tax and insurance disencentives for people to own multiple vehicles.
5 Get Banks and zoning fixed so everyone that wants one can have a windmill like Holland in their yard.
6 Start using wave and tide power for electricity along both coasts.
7 Bring back high speed trains, that are aerodynamic and can carry cars and people in them for long distance rapid transit.
8 Subsidize new power generation to replace coal and oil plants with cleaner alternatives and convert more buildings to electric heat.
9 Ban all vehicles from planes to autos that have drag coefficients worse than x, just like we require some minimum efficiency for washing machines and air conditioners today.
10 Subsidize people moving and trading houses, so those that wish can live closer to work.
11 Close cities to cars entirely where mass transit is adequate.
12 Stop pushing our production off shore so other countries can make stuff for us in much dirtier ways environmentally whether tv sets or oil refineries.