1000 pound of lobster,
450 pounds of salmon,
300 pounds of patee,
200 pounds of caviar, and
this is just a partial list.
Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. What a pity.
Rio failed because it tried to accomplish too much, I will expect Johannesburg to be the same.
Environmentalists worried about the Alaskan frozen tundra and carribou(sp?) when the Alaskan pipeline was built, but now acknowledge that the carribou are doing better now(since they have a warmer place to congregate, but the Tundra hasn’t thawed.
Do you know how much species die each years ? Do you think it is normal ?
Lawn grasses and weeds produce CO2 in large quantities. The US has more weeds and lawn grasses than these countries.
Haha… it is not calculate like that. It is how much CO2 Humans are throwing in the air… And the earth is not recovering for that, just look at the % of 02; it is not as high as it is supposed to be.
Do you know how much species die each years ? Do you think it is normal ?
I dunno, how much do you believe in evolution? The extinction of species is inevitable, but I agree - not at this pace. As for Xi’s Caribou statement, I can indeed verify it as fact (though I’m not sure how much the warmer temp. has to do with this). But then again, what would I know? I’m all in favor of protecting endangered species –- wait, I’m the Axis of Ecological Evil and I guess I’m suppose to play the sterotypical role of the destroyer of nature. So be it.
@Anonymous:
Haha… it is not calculate like that. It is how much CO2 Humans are throwing in the air… And the earth is not recovering for that, just look at the % of 02; it is not as high as it is supposed to be.
How the he– do they calculate(read ESTIMATE) that/ Oh, yeah, it’s scientists. It’s a GUESSTIMATE.
“Smrt ili Sloboda!” -Yugoslavian translates to “Death or Freedom” - Xi
I’m a helpful kinda guy. - Xi
@TG:
Private initiative does not work, Kyoto is an important step. By not accepting it, the american are doing a good move from an economical standpoint ONLY for short term.
Private initiative does not work? President Bush and the DoE plan to reduce America’s greenhousegas emissions relative to the size of our economy by 18% over the next to 10 years. The air and water in the US, by most measures, are the cleanest they have been for decades. For the short term, Kyoto would put millions of Americans out of work - something that isn’t easily solved. For the cost of Kyoto for one year, we could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every human being on earth.
(not only Air but also Water pollution will be problem in the near future)
I do not think that CO2 will effect water in the near future.
Well, turns out that Cretien did submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Parliament afterall (at least something good will come of his “legacy”). I included Moses’ quote as i believe in the short run the US will pick up business that Canada will lose for tightening up our pollution laws. At the same time, in the long-term i think that countries (developed, scientifically and economically forward-thinking countries) will develop sources of energy much more cheaply and environmentally friendly than the ones used by our backward thinking neighbours (sorry for the shot - i’m only half-serious :) )
At the same time, in the long-term i think that countries (developed, scientifically and economically forward-thinking countries) will develop sources of energy much more cheaply and environmentally friendly than the ones used by our backward thinking neighbours (sorry for the shot - i’m only half-serious )
Backward thinking neighbors, eh? So every your country will earmark more than $4.6 billion over the next five years in tax credits for enewable-energy investments such as wind and solar power and energy-efficiency projects? So your country will spend hundreds of millions-billons on nuclear fusion research each year? So every other country should have more wind turbines and solar cells installed than in the United States? So you will donate more than $6.4 billon to environmental groups around the world? Of course, America is the “Ecological Axis of :evil:” – so disregard all of that. We secretly want to destroy the planet and don’t give a damn about the environment! Oh, how good it is to live the life of the “Ecological Axis of Evil.” :P
Moses Said:
I dunno, how much do you believe in evolution? The extinction of species is inevitable
But moses, a dog is a cat is a tree is a human. We cannot let allow animals to die, after all animals are people too.
That was my liberal, animal rights person impression. :)
That is why Americans spend literally billions of dollars to protect and help fund the rehabilitation of endangered species from becoming extinct ones here and around the world. Wait! We’re suppose to be the Ecological Axis of Evil! This would be contradicting ourselves and I say let’s kill ‘em all! :roll:
@TG:
For the cost of Kyoto for one year, we could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every human being on earth.
to all the 2 billion people that don’t have it at the moment? Could you please back up your claim, and give your thoughts on “how long” will htese ppl have access to clean water?
@TG:
Backward thinking neighbors, eh? So every your country will earmark more than $4.6 billion over the next five years in tax credits for enewable-energy investments such as wind and solar power and energy-efficiency projects? So your country will spend hundreds of millions-billons on nuclear fusion research each year? So every other country should have more wind turbines and solar cells installed than in the United States? So you will donate more than $6.4 billon to environmental groups around the world? Of course, America is the “Ecological Axis of :evil:” – so disregard all of that. We secretly want to destroy the planet and don’t give a damn about the environment! Oh, how good it is to live the life of the “Ecological Axis of Evil.” :P
So that is more that (4.6 + 6.4) billions plus at least one for fusion tech…
that’s at least 11 billions for that. Can you give a benchmark of other spendings by the US gov?
How many wind turbines are there in the US? How much power do you get out of renewable sources? (In absolute numbers (Watts), relative to the total production and per capita please).
Numbers may sound great, but you need to have numbers to compare them to to get the real picture.
@Xi:
…
lots of claims. Not a singel source or back up.
I claim: you are a liar. All you say is nonsense. I give as much proof for this as you give for your opinion.
You claim scientists work by guessing, but you are not working properly (scientific) yourself when claiming stuff. Please, tell us where you get your stuff from. If it is from www.thereisnopollutionintheworld.com then suddenly your claims would look much less believable
The US had eliminated 98% of it’s 1974 automobile emisssions by 1992.
Standing alone, this is close to lying.
It sounds like: In 1992 all the cars in the US put only 2% of the stuff into the air that they put there in 1974. That cannot be.
Please, back up your claim!
In 1925 environmentalists said we would run out of oil in 20 years(1945).
In 1945 environmentalists said we would run out of oil in 30 years(1975).
In 1970 environmentalists said we would run out of oil in 100 years(2070).
In 1995 environmentalists said we would run out of oil in 200 years(2195).
Sounds like we’ve found more oil and become more efficient in its’ use.
Where do you get this quotes from?
Esp. where did you get the 1195 quote from.
Did you ever think of what happens once we run out of oil? Did it ever cross your mind how long it took nature to make it, and how we burn through it, using it for heating, while we could make the most amazing polymers out of it?
F_kquote -
“axis of ecological evil”
Oh, how original!
Sound like the Have Nots complaining again.It’s not my idea. Follow the news.
And of course the the Have Nots complain, as they have not because of the haves who took it. (oversimplified, my last hope you can understand that now!)Mt. Pinatubo(sp?) spewed more pollution in one shot than the US did in the last 100 years. The Earth cleaned it up in 2 years. …
For this and the others things: How do you know? Where do you get that from? Why are those sources more reliable than the “guessing environmentalists” ?
Am i the first one to complain that you are bloody poor debater?F_Squote,
“CO2 Metric tons per capita - 1996”
Lawn grasses and weeds produce CO2 in large quantities. The US has more weeds and lawn grasses than these countries. Oh, I almost forgot! We also produce and export a great quantity of items, too.And how about China and India’s production/pollution today?India and China will become even worse than the US once they consume as much…. when everyone there needs his climatized home with automatic watering for the lawn during midday and a car for each member of the family…
And your lawn argument is silly. Any chlorophyllic plants bind CO2, and bind more during the day than they produce during the night. Take any biology book for that.
to all the 2 billion people that don’t have it at the moment? Could you please back up your claim, and give your thoughts on “how long” will htese ppl have access to clean water?
Sure. The statement was made by Bjorn Lomborg in his the book, The Skeptical Enironmentalists. If you interested, I suggest checking out the book itself. However, the statement has been used in other articles as Time and National Geographic. For the gist of it, for the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will be U.S. $150 billion to $350 billion annually (compared to $50 billion in global annual development aid). With global warming hurting primarily Third World countries, we have to ask if the Kyoto treaty is the best way to help them. The answer is no. The cost of meeting the Kyoto treaty for just one year would be enough to solve the biggest problem in the world—we could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every person on the globe. This would save two million lives each year and prevent half a billion people from contracting a severe disease. In fact, for the same amount the Kyoto Protocol would have cost just the U.S. every year, the UN estimates that we could provide every person in the world with access to basic health, education, family planning, and water and sanitation services. Wouldn’t this be a better way of serving the world?
We need to focus more on development than on sustainability. Development not only possesses intrinsic value but in the long run it will lead the Third World to become more concerned about the environment. Only when people are rich enough to feed themselves do they worry about the environment and future generations. Focusing more on sustainability can easily result in prioritizing future generations at the expense of current generations, which is a backward way of solving our problems. In contrast, focusing on development has the advantage of both helping people today and creating the foundation for a better tomorrow.
Also, that numbr is 2.4 billion - damned that Ecological Axis of Evil!
So that is more that (4.6 + 6.4) billions plus at least one for fusion tech…
that’s at least 11 billions for that. Can you give a benchmark of other spendings by the US gov?
Oh please, all powerful German Government, we don’t know what to do! Please save us from becoming the Ecological Axis of Evil. Please, tell us how much your government spends on alternative energy in relation to total spending! Please, tell how much we should spent without significantly hurting the economy! Oh the terrible life of the Axis of Ecological Evil…
How many wind turbines are there in the US? How much power do you get out of renewable sources? (In absolute numbers (Watts), relative to the total production and per capita please).
Nearly 1,700 megawatts was from wind farms built across the U.S.
Wind energy output has increased a 66% last year with an additional $3 billion in windpower projects at work. Of course the wind production is relative from each year. Relative to total production, wind energy in California is about 1.27 percent of the state’s production of electricity in 2000, including imports from Southwest United States and the Pacific Northwest. Over 13,000 wind turbines in California alone. Relative to per capita, new, utility-scale, wind projects are being built all around the United States today with energy costs ranging from 3.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (at very windy sites in Texas) to 5 cents or more (in the Pacific Northwest). This is to compete at $0.015 to $0.03 per kilowatt-hour against for current generators, but government hopes to slash price of wind at $0.025 per kilowatt-hour as stated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Additionally, U.S. Department of Energy recently announced the Wind Powering America initiative with goals to power at least 5% of the nation’s electricity with wind by 2020, increase the number of states with more than 20 megawatts of wind to 16 by 2005 and 24 by 2010, and increase federal use of wind energy to 5% by 2010. But behind this is the secret Ecological Axis of Evil AKA the United States ready to destroy the ecological world. Save us!
Nice one, jazz!
Great book,T_6!
I love the fact that Bjorn Lomborg was THE ENVIRONMENTALIST to the environmentalists here in the US. Now he has taken the time to look at the facts and SHAAZAM he write a book revealing the truth :) . How about that! I wonder who’s next since my side already has Jane Doe. :wink:
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Life is about not knowing, having to change,
taking the moment and making the best of it,
without knowing what’s going to happen next.
Delicious ambiguity.” - Gilda Radner
I don’t think renewable energy is worth the investment. Too expensive, too selective. Hydro electric energy is good where you can dam it, but the damn dams are hard to get, and distrupt the envirment and people living around the damn river.
Nuclear energy is the way to go. Once we develope a way of getting rid of the waste, its very clean and we have almost unlimited Uranium.
This kind of reminds me how Fisternis was telling us how that the majority of French were no longer Catholic and that the number of Budhists in France had more than quadrupled.
Here in Washington we have lots of Damns and a large Nuclear power plant. Most of our energy is from them rather than coal, gas or oil.
I don’t think renewable energy is worth the investment. Too expensive, too selective. … Nuclear energy is the way to go. Once we develope a way of getting rid of the waste, its very clean and we have almost unlimited Uranium.
I like the “once we develop” and “almost unlimited”.
Renewable energy is clean, and unlimited in the sense that it only stops once (a) the earth stops turning or (b) the sun stops burning :)
Therefore, i prefer renewable energy (plus fusion once we have that).
@TG:
Sure. The statement was made by Bjorn Lomborg in his the book, The Skeptical Enironmentalists. If you interested, I suggest checking out the book itself.
Thanks for that. I doubt i find the time for that in the near future though…
However, the statement has been used in other articles as Time and National Geographic. For the gist of it, for the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will be U.S. $150 billion to $350 billion annually (compared to $50 billion in global annual development aid). With global warming hurting primarily Third World countries, we have to ask if the Kyoto treaty is the best way to help them. The answer is no.
Though it seesm i have to read it, as i do not believe these numbers at all. Does it take into account the investments that have to be made to get the country complying, the jobs these investments create, the technological advancements that have to be made (which need investment, but lead to new industries etc)? Does it take into account money/costs that at the moment are hidden somewhere but have a clearly ecological background?
The cost for truck diesel for example: Does it take into account that heavy trucks are the number one road-killers? which means that without / fewer trucks you would need less repairing of streets / highways?
This would suddenly make railways much more competible (sp?)… yet this “hidden” cost is taken away from the trucks and put on whoever maintains the roads (the public here in germany).
It sounds to me that this book does look at costs without noticing that a “cost” sometimes is an “investment”.
The cost of meeting the Kyoto treaty for just one year would be enough to solve the biggest problem in the world—… Wouldn’t this be a better way of serving the world?
Well, if one of those was done…… but before nothing is done, i prefer money spent on Kyoto :)…
We need to focus more on development than on sustainability. … Only when people are rich enough to feed themselves do they worry about the environment and future generations. …
Unfortunately, what you state is only a possibility. It would be nicer if one would necessarily lead to the otehr, e.g. once you have enough to eat, you necessarily start to worry about the environment. Sadly, that’s not the case.
that’s at least 11 billions for that. Can you give a benchmark of other spendings by the US gov?
Oh please, all powerful German Government, we don’t know what to do! Please save us from becoming the Ecological Axis of Evil. Please, tell us how much your government spends on alternative energy in relation to total spending! Please, tell how much we should spent without significantly hurting the economy! Oh the terrible life of the Axis of Ecological Evil…
:P
i just downloaded the budget of the Federal Republic of Germany……
…damn… and i will work through it when you do the same for the US :) … way too much work to get through those statistics :)
How many wind turbines are there in the US? How much power do you get out of renewable sources? (In absolute numbers (Watts), relative to the total production and per capita please).
Nearly 1,700 megawatts was from wind farms built across the U.S.
Wind energy output has increased a 66% last year with an additional $3 billion in windpower projects at work. Relative to total production, wind energy in California is about 1.27 percent of the state’s production of electricity in 2000
… Additionally, U.S. Department of Energy recently announced the Wind Powering America initiative with goals to power at least 5% of the nation’s electricity with wind by 2020, increase the number of states with more than 20 megawatts of wind to 16 by 2005 and 24 by 2010, and increase federal use of wind energy to 5% by 2010.
So, let’s compare this to germany:
The aim is to double the amount / ratio of regenartive energies to the year 2010.
In 1999/2000 6% of electrical power produced came from these sources, at the end of 2002 it will be 8%
We had 17.8 TWh of electrical power in 2001 from renewable sources, 11 TWh from wind. the energy producers think in 2002 it will be 21 TWh from those sources.
About one third of all wind farms of the world are in germany:
at the end of 2001 a power of 8750 MW was installed, another 1100 were added till Juli 2002. 2.3 % of the electrical power was wind produced in 2001.
So germany produces more than 5 times more wind energy than the US.
@F_alk:
I like the “once we develop” and “almost unlimited”.
Renewable energy is clean, and unlimited in the sense that it only stops once (a) the earth stops turning or (b) the sun stops burning :)Therefore, i prefer renewable energy (plus fusion once we have that).
However, it will take more money to develope efficient means of renewable energy. The Sun will not always burn, its called night. Wind energy can only be developed in places where, you guessed it, wind exists. Hydroelectric energy requires a huge dam, and impacts the enviroment like no other form.
Nuclear energy is developed, clean, practically unlimited, and produces a vast amount of cheap energy.
Though it seesm i have to read it, as i do not believe these numbers at all. Does it take into account the investments that have to be made to get the country complying, the jobs these investments create, the technological advancements that have to be made (which need investment, but lead to new industries etc)?
No doubt it will create new jobs, but at the rate of those found unemployed? Probably not. Always, what type of entry levels are available for entry level jobs in alternative energies? What degrees are required? What training? As for the numbers, those were taken from National Geographic (feel free to stop in some time). Though Energy Information Administration, predicts that if the United States is required to achieve stabilization at the 1990-7% levels without Annex I trading and no credit for sinks and offsets, the estimates of carbon prices required in 2010 range from a low of $221 per metric ton to $348 per metric ton, with the vast majority in the $265 to $295 per metric ton range. Actual GDP losses are projected to range from $102 to $437 billion dollars in 2010 (1996 dollars - inflation). With Annex I trading and credits for sinks and offsets from other gases, the carbon price ranges between $100 per metric ton to $175 per metric ton and the loss of actual GDP ranges between $56 and $207 billion dollars in 2010. Estimates of internationally purchased carbon credits by the U.S. range from 147 to 288 million metric tons.
EIA projects the loss in actual GDP in 2010 to range between $61 billion and $183 billion if revenues are recycled via a reduction in social security taxes, and between $96 billion and $397 billion if they are recycled via a reduction in personal income taxes (1992 dollars - inflation). Again, the economy grows even during the period of adjustment but does not reach the levels of growth in potential GDP.
The total cost to the economy can be estimated as the loss in actual GDP (the loss in potential GDP plus the macroeconomic adjustment cost) plus the purchase of international permits. It is assumed that the U.S. will purchase international permits at the marginal abatement cost in the U.S., i.e., the domestic carbon price. Total costs range from an average annual level for the period 2008 to 2012 of $77 billion to $338 billion 1992 dollars depending on the carbon reduction case and how funds are recycled back to the economy. Again, assuming if the economy continues to grow, but does not reach potential peak. For additional information, try refering to this graph http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/refcases.html
Well, if one of those was done…… but before nothing is done, i prefer money spent on Kyoto …
Not my cup of tea. I rather give people access to clean water and sanitation than simply cleaning up the air environment. At least there’s a better chance the “have nots” will live - even at the price of the “haves.”
Unfortunately, what you state is only a possibility. It would be nicer if one would necessarily lead to the otehr, e.g. once you have enough to eat, you necessarily start to worry about the environment. Sadly, that’s not the case.
Tell me, do you have enough to eat? Do you worry about the environment? If it is not the case then, not enough to eat = more care for the environment? This isn’t just about having enough to eat. It’s about providing people with better opportunities when they wouldn’t have it themselves. Certainly I would be more to inclined to help someone else if I didn’t have to worry about myself. If I die early - why should I care what happens to the environment or not? Of course, I’m a pagan Ecological Axis of Evil so I can’t have feelings about nature and the environment.
just downloaded the budget of the Federal Republic of Germany…… …damn… and i will work through it when you do the same for the US … way too much work to get through those statistics
But – but, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil! You owe it to us to show us “The Way” and make everything perfect.
2.3 % of the electrical power was wind produced in 2001.
So germany produces more than 5 times more wind energy than the US.
Only 2.3%? What about the remaining 97.7%? Only 5 times more wind energy than the US? Come on, you can do better than this. Afterall, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil!
Wind power really isnt the solution. Its not as large scale as other power sources. However, maybe Europe can ease it’s current flooding problem and make electricity )
