JustWonders wrote:old europe wrote:Must come from living in a country where people think that climate change is something you can believe in or not, depending on your party affiliation.
Kyoto was rejected by both a Democrat and a Republican president.
I don't think anyone posting here has said they don't believe in climate change. I do think there's some discrepancy over just what is causing it.
I read a few weeks ago about a bet some Russian physicists made with, I think, a Brit. The Russians think the planet will actually cool over the next decade or so and have put $10,000 on it. Maybe you can get in on that action.
In the meantime, you have your opinions and I have mine. Why the personal attacks?
Didn't Al Gore sign the protocol? I don't think there are a lot of similarities in the Clinton and the Bush administration approach towards the protocol.
But, leaving that aside, where do you think is the discrepancy over the causes of climate change? Do you really think it is over whether or not the increase in temperatures is largely anthropogenic?
And re global warming/cooling: of course the effects are very complex. What we are seeing at the moment is a global
warming. The effects we are seeing, like the biggest Atlantic hurricanes ever to be recorded, are the effects of global
warming.
Of course, blaming Bush for the hurricanes is the most outrageous, ridiculous thing I've ever heard. But then, I've only heard it from the righties so far, who accused lefties of allegedly accusing Bush. Not very productive.
Meanwhile, in many western countries cars are built which burn, on average, less than half the gasoline the average American car needs. Meanwhile, houses are built which rely 100% on solar energy for warm water supply as well as for heating, all year round, on latitudes north of the northern US border. Meanwhile, many western countries are switching from coal, gas and nuclear energy to renewable energies.
All this while the USA has still the highest energy consumption per capita as well as in absolute numbers worldwide.
Now, the main reason given for not implementing Kyoto is that it would be too much a strain on the economy. Quite interesting, for a country that is technologically as advanced as the United States - supposedly. Because I still fail to see how it would be bad for the economy if a government would try to implement measures to protect rather than pollute the environment.
Let me give you an example: around the world, 41 countries have adopted laws which allow companies as well as private people to sell electricity at a rate significantly higher than what would be paid for 'conventionally generated' electricity to the national suppliers. As a result, hundreds of new businesses have sprung up, focusing on renewable energies such as wind energy, geothermal enery, solar energy, biomass energy etc. The procedures that are being developed and discovered may very well conceivably cover a large percentage of the national power supply of these countries.
Well, and what are the States doing? Falling behind, in the name of protecting the economy. How strange, isn't it?
