Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Quote:

i have never seen the movie nor have i really ever listened to him .

I also haven't seen the movie and have never listened to a word Gore says about AGW. He does not define the debate, but merely presents a familiar and easy target for those who would argue against taking any action at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

unfortunately , imo , much too much attention is probably being paid to al gore by both sides of the global warming issue .
i have never seen the movie nor have i really ever listened to him .
in these days where we have to have STARS - from paris hilton to al gore and all other kinds to numerous to mention - to tell us what the latest trends and fads are , scientific views are only too often ignored .
just opening the paper this morning i am being overwhelmed with ads from various "weight-losing" studios , tanning salons ... i think you all know .
unfortunately that's what many people believe in , otherwise these businesses wouldn't be around very long . many people , too many people are willing to pay for all kinds of fake cures and systems rather than making slight changes in their lifestyles - which are often free and may even save money - but they are often labelled as "inconvenient" .

imo the same is true when it comes to making relatively small changes for a greener environment . do we really have to have tens-of-thousands of empty paper cups spoiling our cities and country-side just because people find it "inconvenient" to hold on to them and throw them into recycle bin - or even better , use a "real" cup ?
YOU TELL ME !

and , of course , usually twice a year citizens are urged to go out and pick up the trash that others have thrown out the car windows - so that they may continue to throw out more paper cups , burger boxes and wrappers , cigarette stubs ... ...

i don't see why we can't have hefty deposits on many of these "throw-away" items - either people can return them for a deposit or kids and trash-collectors can make a good dollar doing so .
of course , the fast-food industry is fighting it tooth-and-nail , and since they have the money and clout to bribe the law-makers , they seem to be winning .
hbg

But there are alternates to almost everything. At one time mothers of infants were advised they were committing the ultimate environmental heresy by using disposable diapers. But then somebody did a serious analysis. The disposable diapers a) were better for the babies who had far less diaper rash and other infections than those wearing cloth diapers; b) the disposable diapers are more efficient than cloth diapers. When a baby wets a cloth diaper he or she almost always wets something else too that also has to be laundered. When you factor in the water necessary for the laundry plus detergent, bleach etc. introduced into the sewer system vs a mostly biodegradable diaper going into a landfill, the environmental impact was a virtual wash.

Instead of complaining about profitable industries making useful paper (disposable) products for humans (and dogs) and thus providing a wonderful convenience plus creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, you have to factor in that most of these products come from fully renewable sources, are mostly biodegradable, are mostly recyclable, versus the cost and environmental impact of of washing glass dishes and containers in detergent and/or having broken or worn out glass items lurking virtually forever somewhere.

Far better to push 'keep America beautiful' programs such as New Mexico's popular "toss no mas" slogan to encourage people not to litter coupled with incentives and encouragement to recycle what we can.

The 'olden days' had their virtues for sure, but there is no reason to inconvenience people for something for which the environmental impact is again a virtual wash.

Our clunky old church van got terrible gas mileage and probably didn't actually pass our strict emissions program, but it could haul a whole bunch of kids and grownups to camp or other outings that would otherwise require three or four cars to provide transportation. So, that old van was more environmentally friendly than not having and using the van.

If we keep things in perspective there are always things we can do to make life better for ourselves and others. But there is also a point of diminishing returns and common sense needs to prevail.

Again, the more affluent the people are, the more they demand pristine and beautiful surroundings. The 'poor' parts of Albuquerque are pretty trashed up and far more polluted than the 'rich' parts of town.

Lets work on helping people get rich, and I think that will solve a lot of our problems.

0 Replies

One of the biggest problems I see with the debate is tunnel vision. Everyone is focused on CO2, including so-called scientists, when it is only one small component of the whole subject. There was a recent article in Newsweek, which pointed out the obvious, that junk science, often reputed as serious science, can come up with just about any conclusion desired by controlling the input and placing the right constraints on it. The subject was other than global warming, but it applies to almost anything. Garbage in, garbage out. I spent much of my career in the science of geology, and I saw plenty of it over time, and that experience greatly contributes to my attitude of healthy skepticism.

I posted over the top of yours, Foxfyre. Again, you always make much common sense. We must get past the emotions of issues. Recycling is one. Sometimes it is environmentally sensible, other times not, as it can be tremendously wasteful. As I've said before, the free market is often a good indicator of what is most efficient, both economically and environmentally.

I personally know of an example of trash being hauled from Wichita to Oklahoma by the semi-truckload, multiples of same, every single day, for years, simply because the tree huggers disallowed suitable disposal near Wichita. Result, obscene waste of energy, wear and tear on the roads, even death of driver(s), and the disposal of the trash in a place that is no more environmentally safe than it would have been in Kansas. Environmental whackos cause this idiocy.

0 Replies

Another result of wacko science: NASA Study: Eastern U.S. to Get Hotter - this time because wrong computer models, indeed.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sometimes it is environmentally sensible, other times not, as it can be tremendously wasteful.

Really? I'd like you to give an example of a situation in which recycling is 'tremendously wasteful.'

Quote:

As I've said before, the free market is often a good indicator of what is most efficient, both economically and environmentally.

Bull sh*t. The free market is concerned with making money, not with doing what is best for the environment. This is a ridiculous thing to say, as it is completely the opposite of every bit of evidence we have. The 'free market' chooses the cheapest solution, despite the environmental impact. If it wasn't for rules forcing companies to act in a clean manner, they wouldn't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Sometimes it is environmentally sensible, other times not, as it can be tremendously wasteful.

Really? I'd like you to give an example of a situation in which recycling is 'tremendously wasteful.'

Quote:
As I've said before, the free market is often a good indicator of what is most efficient, both economically and environmentally.

We can delve into that if you want, but surely if you have even an ounce of common sense, there are some things that take more energy and other resources, through the use of transportation, wear and tear on equipment, and other factors, than it takes to produce the product from raw material.

Quote:

Bull sh*t. The free market is concerned with making money, not with doing what is best for the environment. This is a ridiculous thing to say, as it is completely the opposite of every bit of evidence we have. The 'free market' chooses the cheapest solution, despite the environmental impact. If it wasn't for rules forcing companies to act in a clean manner, they wouldn't.

Cycloptichorn

Again, cost reflects effort to produce and deliver the product, which includes the energy, manufacturing facilities, wear and tear on equipment, people to do it, which in turn consumes energy and all the rest. Cyclops, in a competitive free market, cost of a product is not simply pulled out of the air. There are real world reasons why things cost what they do, and it all reflects what has been used to produce it, no small part of which is energy. There is a ripple effect as well. The equipment to make equipment to make equipment to produce the product takes energy, among other things. Again, simply employ an ounce of common sense.

Where recycling is economical and efficient, it is and I am in favor of it, but I am sure it is not for all products. Again in regard to the environment, read my words. I said "often," not "always," as I recognize there may be hidden effects not paid for or accounted for right away, or by the company that produces the product.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Sometimes it is environmentally sensible, other times not, as it can be tremendously wasteful.

Really? I'd like you to give an example of a situation in which recycling is 'tremendously wasteful.'

Quote:
As I've said before, the free market is often a good indicator of what is most efficient, both economically and environmentally.

We can delve into that if you want, but surely if you have even an ounce of common sense, there are some things that take more energy and other resources, through the use of transportation, wear and tear on equipment, and other factors, than it takes to produce the product from raw material.

Oh, I do want to delve into this. I would like for you to show me some actual examples of recycling being 'tremendously wasteful.' Please be specific. It should be a trifling matter for you to do.

Quote:

Quote:
Bull sh*t. The free market is concerned with making money, not with doing what is best for the environment. This is a ridiculous thing to say, as it is completely the opposite of every bit of evidence we have. The 'free market' chooses the cheapest solution, despite the environmental impact. If it wasn't for rules forcing companies to act in a clean manner, they wouldn't.

Cycloptichorn

Again, cost reflects effort to produce and deliver the product, which includes the energy, manufacturing facilities, wear and tear on equipment, people to do it, which in turn consumes energy and all the rest. Cyclops, in a competitive free market, cost of a product is not simply pulled out of the air. There are real world reasons why things cost what they do, and it all reflects what has been used to produce it, no small part of which is energy. There is a ripple effect as well. The equipment to make equipment to make equipment to produce the product takes energy, among other things. Again, simply employ an ounce of common sense.

Where recycling is economical and efficient, it is and I am in favor of it, but I am sure it is not for all products.

Who said anything about 'all products?' Many products cannot be recycled. We aren't talking about that at all.

Your answer did not address mine, which stated that the cheapest solution is the one the market goes with. You claimed that the market is 'often a good indicator of what is most efficient, both economically and environmentally.' This is untrue. The market does not show anything about the environmental situation or impact at all. The 'free market' puts negative pressure on those companies which spend extra money to ensure that the environment is not overly harmed by their work, and rewards those which do not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I haven't studied it recently, cyclops, but common sense says recycling is not always cost or energy efficient. A quick look at it says perhaps plastic may consume more effort, energy, etc. to gather, transport, and reprocess than using the derivatives from petroleum that are otherwise available. I won't say that could not change or is changing now, due to oil price, but it has been true. I am sure there are many other examples.

Many recycling operations have failed or gone out of business in the past, because simply it was not economic, which is a huge tipoff as to the efficiency of doing it. Gathering, cleaning, transportation, etc. are not free and also have environmental impacts, and they need to be compared to the production from raw materials, and often the comparison of impact can be seen in the cost of doing it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I haven't studied it recently, cyclops, but common sense says recycling is not always cost or energy efficient. A quick look at it says perhaps plastic may consume more effort, energy, etc. to gather, transport, and reprocess than using the derivatives from petroleum that are otherwise available. I won't say that could not change or is changing now, due to oil price, but it has been true. I am sure there are many other examples.

Many recycling operations have failed or gone out of business in the past, because simply it was not economic, which is a huge tipoff as to the efficiency of doing it. Gathering, cleaning, transportation, etc. are not free and also have environmental impacts, and they need to be compared to the production from raw materials, and often the comparison of impact can be seen in the cost of doing it.

Well, if you could find some links or evidence, I'd be happy to read them.

I think that even though you are correct that the steps involved with recycling need to be taken into account, it generally is not considered to be more wasteful than simply throwing stuff away.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

foxfyre wrote :

Quote:

Instead of complaining about profitable industries making useful paper (disposable) products for humans (and dogs) and thus providing a wonderful convenience plus creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, you have to factor in that most of these products come from fully renewable sources, are mostly biodegradable, are mostly recyclable, versus the cost and environmental impact of of washing glass dishes and containers in detergent and/or having broken or worn out glass items lurking virtually forever somewhere.

Far better to push 'keep America beautiful' programs such as New Mexico's popular "toss no mas" slogan to encourage people not to litter coupled with incentives and encouragement to recycle what we can.

imo a great way "to encourage people not to litter coupled with incentives and encouragement to recycle what we can" (as foxfyre said) , would be to put a sufficient deposit on recycable goods .
if people would have to pay an extra 20 cents for a papercup , hamburger wrapper or other recycable item , they would have the choice of either recouping the money or let some kid or trash-collector do the job for them .
maybe things are different/cleaner where you live , but in ontario there is a drive on twice a year to collect the trash that other people have thrown out of their car windows or left behind .
it seems silly to me that i should waste my time picking up after others and encourage them to "pollute" even more .
btw i have seen plenty of crews - some of them prison gangs - cleaning up along the highways and byways in the united states too ; all just because a fair number of people seem to be too lazy or thoughtless "to keep it clean" .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foxfyre wrote :

Quote:
Instead of complaining about profitable industries making useful paper (disposable) products for humans (and dogs) and thus providing a wonderful convenience plus creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, you have to factor in that most of these products come from fully renewable sources, are mostly biodegradable, are mostly recyclable, versus the cost and environmental impact of of washing glass dishes and containers in detergent and/or having broken or worn out glass items lurking virtually forever somewhere.

Far better to push 'keep America beautiful' programs such as New Mexico's popular "toss no mas" slogan to encourage people not to litter coupled with incentives and encouragement to recycle what we can.

imo a great way "to encourage people not to litter coupled with incentives and encouragement to recycle what we can" (as foxfyre said) , would be to put a sufficient deposit on recycable goods .
if people would have to pay an extra 20 cents for a papercup , hamburger wrapper or other recycable item , they would have the choice of either recouping the money or let some kid or trash-collector do the job for them .
maybe things are different/cleaner where you live , but in ontario there is a drive on twice a year to collect the trash that other people have thrown out of their car windows or left behind .
it seems silly to me that i should waste my time picking up after others and encourage them to "pollute" even more .
btw i have seen plenty of crews - some of them prison gangs - cleaning up along the highways and byways in the united states too ; all just because a fair number of people seem to be too lazy or thoughtless "to keep it clean" .
hbg

In most places in the USA, there are stiff fines for littering but of course, since littering laws can only be enforced if people are caught red handed, many thoughtless people continue to do so. At least it gives those prison gangs something constructive to do.

It seems "silly to (you) that (you) should waste (your) time picking up after others and encourage them to 'pollute' even more? While I fail to see how your good example encourages people to litter, don't you see the disconnect re AGW in your reasoning here?

You tell the rest of us that by doing our small part in reducing GHG and other things deemed harmful to the environment we will make a difference on a global scale despite what billions of others do. Apparently there is no concern that some of us reducing GHG gives license to others to produce more which, by the way, is the ridiculous side of that 'carbon credit' scheme dreamed up in the Kyoto Accord.

Why wouldn't that the sample principle apply to picking up trash along the highway?

I prefer to let the market, not the government, decide what we should pay for any product. More and more government regulation is stifling and counter productive to any free market concepts and slows any progress being made in creating more affluent and therefore more environmentally friendly people around the world.

0 Replies

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

Why wouldn't that the sample principle apply to picking up trash along the highway?

because the same clean-up seems to be necessary year-after-year .
what's wrong with using a different method for a change , such as putting a deposit on items that can be recycled ?
would that be too inconvinient ?

to give an example : in ontario there is a deposit on beer-bottles - don't know if it is 10 or 20 cents .
the "brewers' warehouse" - ontario's beer sellers' agency - reports that well over 90 % of all bottles are returned !
we actually see at least one fellow who marches up-and-down one of our byways picking up empties including cans for a refund - of course he can't be expected to pick up the paper cups and other trash since he won't even get a penny for it - and he's got to make a living - it's a free market after all .
hbg

0 Replies

Who offers the refund for the returned empties? The government? Or the brewery? If the brewery, then that is a time honored concept going back at least as far as my early childhood at a time that soft drinks came in glass bottles with a nominal deposit attached and we could turn in our empties for a refund. I think at one time it was a much as a nickle but don't remember for sure. The bottles apparently could be recycled and the deposit was an incentive for that to happen.

I have an elderly friend who picks up aluminum cans on his daily walks and turns these in for cash and accumulates enough cash in this way to pay his registration fee to our church's men's retreat every year. But it isn't the government providing that cash. It is private enterprise who wants that aluminum to recycle into new products.

When it becomes sufficiently profitable for private business or government to pay people to recycle paper and cardboard, then that will become a reality. Until then, I don't think these days people on their way to work or going to Grandma's or on vacation are going to want to make their automobiles into trash trucks to carry all the refuse until they find a recycling center. Better to have ample trash receptacles and keep encouraging folks to use them. Make products more expensive than people want to pay, and you reduce sales, lower salaries, create layoffs, etc. etc. etc.

0 Replies

In Germany, the percentage of recycled paper of the total paper production is more than 50% (newspapers are compeltey and only printed on recycled paper).
Paper is collectly bi-weekly to once a month in all municipalities.

Glass bottles as well as beverage cans have a deposit on them, paid by the industry - since such was introduced, the municalities had dramatically less problems with cleaning up.

(The reason that breweries this year introduced a refund on barrels, however, is that those are frequently "taken away" and "recycled" for breweries in Far East and East Europe.)

0 Replies

We have recycling programs here too and many of us are diligent to separate out our glass, paper, and aluminum for recycling. Hamburger however seems to want us to have to pay a deposit for our McDonald's sack and beverage cup and recycle those too. I think the deposit to get people to carry that kind of stuff around in their cars or on their person would probably have to be prohibitively costly and would result in significant loss to the retailer.

0 Replies

In shops/supermarkets, you find nowadays automatic refunding maschines, even taking complete beer, water etc crates.

McDonald's has developped here an own environmental program and pays "voluntarily" for some environmental funds (and additionally "unvoluntarily" a kind of penalty, in many municipalities) because they want to keep their "selling behaviour".

0 Replies

And the beat goes on. I would imagine with some of the 'ethical' problems involving Nancy Pelosi's personal business, the scandal threateneing Diane Feinstein, William Jefferson's issues are still under investigation, and the fact that now that they have the power, they don't want to give up the perks, it looks like the 'most ethical Congress ever' is likely to be as tarnished as every other Congress seems to be. Unless the situation changes, and we are still 18 months away from the next election so lots could change, I don't foresee the Dems losing control of Congress in 2008, but their candidate for President is likely going to have to ignore some stuff to keep his/her own shiny image unblemished.

Lobbying Reform Losing Steam in House
Lobbying Reform Losing Momentum in Congress After Democrats Touted It for 2006 ElectionThe Associated Press
by CHARLES BABINGTON Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON May 11, 2007 (AP)

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats' campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.

"The longer we wait, the weaker the bill seems to get," said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, which has pushed for the changes. "The sense of urgency is fading," he said, in part because scandals such as those involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., have given way to other news.

The situation concerns some Democrats, who note their party campaigned against a "culture of corruption" in 2006, when voters ended a long run of Republican control of Congress. Several high-profile issues remained in doubt Friday, five days before the House Judiciary Committee is to take up the legislation.

They include proposals to:

Require lobbyists to disclose details about large donations they arrange for politicians.

Make former lawmakers wait two years, instead of one, before lobbying Congress.

Bar lobbyists from throwing large parties for lawmakers at national political conventions.

All appeared headed for adoption in January when the Senate, with much fanfare, included them in a lobby-reform bill that passed easily. But the provisions, plus many others in the bill, cannot become law unless the House concurs and that's where feet are dragging.

The issues are in danger of being dropped from the House version, a Democratic member close to the negotiations said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity because sensitive discussions were continuing.
SOURCE

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Steve writes

Quote:
Well I'm obviously pleased for you family's better health. But the sceptical/orthodox views of GHG do not have equal weighting. Neither you (nor I) have enough expertise to make a considered judgement. Just as with the doctor, we have to have some trust in his professional skill, and if we go with the better sounding option you have to admit there is a greater element of luck involved. When it comes to policy decisions affecting billions of people the assumption of good luck should not be relied upon.

Nor should policy be based on bad science. The very fact that policy decisions will affect billions of people is a very good argument to make sure we have it right before we implement the policy.

Allelujah. But then you have already decided GHG emissions and AGW must be BAD science, because you dont like the implications for YOUR LIFESTYLE.

0 Replies

No, we've decided that on the basis -of- that science.

Look, it's not a matter of the numbers being presented not being scary enough for us or anything. It's simply that there's a limitation on what we can conclude one way or the other from the data we're getting and the processing we can do to that data, and right now that data is far short of the point where we should conclude to do anything drastic on the basis of that data.

Should we continue studying climate change? Sure. It may be that we'll get to the point where we CAN trust the data we have. (Not to mention the ancillary benefit - a truly robust climate model will have to include much better weather forecasting, which means... we'll have better weather forecasting!)

Should we look at ways to produce energy without setting fire to a hydrocarbon? Of course! We have all sorts of good reasons to do that which have nothing to do with global warming at all. Solar or wind power, if we can get it cheap enough, is just fine for cutting into our coal-burning power generation. Nuclear is even better, we could do it tomorrow if we decided to. I wouldn't mind us working on big ol' power-collecting satellites beaming microwaves down to a receiver, for that matter.

What we should NOT do is tell our industry "you're not welcome here because you consume too much energy and it's emitting too much CO2." This is especially true when many other countries are more than happy to say "move here, bring your plants, we don't care what the hell you emit!"

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Steve writes

Quote:
Well I'm obviously pleased for you family's better health. But the sceptical/orthodox views of GHG do not have equal weighting. Neither you (nor I) have enough expertise to make a considered judgement. Just as with the doctor, we have to have some trust in his professional skill, and if we go with the better sounding option you have to admit there is a greater element of luck involved. When it comes to policy decisions affecting billions of people the assumption of good luck should not be relied upon.

Nor should policy be based on bad science. The very fact that policy decisions will affect billions of people is a very good argument to make sure we have it right before we implement the policy.
Allelujah. But then you have already decided GHG emissions and AGW must be BAD science, because you dont like the implications for YOUR LIFESTYLE.

This is utter garbage. You are so busy in dictating what I do and do not like and what I do and do not want and what I do and do not do re the environment, it almost obscures your apparent reading deficiency when I have quite plainly explained these to you.

I have accepted that you want to believe one set of scientific data and have completely blown off any conflicting scientific data. You are in good company with all the other would-be dictators out there who are quite willing to use any motive whether valid or invented to structure the lives of other people and make them pay the cost to do it.

Your motives appear to be an intense desire to dictate to me how I and all others, except the other pro-AGWers themselves of course, are to live our lives regardless of the cost and/or detriment to the poor and/or detriment to emerging nations.

When you tell me that you have cut off your lights and unplugged your computer and have moved into a tent city where you subsist on the barest necessities to sustain life, you will at least have the moral authority to suggest that others do likewise.

Until then, those of us who would rather actually do good for humankind rather than just go through the motions so that we can feel righteous will continue to look for the best conclusions and the most beneficial way to accomplish them.

If that's all right with you.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know