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

Foxfyre wrote:

Well you want me to sign on to the Kyoto treaty for one. If you think I'm doing okay without it, why is that so important to you?

Well, the US are the single most important nation, at the moment. Whatever the States do carries weight. If the States would ratify Kyoto, and employ measures to reduce the pollution of this planet, that would give them some weight in telling others not to destroy the environment and poison the Earth.

Now, for the "crippling strike to the US economy", I still haven't seen a single point on this issue. Please, Foxy, could you explain to me why it would be so devastating to the States?

0 Replies

Oh, and just because I don't want to let you get through with this one. You said

Foxfyre wrote:

None of those countries that have signed onto Kyoto have an economy, lifestyle, or culture anything like the U.S.

Mhm. Noted. NONE of those countries... an economy, lifestyle, or culture ANYTHING like the US... Now, I said

old europe wrote:

I'd dare to say that Canada is quite comparable when it comes to economy, lifestyle or culture. Yet, Canada has signed and ratified the Koyoto protocol on December 17, 2002.

And you answered

Foxfyre wrote:

Canada is not in Europe either. And they have a population that approximates one or two American states. And they are one of 157 and therefore not exactly representative.

You were not asking for a country that is representative, but for a country that is comparable. You were not asking for a European country, but for a country that is comparable. Now, I'm sorry that I can't give you another country with 291 million inhabitants and an exactly comparable lifestyle, economy, culture, whatever like the United States. But your answer has nothing to do with what I posted. You were probably reading too fast.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Well you want me to sign on to the Kyoto treaty for one. If you think I'm doing okay without it, why is that so important to you?

Well, the US are the single most important nation, at the moment. Whatever the States do carries weight. If the States would ratify Kyoto, and employ measures to reduce the pollution of this planet, that would give them some weight in telling others not to destroy the environment and poison the Earth.

Now, for the "crippling strike to the US economy", I still haven't seen a single point on this issue. Please, Foxy, could you explain to me why it would be so devastating to the States?

Where did I use the phrase 'crippling strike to the US economy'? But in the simplest terms we have been losing major manufacturing jobs to countries who pay far lower wages, who aren't threatened with product liability suits every time they turn around, and who are not burdened by massive regulations controling every phase of production. Nothing in Kyoto addresses that issue nor offers the US any relief for the inevitable acceleration of flight of jobs to more hospitable territory when even more regulations are imposed. That's one issue. I do not have the expertise to calculate the costs of reconfiguring factory emissions, adapting U.S. cars to import models, etc. etc. etc., but trust those who have done the calculations. We enjoy a 5% unemploymnent rate even with the massive job loss due to the hurricanes. How does that compare with most European, Asian, and African nations?

We are the most important nation? We certainly aren't treated as such in the European press. In fact we feel that we are pretty well despised no matter what we do. So there isn't all that much support to please nations that obviously aren't going to like us unless we become exactly like them. I think most Americans think the price to be too high.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Rush Limbaugh is the #1 rated radio talk show in the U.S. If he has discussed global warming on his show, however, I must have missed that. But then I don't listen to a lot of Rush though he is sometimes running in the background when I have the radio on. I usually have C-span running in the background when I'm working at home.

Anyhow, the following links are offered without comment or endorsement but they do provide some of the opposing point of view on the subject of global warming.

Volcanism greenhouse extinction theory
http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html

No they don't. You didn't bother to read them did you Fox.
This one clearly states that increased CO2 causes global warming.

Quote:

In support of Parados's opinion is the following that also offers much
more than Parados's opinion:
Sulfates also produced by burning fossil fuels can lower temperatures
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_10_22.html

This one states - " Increases in greenhouse gas in our atmosphere can create changes in global temperatures that, in turn, disrupt the environmental balance. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important component in the potent chemical cocktail of greenhouse gases. It is the gas whose concentration is most affected by human activity. The major source of human-made CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels. CO2 concentrations have increased by more than 20% in the short period since industrialization and are expected to double sometime after the year 2040."

Quote:

This one says - "Last year, scientists discovered that the northern hemisphere was becoming increasingly greener due to increased warming."

It talks about volcano COOLING that occurs from particulates which slowed the greening process during the time after Pinatubo erupted.

Quote:

Mud volcanoes
http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/science/040601rf.html

Volcano contributions not discounted
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/hegerl/2002gl016635.pdf

Volcanic eruptions cause cooling according to this one again because of particulates. And increased CO2 causes warming is the other conclusion.

Quote:

Petition project
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Out of date argument that has been abandoned by any scientist.

Quote:

The oceans, not the atmosphere control climatology.
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

This has - "Gary Novak, Biologist - stating - "Global Warming It exists, but not due to greenhouse gases. Oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core." I had a wonderful laugh over it. Just as I would if a geologist claimed that plants could feel pain. Its called SCIENCE. Give me an actual study, not a crackpot speaking outside is so called expertise.

Quote:

Maybe global warming is actually good for us.
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

In short Foxfyre. Not a single one of your links said anything that remotely supported your claim that volcanoes give off more greenhouse gases than man made sources.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Where did I use the phrase 'crippling strike to the US economy'? But in the simplest terms we have been losing major manufacturing jobs to countries who pay far lower wages, who aren't threatened with product liability suits every time they turn around, and who are not burdened by massive regulations controling every phase of production. Nothing in Kyoto addresses that issue nor offers the US any relief for the inevitable acceleration of flight of jobs to more hospitable territory when even more regulations are imposed. That's one issue. I do not have the expertise to calculate the costs of reconfiguring factory emissions, adapting U.S. cars to import models, etc. etc. etc., but trust those who have done the calculations. We enjoy a 5% unemploymnent rate even with the massive job loss due to the hurricanes. How does that compare with most European, Asian, and African nations?

We are the most important nation? We certainly aren't treated as such in the European press. In fact we feel that we are pretty well despised no matter what we do. So there isn't all that much support to please nations that obviously aren't going to like us unless we become exactly like them. I think most Americans think the price to be too high.

Let's focus on one issue: How would it hurt the US economy if all the new cars would guzzle up significantly less fuel than the current models?

You don't even need regulations or laws as an incentive. You could simply raise taxes on fuel by 100%. That would still be lower than what Europeans are paying, but undoubtedly be a huge incentive towards building more fuel-efficient cars, wouldn't it?

0 Replies

Okay Parados. Whatever you say. You are obviously a climatologist, geologist, and oceanographer all rolled into one and I bow to your superior expertise.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Where did I use the phrase 'crippling strike to the US economy'? But in the simplest terms we have been losing major manufacturing jobs to countries who pay far lower wages, who aren't threatened with product liability suits every time they turn around, and who are not burdened by massive regulations controling every phase of production. Nothing in Kyoto addresses that issue nor offers the US any relief for the inevitable acceleration of flight of jobs to more hospitable territory when even more regulations are imposed. That's one issue. I do not have the expertise to calculate the costs of reconfiguring factory emissions, adapting U.S. cars to import models, etc. etc. etc., but trust those who have done the calculations. We enjoy a 5% unemploymnent rate even with the massive job loss due to the hurricanes. How does that compare with most European, Asian, and African nations?

We are the most important nation? We certainly aren't treated as such in the European press. In fact we feel that we are pretty well despised no matter what we do. So there isn't all that much support to please nations that obviously aren't going to like us unless we become exactly like them. I think most Americans think the price to be too high.

Let's focus on one issue: How would it hurt the US economy if all the new cars would guzzle up significantly less fuel than the current models?

You don't even need regulations or laws as an incentive. You could simply raise taxes on fuel by 100%. That would still be lower than what Europeans are paying, but undoubtedly be a huge incentive towards building more fuel-efficient cars, wouldn't it?

Did you pay any attention at all to the issues faced by US auto makers now? Make those automobiles significantly more expensive, under powered, or whatever and it will only exacerbate the trade deficits we already have. Raise taxes? That's a great way to slow production, repress the economy, and there goes our 5% unemployment rate. For proof look to your own economy.

No, I think we'll manage quite nicely doing it our way.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Did you pay any attention at all to the issues faced by US auto makers now? Make those automobiles significantly more expensive, under powered, or whatever and it will only exacerbate the trade deficits we already have. Raise taxes? That's an excellent way to slow production, repress the economy, and there goes our 5% unemployment rate. For proof look to your own economy.

No, I think we'll manage quite nicely doing it our way.

Well, how did US auto makers get into trouble in the first place? Maybe because they can't sell their gas guzzlers anywhere else because people can't afford it? Maybe because they're not competitive?

Foxy, are Japanese or French or Italian or German or British cars significantly more expensive? Are they underpowered? I don't think so. Still, the average mileage you get out of an American car is 25. In comparison, I think it's about 40 for a European and 45 for an Asian car.

And yes, raise gas taxes. Why not? If you get cars that need half as much fuel as the ones you have now, you might end up paying less as an effect.

And no, this has nothing to do with unemployment rates. Look at the UK: at an unemployment rate lower than the US they have a gas price of, what, $5,50?

And you could follow the Norwegian model as well: zero-taxes for zero-emission vehicles. Meanwhile, the Norwegian economy doesn't seem to be doing too badly.

Nope. The problem in the US is that people see polluting the environment as a given right, and use every excuse to go on doing so.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay Parados. Whatever you say. You are obviously a climatologist, geologist, and oceanographer all rolled into one and I bow to your superior expertise.

Not at all. I just understand how to read and I know the difference between a scientific study that contains data and one that doesn't.

Throwing things out hoping to bury the other person in paper doesn't work if you don't bother to read it yourself first and see if it really supports your opinion.

0 Replies

Okay, more ideas that don't include raising taxes as incentives for zero- or low emission cars

- remove registration taxes
- remove vehicle taxation
- remove road tolls
- remove VAT
- give drivers the right to use bus lanes
- give drivers the right to always use diamond lanes

... and then, raise the gas taxes, hehehehehe!

0 Replies

OE,
You said...

Quote:

Now, for the "crippling strike to the US economy", I still haven't seen a single point on this issue. Please, Foxy, could you explain to me why it would be so devastating to the States?

Tell me,have you actually READ the Kyoto accords?
If you havent,here it is
http://www.restoringamerica.org/documents/kyoto_text.html#targets

Now,there is a rather interesting part of it,and it refers to who pays for it.
You might find this interesting...

"Article 11
In the implementation of Article 10, Parties shall take into account the provisions of Article 4, paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Convention.

2. In the context of the implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 11 of the Convention, and through the operating entity or entities of the financial mechanism of the Convention, the developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention shall: (a) Provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing country Parties in advancing the implementation of existing commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention that are covered in Article 10, subparagraph (a); and (b) Also provide such financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, needed by the developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs of advancing the implementation of existing commitments in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention that are covered by Article 10 and that are agreed between a developing country Party and the international entity or entities referred to in Article 11 of the Convention, in accordance with that Article. The implementation of these existing commitments shall take into account the need for adequacy and predictability in the flow of funds and the importance of appropriate burden sharing among developed country Parties. The guidance to the financial mechanism of the Convention in relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties, including those agreed before the adoption of this Protocol, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions of this paragraph. 3. The developed country Parties and other developed Parties in Annex II to the Convention may also provide, and developing country Parties avail themselves of, financial resources for the implementation of Article 10, through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels."

What this says is that the developed countries MUST pay for the undeveloped countries.

Also,look at the list of countries.
China is not on there,and they are a rapidly developing powerhouse.
They are also a major polluter and have on of the worst environmental records.
There are many countries not listed on the accords,and all of them are in the developing world.

Here is another interesting about the Kyoto accords...
http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Okay Parados. Whatever you say. You are obviously a climatologist, geologist, and oceanographer all rolled into one and I bow to your superior expertise.

Not at all. I just understand how to read and I know the difference between a scientific study that contains data and one that doesn't.

Throwing things out hoping to bury the other person in paper doesn't work if you don't bother to read it yourself first and see if it really supports your opinion.

Drawing conclusions about what I was throwing out and hoping for that directly contradict what I specificially said I was throwing out there simply sinks your argument altogether.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Did you pay any attention at all to the issues faced by US auto makers now? Make those automobiles significantly more expensive, under powered, or whatever and it will only exacerbate the trade deficits we already have. Raise taxes? That's an excellent way to slow production, repress the economy, and there goes our 5% unemployment rate. For proof look to your own economy.

No, I think we'll manage quite nicely doing it our way.

Well, how did US auto makers get into trouble in the first place? Maybe because they can't sell their gas guzzlers anywhere else because people can't afford it? Maybe because they're not competitive?

Foxy, are Japanese or French or Italian or German or British cars significantly more expensive? Are they underpowered? I don't think so. Still, the average mileage you get out of an American car is 25. In comparison, I think it's about 40 for a European and 45 for an Asian car.

And yes, raise gas taxes. Why not? If you get cars that need half as much fuel as the ones you have now, you might end up paying less as an effect.

And no, this has nothing to do with unemployment rates. Look at the UK: at an unemployment rate lower than the US they have a gas price of, what, $5,50?

And you could follow the Norwegian model as well: zero-taxes for zero-emission vehicles. Meanwhile, the Norwegian economy doesn't seem to be doing too badly.

Nope. The problem in the US is that people see polluting the environment as a given right, and use every excuse to go on doing so.

The US auto manufacturers are staying in business building cars that Americans want and can't get anywhere else. If they try to compete with the foreign cars, primarily the Japanese cars, they will be sunk in no time.
The government doesn't run the U.S. economy. The people do. We think it works best that way.

The United States is not Norway. And we are not the U.K. which has a land mass smaller than our State of Oregon and a population about 20% of that of the U.S making it much more densely populated with a lot less open space.

Don't you think you are a bit presumptious to say we think it is our right to pollute? Are you as equally critical of China which is quite large, much more heavily populated, and definitely more guilty of pollution than is the United States? Would your opinion mean that you have ignored my previous posts?

I hope you read through the site that Mysteryman posted. SEPP is not the only group who share the opinion that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that anything humans are doing has a significant impact on global climatology.

It is our right as a sovereign nation to look out for the best interests of the United States because it is damn sure nobody else is going to. And I think you can count on the United States people and government to do the right thing once we determine what the right thing is.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Tell me,have you actually READ the Kyoto accords?

Yes, I have. Let's have another look at them. Now, the ONLY point where it says that the developed countries shall (must) pay something is this here

Quote:

[...] the developed country Parties [...] shall

Provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing country Parties in advancing the implementation of existing commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention that are covered in Article 10, subparagraph (a);

Now, we obviously have to look at Article 4:

Quote:

1. Any Parties included in Annex I that have reached an agreement to fulfil their commitments under Article 3 jointly, shall be deemed to have met those commitments provided that their total combined aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of Article 3. The respective emission level allocated to each of the Parties to the agreement shall be set out in that agreement.

2. The Parties to any such agreement shall notify the secretariat of the terms of the agreement on the date of deposit of their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval of this Protocol, or accession thereto. The secretariat shall in turn inform the Parties and signatories to the Convention of the terms of the agreement.

3. Any such agreement shall remain in operation for the duration of the commitment period specified in Article 3, paragraph 7.

4. If Parties acting jointly do so in the framework of, and together with, a regional economic integration organization, any alteration in the composition of the organization after adoption of this Protocol shall not affect existing commitments under this Protocol. Any alteration in the composition of the organization shall only apply for the purposes of those commitments under Article 3 that are adopted subsequent to that alteration.

5. In the event of failure by the Parties to such an agreement to achieve their total combined level of emission reductions, each Party to that agreement shall be responsible for its own level of emissions set out in the agreement.

6. If Parties acting jointly do so in the framework of, and together with, a regional economic integration organization which is itself a Party to this Protocol, each member State of that regional economic integration organization individually, and together with the regional economic integration organization acting in accordance with Article 24, shall, in the event of failure to achieve the total combined level of emission reductions, be responsible for its level of emissions as notified in accordance with this Article.

Yeah. Sad but true. Exactly the fact you are critizising - the high emission levels granted to countries like China - basically free the developed countries from having to pay anything.

Only if those developing countries would be forced to accept lower emission levels, and consequently fail, then Article 11 would call for the developed countries covering the costs.

You can't have it both ways: complain that Kyoto is a toothless tiger, and at the same time say you're not joining exactly because this is the case.

0 Replies

foxfire wrote :
"The US auto manufacturers are staying in business building cars that Americans want and can't get anywhere else. If they try to compete with the foreign cars, primarily the Japanese cars, they will be sunk in no time.
The government doesn't run the U.S. economy. The people do. We think it works best that way".

here is a summary of the article "carmakers - suddenly, small is beautiful" from the oct 17 issue of "business week'. the article is based upon research by edmunds.com , a santa monica auto research firm.
- small car sales for september were up 23% in september. they now make up 18% of the u.s. market - up from 13% a year ago.
-suv sales are down 33% in september at 14% of the market - 19% a year ago.

most of these small, new cars are imports from asia - a few, like mini cooper and audi A 3 from europe.
chrysler seems ready to come out with some new small cars - the jeep compass and the dodge caliber(rated at 34 miles/gallon).

in general the sales of GM, FORD and CHRYSLER are down . some of these problems are mirrored in the shares of GM which have taken a beating in the market, and have been classified as "near junk" by some investment analysts.

i'd hope the north-american car-makers heed the wake-up call and produce cars for today's market soon . (i drive a six year old olds-intrigue; the next car will be a smaller, more efficient one. who will make it and where will it be assembled ?). hbg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The US auto manufacturers are staying in business building cars that Americans want and can't get anywhere else. If they try to compete with the foreign cars, primarily the Japanese cars, they will be sunk in no time.

Foxy, don't you think that's rather part of the problem? Japanese auto manufacturers are building cars that the Japanese want, and they're selling to the US. European auto manufacturers are building cars that the Europeans want, and they're selling to the US. Now, wouldn't it be smart for US auto manufacturers to in turn focus on the international markets instead of merely on the domestic ones?

Foxfyre wrote:

The government doesn't run the U.S. economy. The people do. We think it works best that way.

Yeah. I know. I don't want what you want to tell me, but it's probably something....

Foxfyre wrote:

The United States is not Norway. And we are not the U.K. which has a land mass smaller than our State of Oregon and a population about 20% of that of the U.S making it much more densely populated with a lot less open space.

.... sooooo? Don't you think Norway is right in giving incentives for zero-emission vehicles? Don't you think this could work in the US, even though you're NOT Norway? And why do you have to have cars that use up twice as much fuel just because you're living in a country that is less densely populated and has more open space? I still can't figure out how that's supposed to be connected.

Foxfyre wrote:

Don't you think you are a bit presumptious to say we think it is our right to pollute?

Uh, yes I think I am. Do you think it is a bit americacentric to state that it is "your right as a sovereign nation to look out for the best interests of the United States" when these interests seem to consist in polluting this planet, no matter what? All the while, having the highest CO2 emissions worldwide? Almost twice as much as the EU-15 (which has 100 million people more) or China (which has 4 times the population of the States).

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you as equally critical of China which is quite large, much more heavily populated, and definitely more guilty of pollution than is the United States?

You can be damn sure of that one. That, at the same time, means looking for a solution. Now, China joined Kyoto. What do you propose, how should China solve the problem. Or should we rather wait until China gets to the level of the United States, so that the US would be in a better position to critizise?

Foxfyre wrote:

Would your opinion mean that you have ignored my previous posts?

I have not ignored your previous posts. I just haven't found a conclusive argument why the US shouldn't lower the emission of greenhouse gases, no matter what. You might say that this is an American problem, and no business of mine. Alas, the CO2 and greenhouse gases don't think so. They just don't want to stay where they came from, the nasty buggers.

Foxfyre wrote:

I hope you read through the site that Mysteryman posted. SEPP is not the only group who share the opinion that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that anything humans are doing has a significant impact on global climatology.

Sure. Problem is, you have no precedent. You don't even have to follow one theory or the other. Conservativism dictates to be careful when releasing on thing or the other into the atmosphere. People thought radiation was harmless, or even healthy. They were wrong. People thought CFCs were harmless. That proved to be wrong, too.
Now, you have an observable, probably unprecedented, increase in CO2. Do you really think it is wise to just not bother about that, even without knowing for sure what the results might be?

Foxfyre wrote:

And I think you can count on the United States people and government to do the right thing once we determine what the right thing is.

I have a lot of faith in the United States, but I think it's ridiculous to assume that one single country would be infallible and always right in its decisions. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea after all to recognize that you can handle things not just the American way. Of course, if this is what you meant by "determining what the right thing is", then I'm with you.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foxfire wrote :
"The US auto manufacturers are staying in business building cars that Americans want and can't get anywhere else. If they try to compete with the foreign cars, primarily the Japanese cars, they will be sunk in no time.
The government doesn't run the U.S. economy. The people do. We think it works best that way".

here is a summary of the article "carmakers - suddenly, small is beautiful" from the oct 17 issue of "business week'. the article is based upon research by edmunds.com , a santa monica auto research firm.
- small car sales for september were up 23% in september. they now make up 18% of the u.s. market - up from 13% a year ago.
-suv sales are down 33% in september at 14% of the market - 19% a year ago.

most of these small, new cars are imports from asia - a few, like mini cooper and audi A 3 from europe.
chrysler seems ready to come out with some new small cars - the jeep compass and the dodge caliber(rated at 34 miles/gallon).

in general the sales of GM, FORD and CHRYSLER are down . some of these problems are mirrored in the shares of GM which have taken a beating in the market, and have been classified as "near junk" by some investment analysts.

i'd hope the north-american car-makers heed the wake-up call and produce cars for today's market soon . (i drive a six year old olds-intrigue; the next car will be a smaller, more efficient one. who will make it and where will it be assembled ?). hbg

Well my husband and I stick with Subarus that have served us well over the last 20 years, and of course they are not U.S. made. Still they are reliable, hold up well, and are economical both to buy and operate. I don't know of any Japanese cars that are getting the average mpg that OE cited for Asian cars, however, so I'm assuming the Japanese are building cars for American tastes and that means cars with something of a kick and ability to get on down the road. Hondas and Toyotas invariably head lists of favorite American cars. Americans are competing with some success by offering muscle and amenities you don't find in the imports for the same money and in the past, they haven't done as well with the small cars. But there are a fair number of Americans who buy American made as a matter of principle.

America is also pioneering alternate fuels such as ethanol. I was watching on the news tonight that there is a by product of beer that Coors has developed into auto fuel and it works good. They used to just throw the stuff away. Electric cars and hybrids are catching on slowly, but I don't forsee them being big out here in the wide open spaces for a very long time.

I have seen so many advancements and improvements in my lifetime and the next decades will show many more. I know Americans will do what is sensible and right. But they'll do it on their own terms. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

America is also pioneering alternate fuels such as ethanol. I was watching on the news tonight that there is a by product of beer that Coors has developed into auto fuel and it works good. They used to just throw the stuff away.

Don't want to disappoint you, but that's hardly "pioneering alternate fuels". It has been done for decades in Brazil. Brazil owns 36% of the global market on ethanol. It's not being made from Coors beer there, but rather from sugarcane. Last year, Brazil produced about 18 million tons of ethanol, and the gas you can buy at gas stations always contains 25% ethanol.

The program was started in 1975 by the military dictatorship, and was called "Proalcool". VW do Brasil was happy to participate in the highly profitable program, and during the 80's, 90 to 95 percent of all cars ran on alcohol.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

America is also pioneering alternate fuels such as ethanol.

I'd thought, Brazil (ethanol from sugarcane) and Russia (methanol from eucalyptus) were the leading countries here since years.

0 Replies

As I read through this rather lengthy post, I nearly laughed aloud at some of the egregiously mistaken positions taken by those who think the sky is falling. Blatham's arguments, in particular, seem to be the most ineffictive.

There are many many questions which must be answered when the topic of "global warming" is discussed.

I will begin with one that stems from the nineties. In 1997 the US Senate voted NOT to ratify any climate change treaty that exempted developing nations and caused "serious harm" to the US economy.

The Senate voted 95-0.

I find that a most persuasive margin. I am sure that the Senators had good reason for their unanimity.

Does anyone think they know why the vote was so one sided?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know