Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Delfos on June 01, 2007, 03:58:59 PM
-
WTH!!! 2012?! that's too late you tart!
anyway, what caused this U-turn? did they finally realised they were wrong? What will happen to all those Americans that were proud to say their government doesn't care for environmentalism and that it sucks?
and environmentalism comes again to the discussion table, bring it on!
-
You dont like Bush, do you? :P
-
I just love him, he is one of the most active figures in the modern days, appears in most of the tabloids all over the world (never for a good reason), normally a quarter of the news in EURONEWS are about Bush or Rice.
He sucks, but i love him for that. He's a strong president that is responsible for terrorism to grow, keep it up!
oh, Portugal in 2006 was considered the 9th most safest country in the world. Our army does peace keeping and people love them here and wherever they go because of that. I would mourn the day terrorists would target Portugal or the Portuguese, but i think that's far from happening, amasing how the Portuguese fill up when the Americans are gone and they aren't targeted by terrorists or Taliban or whatever.[/side_note]
This isn't about that. This is about environmentalism in USA. Why did he even thought of an U-Turn? Maybe because alot of states really care for Kyoto? Please discuss
-
9th?.... well Denmark is third, so in your face!
:P
-
For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three rare ones.
-
This is a little off topic, but... I live in the metro of the #1 green city in the US: Austin, Texas. Environmentalism is about the only "Democratic" (US party version) thing I support. Green tech interests me very much. In fact... I have a design for a green car (it ain't good though, but the idea's still there)
-
Haha, next to Austin you got Houston and Dallas, probably the dirtier cities...
I love San Antonio though, I like that river walk.
-
All I'm going to say is who's surprised about this really.
As both a biologist and a socialist I shall just point out that the best way to avoid excessive global warming is through a planned economy and greater social equity....... (honest that's officially the University of Wales's point of view, god I love my course)
-
First of all, Bush only change his stand on environmentalism because the Republican party fears the possibility of Al Gore running for President in 2008. With Al Gore's 70% approval rating among the citizen of the US the republicans know he would win. Everyone knows Al Gore is big on the environment and Bush is trying to win approval from US citizens, well it's too little, too late. This tactic just show the fear that the Republicans have in losing the next election.
-
Llan, not to mention reducing human population severly. 90% off or so.
-
you and the human population. As a documentary shows, humans live 3 times more than they should because of technology and science and all that. means we should all live until 30s? That's why we're overcrowded and getting old populations, 60 more years than we should, and that is if we consider we live to 90s. Being 100s not very often...
I bet the republicans will drive some scam to win the election *looks at the republican dynasty tree*
Anyway, whatever the US government can do now comes late. Unless they can do what Mercle appointed in 1year they will never be on the front line of environmentalism. Plus i feel irony about Bush's words and arrogance in his words when he says they must convince heavily industrial countries like China and India about environmentalism.
-
no we can support the population of the world quite happily as it is, hell 10 billion no problem, its how the resources are used, also it must be said how these people are fed (rice paddies and cows being major contributors to green house gasses).
Those countries that are causing the biggest impact on global climate change are the developed nations which have relatively stable populations or even declining populations.
Someone on a radio comedy program I was listening to had to come up with the scariest sentence they could think of, the one that one was "president Jeb Bush" the man who makes Dubbya seem eloquent and witty.
-
7.5 billion can be supported on a long-term basis with a strict vegan diet and excessive recycling. Don't see that happening any time soon. People will learn when it's too late, like they always do, unless someone intervenes.
-
That is very ironic Delfos considering that China and India have both signed the Kyoto Protocol. All industrial nations of the world have signed this, except the US. The US is also the worlds' largest polluter. With only 4.6% of the worlds population, The US produces 24% of the CO2 emissions in the world. I think if the US would just agree to follow the Kyoto Protocol and make our entire energy policy an eco-friendly one we could still save the environment. The Us needs to convert to solar and hydroelectric energy and curb our oil consumption. Cars need to run on Bio-diesel, electricity, or Ethanol. Also I think there needs to be more research into Hydrogen energy. If the US did these things, the environment would greatly improve. I know this isn't the full solution, but it would be a start.
-
The world can produce a lot more food then it does now without adverse affects to the worlds climate, however it would be better if the population tailed off about 10 billion (this is the best case scenario) as declining world population and booming world populations cause problems.
To give you an example, the EU destroys food rather then selling it to keep prices artificially high.
-
Best case scenario:
Constant population growth,
Constant population culling.
And they call me evil!
-
where did you heard that? EU has policies against food waste. The latest one says the fishermen can't throw the fish back to the sea whether it's going to be sold or not. When you catch a fish that fish is already damaged, most of them are already dead. So whatever you catch can be sold, even to produce sea food mixtures. Actually imo we have the most restricting rules over any kind of waste, and we hold up to them.
Is there recycling in your town? All western EU recycles (as far as i know), plus the rest if they do not recycle they will implement that issue to their nation.
10 billion? we already have too much people, that's shown everywhere, from catastrophic changes in climate to food chains or anything. We are destructing ourselves, the nature and other species. The next era will wipe most of the human population or maybe all of it and we're responsible.
-
Actually, Delfos, Bush has repelled many terrorist attacks. Even if you disagree with him, which virtually everyone does, you've gotta admit he's really good at detecting and stopping attacks in America and Britain.
Secondly:
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg)
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/litter_can1.jpg)
Thirdly:
At our current rate, it will take about 13,600 years for the oceans to boil from global warming. It will take something like 4,400 years for the average temperature to reach the uncomfortable 30 degrees Celcius.
Not to mention in ~250 years every fossil fuel will be used up. We'd have to try to destroy the Earth for us to continue global warming. So spew out that carbon!
-
Oh yes, and what about the 250 year downhill slope when we're running out of energy?
-
its a historical fact, food products were (and to my best knowledge still) are stockpiled till they go off or are destroyed rather then lower the market price with the suplus, don't you remember the butter and beef mountains to name just the most well known examples.
Yes there is recycling, I live in wales where recycling is taken quite seriously by the regional government, however in some places its not really recycled its just moved and burned/buried, also a lot of what is recycled is shipped around the world to china and India who deal with it causing huge pollution there. Add this to the fact that its a pretty much futile act unless everyone does it and the fact that some of the local bodies charge to have it done (so we pay them to take it away and then they get money for it from the other end).
Its not warming that we should be worried about its the shifting of currants and ecotones that should be worrying people. Also if we bring temperatures beyond a certain temperature then we get a feedback loop from carbon sinks.
Also bush was great at stopping the last two British attacks and the one in spain.
10-11 billion is the calculated level at which the earth can support without much difficulty, i.e. no huge measures have to be taken. 15 billion if we don't mind having cut backs in our lives (for example permanent rationing) and if we don't mind living in a world somewhat altered by climate change. 20-25 billion is the level at which climatic disasters would be a normal occurrence and we would have to have complete central control over all human activities, especially agriculture.
Admittedly I'd rather live in the 10-11 billion one then the others and this looks to be the level that humanity will stop at (hopefully) and so it is the one that the sensible scientists are planning for (for sensible read not wildly optimistic but not the ones that scream we're all going to die)
However of course biologists and ecologists and climatologists could if we wanted to cause an ice age with only a few billion pounds.
Trust me this has been a major part of my Degree I know what i'm talking about.
-
Bush stopped the attacks? no! Americans did! omg I'm stereotyping! Bush is also very good in funding and increasing terrorism, mostly why Spain haven't had more attacks was because they actually done what Al Qaeda asked. Same goes to Italy that pulled out his forces and hasn't been attacked.
-
the attacks in Britain were not done by foreign terrorists they were done by British born citizens with no or minimal links to any formal organization.
-
Oz- yes, I like the Riverwalk, myself. 'Specially since my uncle designed it.
Kor- OMG, Gore's running? Wow, guys, he's super serial... we better watch out for Manbearpig... lol. Gore ain't gonna win. Period.
Sol- Humans are innovative. We might go into a small "dark age" (literally), but we'll find other power sources.
-
Tal, of course, but it'll most likely be exclusive to the First World countries. Talk about global equality.
-
What does Al-Qaeda ask? Free criminals? Help destroy innocent nations? Yes, let's back down to them, woo, that's genius.
-
Nobody said life was fair. Who said we had to be equal? And if anybody in those first-world countries cries out for it, we can tell them to bring the said technology to the third-world themselves.
-
Oh, and Soly: Use nuclear power. It's fine until we come up with something better. Ignore the enviromentalists. This is the future of the human race at stake here. They'll have to deal with nuclear power until a feasible alternative shows up.
-
lol, Soly has a point. Anyway, we're already finding new sources of power, why can't the 'mightiest country in the world' (USA), help and find actual ones? Portugal had a great deal about bio-diesels, and we're poor, imagine if we were 'as mighty' as USA. What i mean is, USA is wasting potential, looking at their own bellies :) proof of that is wasting 75% of the world's oil :o i still can't believe how that is possible.
Nuclear isn't that safe. Chernobyl shows that exactly. It's hard and not very good if you want to close a nuke center, like in Spain. They can't figure a way to close the bloody central.
-
Chernobyl was the only accident that ever occured in the nuclear power age. Three Mile Island was just a big scare.
And about the USA finding alternatives: Come here and walk through any big city. Most Americans are more liberal than you and complain about the environment all day.
Conclusion:
Earth is a six-sextillion ton ball of iron. It is built to last. We're not gonna go fuck it up anytime soon.
-
The world can produce a lot more food then it does now without adverse affects to the worlds climate, however it would be better if the population tailed off about 10 billion (this is the best case scenario) as declining world population and booming world populations cause problems.
To give you an example, the EU destroys food rather then selling it to keep prices artificially high.
See, the best way to get rid of excess food without selling it would be...GIVING IT AWAY, but nobody's going to do that.
-
We're not going to destroy the planet, just make it uninhabitable for (modern) human civilisation. Take my word for it, the world would be a much better place with less people.
-
French Super-markets sell very low price food out of the super-market to the poor, pitty it's all out of consumption time. Bloody bastards, instead of giving it away...how the world gone end up.
I know that they complain about environmentalism, don't try to lecture me. Plus you talk about generalizing and hypocrisy, look at your statement.
-
Or look at your nationalism. "Portugal this, Portugal that, Portugal is the best place in the world and any American who dares disagree is a right-wing Bushie."
^Which is hypocritical because liberals are traditionally internationalist to a degree, i.e., they believe in international organisations or a world government.
-
Its been worked out that if we went into it fully, britain could provide something like 500% of our energy needs with renewables (wind and tide mainly).
Nuclear power is a really bad idea, its inefficient, dangerous and also the idea that its carbon neutral is laughable (it has to be built, and then stored for ever and a day).
Also to hit you in your capitalist sensibilities it cannot be run at anything other then a loss if there are other competing fuel sources.
The only nation it makes any sense for is japan and that's very specialist conditions.
Also portugal is quite nice I wouldn't be opposed to living there.
Though there are a few areas of america I wouldn't mind living in.
-
Luckily for nuclear power, fusion is entering the game in 2050.
-
who spoke of daring Americans? Yes I'm patriotic to a degree, as I'm socialist or Communist to a degree. So if you follow your own 'degree' theory you'll find that people are not just that or other that.
Told Portuguese products without telling the brands because you wouldn't recognize it, like: Azeite Gallo? EDP? Plus i support myself in either studies or my own point of view. I rather portuguese and french wines to spainish or any other, do i rather all portuguese or all french? there's cheap portuguese wine that seems more like donkey piss. I'm also able to criticise my own country, something that a nationalist wouldn't do. Like yourself. And i can't fully understand how a nationalist can go along with raw libertarian...libertation of your self but national ego/conservatism stays? this isn't any issue worth discussing, so stop calling people hypocrites about psycho-hypothetical contradictions when you contradict yourself.
-
Alright. A dose of reality now.
Bush has flip-flopped on it because:
1. it's another attempt to steer the American public's eye away from what they're complaining about, which is Iraq etc.
2. extend that to the international Bush-bashers - same motivation. People are stupid. Just give them something else to think about to divert their attention.
I would have thought that to be obvious to everyone. Isn't #1 exactly what he's been doing all along? Gay marriage, terrorism, WMD... really, can anyone miss this? Sleight of hand tricks. Get them to look at your left hand so they don't see what your right hand is doing. When he feels that the opposition is becoming too strong, he yells "Hey, look at that!" and while we're looking, does what he wants as quickly as possible before we look back.
And Delfos, if Americans cared so little about the environment, Bush wouldn't be using that to make us look away. He'd be choosing something that did matter to us.
End of reality check. I now return you to your previously scheduled American-bashing.
-
i like your post, but i disagree with the american-bashing. You say about diversion and even others said about giving what people want. I think it's also a way to be more acceptable by the EU. I guess the 2 issues you mentioned can be related to EU because of the anti-missile shield US wants to install in europe. I hope Portugal fails the installation of such system :D we actually have good relation with Russia (thank god), doesn't mean we approve what is happening there. Plus I'm generalizing. This failing doesn't only mean we have good relations with Russia, i personally think the system sucks for itself, and it's both useless and a provocation.
So yes...this U-turn can be just another scam.
-
Are you saying Bush is changing his stance to being pro-environment? If so thats a good thing, despite previous statement or motives in it.
-
Well, I'll agree with you there, OC, providing that he is going to take serious steps and it isn't all just so much hot air. You're right - his motivation for doing so isn't as important as the outcome if it means real improvement.
-
Even if he does not take real steps, just his words of support do a lot. It could end the fact the helping the environment is one party idea, and that both parties are willing to support our Earth. Regardless it is a step in the right direction.
-
I would hope that this will go well, regardless of the intension of the Bush administration. But I am less optimistic than most here.
Bush utterly refused to cooperate in climate goals in G8, and they were the only country not cooperating. In the new plan, he purposely included "developing countries", that include China and India. Either those countries have greater difficulties in achieving the set goals, or Bush just want to lobby those countries to set the goals lower. I bleieve his was doing this simpply to buy time and look good amid the current pressure within and outside the US.
-
7.5 billion can be supported on a long-term basis with a strict vegan diet and excessive recycling. Don't see that happening any time soon. People will learn when it's too late, like they always do, unless someone intervenes.
Strict vegan diet? I think I'd rather kill myself. Maybe that would be a nice way to cut down the world population to more manageable levels, actually.
-
Soly are you vegetarian? as in only eat vegetables?
What you say can be true, but sounds to me some kind of brainwash :p do you participate on vegetarian conventions or something? Animals and Fish are very important too in a balanced healthy diet. Can you imagine people that work on heavy labor eating vegetables only? Poor guys.
Birth control isn't that bad, but it's not very effective. Happens that where there's more hunger is where there's more children per parents..actually per mothers. If fathers would be kept responsible for this, human population would drop. Another way is the creation of national sperm banks and people get sterilised after 1st or 2nd children. If they divorced they could get their wife pregnant with sperm in the bank.
-
Delf, I love meat. Hence, I support genocide.
<.<
>.>
<.<
I think it was Stanford University that did the study on long-term preservation of the species.
-
Well, unless Bush discovers a way to drop huge ice cubes in the ocean every year, or to clean the ozone....we're going from bad to fucked up.
-
All we need is asteroid bombardment and a giant Kleenex. Next problem.
-
Well, that would certainly eliminate all current environment dilemmas. How brilliant of you, Soly.
-
Why not an universal collapse, Solar system collides with something else...a black hole! naw, we would never know if we would have the same or worse environmental problems.
-
Yes, but then there would be no one to care or to argue about what to do about it.
-
But we could survive...so the best solution is mega genocide?
-
Oh I wouldn't say it's the best. Personally, I'd prefer not to be annihilated.