Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Global Warming-Politcal or not?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


madriver


Feb 2, 2007, 10:07 AM
Post #1 of 7 (404 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700

Global Warming-Politcal or not?
Report this Post
Can't Post

So if in fact there is "Man Made Global Warming", did it occur over the last six years or is this a cumulative problem that we can blame both parties for. Or is it a “Man Kind” problem, with enough blame to go around for all. I ask because it would appear that the battle lines are drawn between the two political parties, the Democrats blaming, as usual, the American male for our impending doom, and the Republicans saying that there is no problem and that the Dems are “Chicken Little”. Regardless of which party is right, isn’t in all of our best interests to curb our dependency and use of fossil fuels? Shouldn’t it be a united front that both parties can utilize as a common cause to rid us of the scourge that is oil? I don’t get it, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again “Oil” the number one problem that confronts us all. Regardless of your stance on the political issue of Global Warming, the common solution to both Global Warming and National Security (our dependency on Middle Eastern Oil) is something that ALL of us should unite behind. I don’t think it should be a political issue and our politicians should understand that.


scrapedape


Feb 2, 2007, 10:53 AM
Post #2 of 7 (391 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [madriver] Global Warming-Politcal or not? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

You are quite right and most leaders in Washington would agree with you. The problem becomes how we solve the problem. Some say we need to drastically increase fuel efficiency. Some say we need to drasatically ramp up the production of alternatives to oil. Others say we need to drive our cars less. Then there are those of us who say that we'd better be looking pretty hard at doing all three, because no one of these solutions is a silver bullet.

Even when you get into questions of alternative fuels there are debates over how to best do it. Coal to liquids technology (making gasoline, diesel, etc out of coal) can do a lot for energy security, since the US has a lot of coal. But that technology would double the emissions of greenhouse gases produced for every gallon of fuel delivered. So it is a 100% non-starter with folks who see the need to deal with climate change.

Even ethanol, which everyone loves these days, isn't all the same. Right now it gives you about a 15% reduction in GHGs, on average, compared to gasoline. But if you build new ethanol plants that get their process heat from coal, and some are now doing, then you get zero climate benefit... though the government will still pay out $0.75 for every gallon of gasoline replaced. On the other hand new technology could produce ethanol that cuts GHGs by 80% - but it would still get the same tax credit from the government.

So while some solutions to climate change (reducing miles traveled, improving efficiency) will also help with energy security, there are certain areas where these two goals are at odds. You would at least think the government would get to work on the solutions we know will work for both!


(This post was edited by scrapedape on Feb 2, 2007, 10:54 AM)


amazon


Feb 2, 2007, 11:11 AM
Post #3 of 7 (381 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 28, 2005
Posts: 84

Re: [madriver] Global Warming-Politcal or not? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Regardless of your stance on the political issue of Global Warming, the common solution to both Global Warming and National Security (our dependency on Middle Eastern Oil) is something that ALL of us should unite behind. I don’t think it should be a political issue and our politicians should understand that.

You have to ask yourself.. WHO owns my politician?

What industry made the largest campaign contributions to the current administration.. and in what industry did most of them work before going to Washington.. and how much are they STILL making from that industry.... then go HMMMMMMM


dingus


Feb 2, 2007, 11:31 AM
Post #4 of 7 (376 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17361

Re: [madriver] Global Warming-Politcal or not? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Of course its political. Of course its a long time a-building. Of course all industrial mankind shares a collective responsibility. That and 4 dollars gets you a cup of lukewarm bitter coffee at Starbucks.

And of course it will be dealt with in due course.

The capitalist solution is simple and succinct and it WILL work: "let the market decide." There is no question in my mind, none whatsoever, that the market if left to its own devices will eventually react.

The problem, as always with capitalism, is the many little bodies that get chewed up and spit out of the machine before it decides enough is enough.

Summarized, capitalism will replace greenhouse gas causing emissions as soon as something less costly becomes available, and not a moment sooner (keep in mind collective cost, not just cost at the pump or on the electric meter). As the perceived damages of global warming mount, these additional costs will help 'fuel' the transition to greener energy sources.

The activist and social oriented forces in our country know all this just like you and I know this. They passionately believe 'let the market decide' is not good enough, not by a long shot. They worry the market will not decide until catastrophic changes are already inevitable.

So they say America must lead the way.

I'm swayed by the reality of capitalism and I am also persuaded by the common sense of activism - we must do something now even if we must lead the way (politically and economically).

Kyoto is oft cited as a failure of this administration to take a bold step forward. I happen to agree with that dumbass in the white house that Kyoto was a bad deal for America... it would have placed the bill for Chinese and Indian emissions on our ledger, that's BULLSHIT.

We don't need to lead that way, that's a fools' parade.

Any international agreement MUST include ironclad trade restrictions. We must outlaw 'off=-shoring' of pollution. We must ding the hell out of ALL chinese, indian and any other source of goods that flagrantly dumps billions of tons of shit into out atmosphere producing the Walmart crap we all love to buy.

So I see the solution as combined, activism, capitalism and protectionism all rolled up, ergo politics.

It will happen btw. WHEN, is the only pertinent question now.

Unless all those scientists are wrong. I'm not banking on that outcome and belief in global warming (or lack thereof) is not a religious matter as it is for many folk.

DMT


slablizard


Feb 2, 2007, 11:33 AM
Post #5 of 7 (373 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558

Re: [dingus] Global Warming-Politcal or not? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

PARIS (AFP) - French President Jacques Chirac opened a Paris conference on world environmental governance with a call for a green "revolution" to meet the challenges of global warming.

"Soon will come a day when climate change escapes all control. We are on the verge of the irreversible," Chirac told the meeting, which began just hours after the release of a key United Nations scientific report on global warming.

"Faced with this emergency, the time is not for half measures. The time is for a revolution -- a revolution of consciousness, a revolution of the economy. A revolution of political action."

Chirac opened the two-day gathering flanked by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, head of the UN General Assembly Sheikha Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa and Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I.

"Our international political system is inadequate for dealing with the vital challenge of the 21st century -- the question of the environment," Chirac told the gathering of some 200 delegates, including environment ministers and scientists from more than 50 countries.

Warning that "in this area too, unilateralism leads to a dead-end," Chirac argued that the existing UN Environment Programme should be transformed into a full-blown United Nations Environment Agency (UNEA), with more far-reaching powers and greater means.

"This UNEA will carry the environmental conscience of the world," he said. "With a strong political mandate... it will give greater strength, greater coherence to our common action."

Chirac said the Paris conference aimed to build a coalition of support for the creation of such an agency, an idea widely backed in Europe but opposed by the United States, as well as emerging powers Brazil, China and India.

"We are, and rightly so, proud of our intelligence and our technical achievements. But in the space of a few centuries we have burned resources accumulated over millions of years," he told the gathering.

"We are destroying eco-systems that sheltered a biodiversity lost for ever, depriving ourselves of vital keys for the future. We know all this: so what are we waiting for to take the necessary measures?" he asked.

He called for a "radical transformation of our methods of production and consumption," calling for a break with past technologies and a massive shift towards clean energies such as solar power, and bio-energy.

"But to do so we need clear and loyal rules of competition. Either the international community works to create them, or we face 'ecological war'," he warned.

He said the effort must be "fairly shared," saying "northern countries, first to build their wealth on the mass exploitation of natural resources, must accept their responsibilities."

The assessment released on Friday by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said global warming was almost certainly caused by humans, and carbon pollution disgorged this century would disrupt the climate system for 1,000 years to come.


scrapedape


Feb 2, 2007, 11:53 AM
Post #6 of 7 (366 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [slablizard] Global Warming-Politcal or not? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Oh boy.
Another French Revolution?
Off with their heads!


winkwinklambonini


Feb 3, 2007, 3:58 PM
Post #7 of 7 (345 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Posts: 1579

Re: [dingus] Global Warming-Politcal or not? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dingus wrote:

The capitalist solution is simple and succinct and it WILL work: "let the market decide." There is no question in my mind, none whatsoever, that the market if left to its own devices will eventually react.

The problem, as always with capitalism, is the many little bodies that get chewed up and spit out of the machine before it decides enough is enough.

Summarized, capitalism will replace greenhouse gas causing emissions as soon as something less costly becomes available, and not a moment sooner (keep in mind collective cost, not just cost at the pump or on the electric meter). As the perceived damages of global warming mount, these additional costs will help 'fuel' the transition to greener energy sources.

The activist and social oriented forces in our country know all this just like you and I know this. They passionately believe 'let the market decide' is not good enough, not by a long shot. They worry the market will not decide until catastrophic changes are already inevitable.

So they say America must lead the way.

I'm swayed by the reality of capitalism and I am also persuaded by the common sense of activism - we must do something now even if we must lead the way (politically and economically).

Kyoto is oft cited as a failure of this administration to take a bold step forward. I happen to agree with that dumbass in the white house that Kyoto was a bad deal for America... it would have placed the bill for Chinese and Indian emissions on our ledger, that's BULLSHIT.

We don't need to lead that way, that's a fools' parade.

Any international agreement MUST include ironclad trade restrictions. We must outlaw 'off=-shoring' of pollution. We must ding the hell out of ALL chinese, indian and any other source of goods that flagrantly dumps billions of tons of shit into out atmosphere producing the Walmart crap we all love to buy.

So I see the solution as combined, activism, capitalism and protectionism all rolled up, ergo politics.

It will happen btw. WHEN, is the only pertinent question now.

Unless all those scientists are wrong. I'm not banking on that outcome and belief in global warming (or lack thereof) is not a religious matter as it is for many folk.

DMT

I would argue that capitalism already failed when it comes to global warming, warming cannot be slowed for centuries. On one hand this means there's no rush to react, on the other it means the system in place reacted too slowly and maybe we should change it.Capitalism could have worked if it's incentives made sense.

I currently believe govs' role is to regulate the markets' incentives toward sustainable practices based on sound science. This would mean giving subsidies to renewable energy and NOT to big oil. Also the tax system needs to change to discourage pollution. A monkey could have foreseen really bad issues with depending on the middle east for the backbone of our economy. And the science was sound on man made climate change years ago..... If gov stepped in a regulated like it should in the name of public health and safety.

Unless your a zombie and belief the dow jones is the best measure of public well being.

As far as politics. No party has a monopoly on taking $ from Exxon/Mobil, for example that dem from michigan who repeatedly apposes mileage standards. But it's close.


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook