Bush admin about to reverse itself on global warming.

[amp]

In a low key admission, Bush officials are allowing that they were wrong in their summary dismissal of man induced atmospheric warming.

link:www.nytimes.com/2002/06/03/science/03CLIM.html

 

[member 5645]

I can only hope all the extremist hippy morons will move towards the center as well so we can actually get some REAL dialogue going, rather than rhetoric BS.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can only hope all the extremist hippy morons will move towards the center as well so we can actually get some REAL dialogue going, rather than rhetoric BS.

By your post it would seem that it is the right, not the left that needs to get their act together...speaking of ridiculous rhetoric.

 

[Prometheus]

I can only hope all the extremist hippy morons will move towards the center as well so we can actually get some REAL dialogue going, rather than rhetoric BS.

I have no idea who you are talking about, but I am sure that they must know who they are and that this sincere statement will be a wonderful inducement to get some REAL dialog going.

 

[kat]

I'd like to see more on this, or an actual comment on the .gov sites...I trust the NYT to report accurately about as far as I can throw a...

 

[kat]

here's the EPA report: http://www.gcrio.org/CAR2002/
I don't see a BIG change in policy. Maybe someone else can clarify it for me.

 

[Adam]

I can only hope all the extremist hippy morons will move towards the center as well so we can actually get some REAL dialogue going, rather than rhetoric BS.

So, Bush was wrong, the "extremist hippy morons" were right, and they should both change positions?

 

[studentx]

Yes Adam, they should both change positions. I think Phat was worried that the hippymorons are too addicted to their hate to move forward.

 

[Adam]

So being right equals being addicted to hate now?

 

[member 5645]

Yes Adam, they should both change positions. I think Phat was worried that the hippymorons are too addicted to their hate to move forward.

My point exactly. There's no dialogue on either side, and hasn't been for a long time. Bush moving to the center is worthless so long as the other side is still running around using the green movement as a front for their political idealogies (go to an 'environmental' protest, and see how many anti-capitalism, anti-globalization, etc. signs there are. It's got little, to nothing, to do with the environment)

And I used 'hippie morons' to push some buttons to bring some out of the wood work. And it worked :)

 

[member 5645]

By your post it would seem that it is the right, not the left that needs to get their act together...speaking of ridiculous rhetoric.

I fail to see how that works.
I am not the right. I am not the left. I stated AS WELL in my post. I blame both sides for the break down in communication, and full out garbage rhetoric based on NO SCIENCE.

 

[member 5645]

So being right equals being addicted to hate now?

Have you ever been to an 'environmental' rally? If so, has anyone there EVER handed you an outline for a realistic plan to combat pollution and global warming, while maintaining some level of lifestyle?

I can tell you, I have gone. And what I got was a bunch of dancing morons who couldn't give me ANY facts. These are the people that most see yelling about global warming (because they are the extremist, and it's funny to see them on TV). In response, the dialogue for actual change is lost due to these people being looked as a joke. THEY HAVE LOST CREDIBILITY.

I wish I could find the name of the guy again. There was a gentleman that I watched an interview with who has gone down the environmental models and proposed different options at different level of society based on a cost-benefit analysis. What? Actually see what should be the priority and what we should adjust our lives for? NEVER! That would be just too much! B

But really, that is EXACTLY the kind of things the 'hippie morons' need to shift to. Just as the present admin needs to fall in that line.

 

[member 5645]

I have no idea who you are talking about

Well, then, you are hardly in a position to pass judgement on the effects of my statement.

 

[wasteofo2]

Have you ever been to an 'environmental' rally? If so, has anyone there EVER handed you an outline for a realistic plan to combat pollution and global warming, while maintaining some level of lifestyle?

Are you saying that the people at environmental rallies don't call for higher fuel efficiency in cars, gas/electric hybrids, using wind/solar/tidal/geo-thermal energy instead of gasoline, tightening restrictions on factory emissions etc.?

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you saying that the people at environmental rallies don't call for higher fuel efficiency in cars, gas/electric hybrids, using wind/solar/tidal/geo-thermal energy instead of gasoline, tightening restrictions on factory emissions etc.?

Calling for higher fuel efficiency, etc. etc. does not make up intelligent debate and a move towards finding actual solutions. The majority of the environmental lobby only hurt their efforts by not being practical. You have to find common ground, or else you get nowhere.

I despise what this administration is doing about the environment - though I see the reason for such moves. But surely, the opposition is not doing a great job itself. Idle demands get you nowhere. Let's see a plan that might work and then maybe the Right will think about it...

 

[wasteofo2]

Calling for higher fuel efficiency, etc. etc. does not make up intelligent debate and a move towards finding actual solutions. The majority of the environmental lobby only hurt their efforts by not being practical. You have to find common ground, or else you get nowhere.

I despise what this administration is doing about the environment - though I see the reason for such moves. But surely, the opposition is not doing a great job itself. Idle demands get you nowhere. Let's see a plan that might work and then maybe the Right will think about it...

But...

I wasn't talking about that...

Phatmonkey said no one at environmental rallies ever had a realistic plan for how to reduce pollution/fight global warming that allowed people to live a realistic life, and I didn't believe that no one at an environmental rally would call for the things I mentioned, which would reduce pollution/fight global warming, but also wouldn't greatly interfere with everyday life...

 

[Prometheus]

Well, then, you are hardly in a position to pass judgement on the effects of my statement.

I didn't, did I. I notice that you made no attempt to explain either, but just to make an irrelevant statement about nothing.

You claim that your reason for using dumb-sounding words is to incite people, but it sounds like you are the extremist, and perhaps that you can not think of any words that might promote conversation. You wonder why people are so apart. I recommend that you look at the "moronic" words that you use to explain the situation.

 

[Adam]

Have you ever been to an 'environmental' rally? If so, has anyone there EVER handed you an outline for a realistic plan to combat pollution and global warming, while maintaining some level of lifestyle?

I've been a uni student for a couple of years now. Rallies of various sorts are always getting in my way. On the good side, many of them give out free food and drinks. Often in aluminium cans.

I can tell you, I have gone. And what I got was a bunch of dancing morons who couldn't give me ANY facts. These are the people that most see yelling about global warming (because they are the extremist, and it's funny to see them on TV). In response, the dialogue for actual change is lost due to these people being looked as a joke. THEY HAVE LOST CREDIBILITY.

I simply ignore them. I go to sources the entire world finds quite credible. If I wish to find out about alternative energy sources and such, for example, I see my electronics professor. He's a senior member of the IEEE, roams around the world solving nuclear reactor problems, sits on various alternative energy development boards for the IEEE and other groups, et cetera. The dude is quite clever about his field. This is the sort of resource I have access to here. Lucky me.

 

[member 5645]

I didn't, did I. I notice that you made no attempt to explain either, but just to make an irrelevant statement about nothing.

You claim that your reason for using dumb-sounding words is to incite people, but it sounds like you are the extremist, and perhaps that you can not think of any words that might promote conversation. You wonder why people are so apart. I recommend that you look at the "moronic" words that you use to explain the situation.

I already did in the previous posts before replying to you. They are there. You can continue to derail this thread, or you can get onto the other posts. When will you start adding to this thread?

My reasoning for calling a spade a spade, was just that. I didn't use the term moron because I was calling a name. I was calling morons, morons.

 

[member 5645]

I've been a uni student for a couple of years now. Rallies of various sorts are always getting in my way. On the good side, many of them give out free food and drinks. Often in aluminium cans.


I simply ignore them. I go to sources the entire world finds quite credible. If I wish to find out about alternative energy sources and such, for example, I see my electronics professor. He's a senior member of the IEEE, roams around the world solving nuclear reactor problems, sits on various alternative energy development boards for the IEEE and other groups, et cetera. The dude is quite clever about his field. This is the sort of resource I have access to here. Lucky me.

That's great. But here in the USA, do you know where NON-environmental people get their information about global warming and pollution??
GREENPEACE. They are in the news more often than the EPA. When the EPA released a report on different recommended amounts of fish (this concerning mercury poisoning), there was NOTHING on television about it. However, I can't go a week many times without hearing about how we are going to have no oil, trees, and/or water within 50 years. Then I look online, and some private institute is/or has debunked much of the doomsday image. However, it's no fun to report that.

Greenpeace, IMO, is the environmental equivalent of PETA. Atlease Greenpeace was started with a real goal and without propaganda. But the reality is it is one of, if not the, most known environmental groups and it is HARDLY the image I think that the environmentalist movement will be able to gain traction with.

Everyone needs to come to the middle, and I know you agree with this, as you have said. I'm simply reiterating my point.

 

[member 5645]

But...

I wasn't talking about that...

Phatmonkey said no one at environmental rallies ever had a realistic plan for how to reduce pollution/fight global warming that allowed people to live a realistic life, and I didn't believe that no one at an environmental rally would call for the things I mentioned, which would reduce pollution/fight global warming, but also wouldn't greatly interfere with everyday life...

wow! And these people handed you a cost/benefit analysis on these ideas? or a website on where to view one?
Have you ever asked how they planned to use to develop the hydrogen for fuel cells? or what evidence told them that oil/water/trees (take your pick) wouldn't be around for our children?? I did, and I was chastised, even when trying to ask in the most unassuming way possible.

Were you able to understand how they will implement these ideas over the beat of the drum circle, while people shouted things at a burnding effigy of their favorite globalization 'evil doer' ( ;) ) for that week?



Also, I found a guy's name that I couldn't remember. Simply incredible, and from my readings, quite the enemy of the modern day environmental movement here in the states (probably elsewhere since he is European, but I haven't read that) - Bjorn Lomborg. So who here knows who he is, and who here can let me know why they think he is wrong? If nothing else, he is atleast looking at the science behind environmentalism, and I think that it is great. It's great Bush is looking at the same thing.

 

[wasteofo2]

wow! And these people handed you a cost/benefit analysis on these ideas? or a website on where to view one?
Have you ever asked how they planned to use to develop the hydrogen for fuel cells? or what evidence told them that oil/water/trees (take your pick) wouldn't be around for our children?? I did, and I was chastised, even when trying to ask in the most unassuming way possible.

Were you able to understand how they will implement these ideas over the beat of the drum circle, while people shouted things at a burnding effigy of their favorite globalization 'evil doer' ( ;) ) for that week?

I've never been to an environmental rally, I just couldn't believe that no one at an environmental rally would support those things. Notice I didn't say anything about hydrogen. From what I've read, gasoline has a very good ratio of energy needed to extract/refine it, and Hydrogen's makes it pretty much useless. For every 1 unit of gasoline used to extract/refine/make gasoline, you can get 100 units of gasoline. For every 1 unit of hydrogen use to extract/refine/make hydrogen in a usable form, you get 1/2 unit of hydrogen. I believe wind-power gives off 50 untis of energy for every 1 unit of energy used to make the energy useful, while it's not as good as gasoline, it's pretty decent.

Some of the things I listed seem to be pretty simple though, not like a huge risk. I mean, we had stricter environmental laws under Clinton, and it's not like corporations fell to the ground under his presidency. And the same with gas/electric cars, it's not like cars that get 40+mpg are unthinkable and would cause anything negative to happen, besides perhaps some loss of revenue for oil companies since people would re-fuel less often. Also, wind power has been utilized a lot in California and has proven very promising and useful, and Germany also uses a lot of it too. I'm sure any environmental website could give you the amount of power x amount of land with windmills on it could produce, I remember from an old New York Times article that if the Long Island sound was filled with windmills, that 30,000 homes could be powered indefinately, but I could be remembering the stat wrong...

For real, no one at an environmental rally talked about anything concerning wind/solar power and gas/elelctric hybrid cars or solar powered cars? That seems ridiculous, I got to go organize one of these things and explain all the realistic, plausible crap there is out there to people like you...

Some tangible negative things that will inevitably happen in the future, which I can cite sources for at the moment, all involve global warming and are from an EPA report to congress.

“Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the Earth's atmosphere.

Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.

Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.”

Though I can't find anything specifically saying how quickly oil and trees are being used up, obviously, you can see, oil and trees are finite resources, we're obviously using them very quickly, and the rate of new oil field being found is steadily decreasing, and we already know where all the trees in the world are. Off the top of my head, I believe we (humans) have destroyed something like 25% of the rainforest to date, and you certainly wouldn't argue that the amount of trees and oil in the world is GROWING, would you?

 

[Gokul43201]

wow! And these people handed you a cost/benefit analysis on these ideas? or a website on where to view one?
Have you ever asked how they planned to use to develop the hydrogen for fuel cells? or what evidence told them that oil/water/trees (take your pick) wouldn't be around for our children?? I did, and I was chastised, even when trying to ask in the most unassuming way possible.

Were you able to understand how they will implement these ideas over the beat of the drum circle, while people shouted things at a burnding effigy of their favorite globalization 'evil doer' ( ;) ) for that week?



Also, I found a guy's name that I couldn't remember. Simply incredible, and from my readings, quite the enemy of the modern day environmental movement here in the states (probably elsewhere since he is European, but I haven't read that) - Bjorn Lomborg. So who here knows who he is, and who here can let me know why they think he is wrong? If nothing else, he is atleast looking at the science behind environmentalism, and I think that it is great.

Okay.

It's great Bush is looking at the same thing.

That's just baloney...and I don't believe you are buying that ! It's simply about protecting his base, and (understandably) trying to rekindle employment, at any cost. Bush doesn't really give 2 hoots for the tree-huggers (or the trees); they'll never vote for him, anyway ! He's just applying Re-election 101 tricks.

 

[member 5645]

That's just baloney...and I don't believe you are buying that ! It's simply about protecting his base, and (understandably) trying to rekindle employment, at any cost. Bush doesn't really give 2 hoots for the tree-huggers (or the trees); they'll never vote for him, anyway ! He's just applying Re-election 101 tricks.

I'm glad that it is on record that he his admin admits there is a possibility.
The article states there isn't a plan for changing tactics. That is a mistake I think.
However, the report allows them to be held accountable for their actions. It's a step in the right direction. Just like I would think it was a step in the right direction if Greenpeace just said "hey, we do need to look at a cost/benefit analysis of things we are proposing". Even if they didn't do it, atleast they can be put on the fire for it.
As for reelection - no one is talking about it, and even says they quietly did this. How is that for reelection?

wasteofo2, I'll respond tomorrow. You took the time for a lengthy post and I don't want to rush a response.

 

[amp]

I can't say how factual it is but a movie Steven Segal stared in 'On Deadly Ground' came out a few years ago and addressed the suppression of energy effiency in cars, power plants, ect. It also comdemed the polluters, oil companies and revealed the greed and anti-enviornment attitude of these polluters.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can't say how factual it is but a movie Steven Segal stared in 'On Deadly Ground' came out a few years ago and addressed the suppression of energy effiency in cars, power plants, ect. It also comdemed the polluters, oil companies and revealed the greed and anti-enviornment attitude of these polluters.

Woah, the speech he gives (at the end of the movie) in some Town Hall/Capitol Bldg. had me in splits.

I think he actually produced that movie himself...and another film, where he plays an EPA agent, giving hell to an evil, coal mining outfit.

Seems like Steven's serious about the environment !

 

[amp]

Yeah, unfortunately too much in his speach is true. :surprise:

 

[russ_watters]

Are you saying that the people at environmental rallies don't call for higher fuel efficiency in cars, gas/electric hybrids, using wind/solar/tidal/geo-thermal energy instead of gasoline, tightening restrictions on factory emissions etc.?

They do call for those things, wasteof2, and that's the entire problem. All of those things are short-sighted, feel-good, counterproductive diversions.

Higher fuel efficiency in cars: how precisely can that be achieved? We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency. The government is going to try to force car companies to sell hybrids (a decent product), but that doesn't mean people will buy them - especially when car companies stop selling them at a loss.

Wind/solar/tidal/geothermal energy instead of gasoline: Two issues there. First, instead of gasoline? You mean instead of coal. Coal is where we get half of our electric power from, not oil. Oil is largely a political smokescreen. Environmentalists rarely ever talk about coal.

Second, wind/solar/tidal/geothermal energy - how much of our power comes from those sources? Wind is far and away the largest of those: currently we get about 30 gigawatts from it (generous since it doesn't take into account variability of wind). Our total capacity is roughly 38,000 gigawatts. That's roughly a 10th of a percent for wind.

Right now, the majority of our new power comes from oil. Coal and nuclear plants are pretty much maxed out. And demand continues to increase. Our situation is getting worse, not better.

There is a real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source that is actively being blocked because it gives environmentalists the heebie jeebies. Until the environmentalists (and politicians) start getting realistic, our energy situation is only going to continue to get worse.

 

[amp]

"There is a real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source that is actively being blocked because it gives environmentalists the heebie jeebies. " What source? "We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency." Why was there a tax incentive (designed to get people) to buy SUVs?

 

[russ_watters]

More:

...I remember from an old New York Times article that if the Long Island sound was filled with windmills, that 30,000 homes could be powered indefinately, but I could be remembering the stat wrong...

No, that sounds about right. The problem is that environmentalists throw around those stats like they are a good thing, and I guess you trust them that it is. But it isn't. Setting aside the technical feasibility of building such an array, how many homes is 30,000? How much of our total energy usage is that? How much of an impact will that really have?

The average middle-class home uses about 3-4kW on a hot august afternoon. So that 30,000 homes is 120 megawatts at most. The typical nuclear reactor (not plant, just one reactor) produces about 1,000 megawatts. So roughly 10% of one reactor. Why not build one reactor instead?

And I don't mean to pick on you, wasteofo2, because clearly you care, but the rest of your post was about problems. We know there are problems. Environmentalists raise money by talking about problems. But where are the solutions? Talking about problems does not equal fixing them. Fixing them requires real solutions and environmentalists rarely talk about real solutions.

 

[russ_watters]

"There is a real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source that is actively being blocked because it gives environmentalists the heebie jeebies. " What source?

It should be obvious enough. I'm sure someone else will realize what it is, but I'm not going to say it to prove a point: people aren't even thinking about it.

"We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency." Why was there a tax incentive (designed to get people) to buy SUVs?

Amp, do you have any idea about the context of that statement? Look into it and you'll find that its not what you are implying it is. It got a lot of press, but it isn't relevant to this conversation.

 

[amp]

Ok, there were incentives but the reason I think people bought SUVs is because they presumed them to be safer in an accident.

 

[member 5645]

"There is a real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source that is actively being blocked because it gives environmentalists the heebie jeebies. " What source? "We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency." Why was there a tax incentive (designed to get people) to buy SUVs?

From the mouth of my Toyota Salesman:

"Bush went to change the laws for what is considered a gas guzzler, and toyota went crazy. They had inventory fulll of SUV parts and their buyers were about to be pushed away via financial incentive. So Bush leaves the up to 100,000 dollar vehicle right off for anything over 4000lbs (can't remember what number he showed me) for one year to let the car companies clear out their inventory. After this year, the game is over."

Well, that's one explanation.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, there were incentives but the reason I think people bought SUVs is because they presumed them to be safer in an accident.

Safety is one reason, but again, it seems like you are implying that that incentive is a common thing. It isn't.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Higher fuel efficiency in cars: how precisely can that be achieved? We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency. The government is going to try to force car companies to sell hybrids (a decent product), but that doesn't mean people will buy them - especially when car companies stop selling them at a loss.

They can raise fuel efficiency across the board--that includes SUVs, using better fuel injections with computer controlled timing and amount control, hybrid technology, and a host of other technologies that I can't remember. There was an article in, I think, Popular Science, or possibly Scientific American that was about combining several technologies to drasticallly improve fuel efficiency.

Environmentalists rarely ever talk about coal.

Having frequent contact with people from many environmental groups, I can tell you that you are wrong. For example, the LCV has been talking about coal-burning power plants as they relate to Mercury pollution lately.