The Kyoto Debate

Of the people, by the people, for the people, for whatevs.
User avatar
jOnNiE
Lux Hasselhoff
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
Location: in the bottom of the bottle

The Kyoto Debate

Post by jOnNiE » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:07 pm

thanks mach for the link storm tracker
Last edited by jOnNiE on Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jOnNiE
Lux Hasselhoff
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
Location: in the bottom of the bottle

Post by jOnNiE » Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:58 pm

You guys Hurricane Rita is a CAT. 5!!! something bad is going to happen again.

I really do believe Kyoto can help. US gov't needs to join, if green house is really warming up our atmosphere.

User avatar
Mach
Lux Researcher
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:14 am
Location: Hither, thither, and yon.

Post by Mach » Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:11 pm


User avatar
xanadu
Luxecutioner
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:12 pm
Location: Maning the Suicide Booth

Post by xanadu » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:50 am

Where I agree whole heartedly with your politics and I believe that it is an embarrassment that the US has not already signed the Kyoto Treaty, I think that blaming these storms on global warming is a bit presumtuous. If you look at the natural cycles we should be in a period of both warming climate globally as well as increased storm activity. The global temp is a very long term slow trend, but the storm activity is a 50 - 75 year trend. That said, these are particularly bad.

Where I am not sure I agree that global warming is the cause, I like the fact that people are saying it, because anything that can contribute to the US poluting less is a good thing.

User avatar
jOnNiE
Lux Hasselhoff
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
Location: in the bottom of the bottle

Post by jOnNiE » Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:48 pm

xan, do you not think that pollution can effect the atmosphere? We the largest contributor. I understand that the world has gone through cycles, but we are destroying the planet.

Image

User avatar
One Big Wave
Lux Emo Star
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Hiding

Post by One Big Wave » Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:50 pm

jonnie.dee wrote:xan, do you not think that pollution can effect the atmosphere?
Again I am saving aqua the trouble, affect, not effect :D

User avatar
the tide
:D
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Charlotte, US

Post by the tide » Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:50 pm

So this hurricanne is an anomaly created by global warming?

BS. Robert Kennedy asserted the same the day after Katrina hit. I tend to agree with Xan's thinking that global warming may have an affect though the predominant thinking asserts this 'anomaly' is indeed cyclical. (20 year cycle to be exact)

List of Category 5 Atlantic Hurricanes
(1886 - Present)


History of Category 5 hurricanes

Rita has been downgraded to a Cat 4 which was forseen as Gulf waters have cooled.

User avatar
One Big Wave
Lux Emo Star
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Hiding

Post by One Big Wave » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:28 pm

the tide wrote:
Rita has been downgraded to a Cat 4 which was forseen as Gulf waters have cooled.
Gulf waters have cooled? You mean we must have been polluting less in the last week, or do you mean that ocean water temperatures go up and down naturally? :wink:

User avatar
jOnNiE
Lux Hasselhoff
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
Location: in the bottom of the bottle

Post by jOnNiE » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:43 pm

You guys are missing my point (TIDE). Pollution does have something to do with the deterioration of our ozone. NO, of course pollution did not cause a hurricane. i am not that stupid, sheesh. What I am saying is that increased earth temperatures are going to increase the destructivity of natural storms. How can you not logical say that pollution is not destroying our planet? It just doesn' t make any sense to think otherwise.

oh yeah, rita is now a cat. 4

User avatar
the tide
:D
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Charlotte, US

Post by the tide » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:59 pm

jonnie.dee wrote:You guys are missing my point (TIDE). Pollution does have something to do with the deterioration of our ozone.
Agreed
jonnie.dee wrote:NO, of course pollution did not cause a hurricane. i am not that stupid, sheesh.
I know you're not stupid and did not mean to imply that you were. I'm certainly no genius.
jonnie.dee wrote:What I am saying is that increased earth temperatures are going to increase the destructivity of natural storms.
Agreed
jonnie.dee wrote:How can you not logical say that pollution is not destroying our planet?

To contest the evident conclusion that carbon pollution has real consequences is fallacy. I have not and will not take part in the deception.

User avatar
jOnNiE
Lux Hasselhoff
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
Location: in the bottom of the bottle

Post by jOnNiE » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:03 pm

:smt023

tide you are the man!

User avatar
xanadu
Luxecutioner
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:12 pm
Location: Maning the Suicide Booth

Post by xanadu » Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:42 am

jonnie.dee wrote:xan, do you not think that pollution can effect the atmosphere? We the largest contributor. I understand that the world has gone through cycles, but we are destroying the planet.
I guess I should have said "only cause".

Of course I think that pollution effects the atmosphere. Of course I believe in global warming. And of course the US is the largest contributor. And yes it would be great if we would slow down the rate of polution. I am just sick of people that say there is one cause for things. There are trends that need to be understood. We are not almighty. Jonnie, as I said before, if these storms help get the US to curb pollution then the one directional rhetoric is going to be highly profitable. But if we are going to have an intelligent discussion about something, lets talk about all the factors.

And just to add, I agree with everything that Tide said just above.

User avatar
sasquatch
Semiholy Beast
Posts: 2876
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:35 pm
Location: mountainous & wooded areas
Contact:

Post by sasquatch » Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:57 am

Everyone ready for $4 per gallon gas next week?

:shock:
Sasquatch

User avatar
Mach
Lux Researcher
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:14 am
Location: Hither, thither, and yon.

Post by Mach » Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:40 pm

Sas, that's just for people in the Midwest and the Eastern US. Add AT LEAST 50 cents more for the west coast and even more for California. One problem with environmentalism is that people must pay to be clean. But at least the air is nice to breathe. THAT is worth all the extra money.

Meanwhile, it's a bit worrysome when people are talking about gas prices when people are dying, dead, SNAFU, or FUBAR in the Gulf Region.

Now I'm guilty of complaining about gas prices as much as anyone (<--PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE FLAMING ME), but I wonder - was anyone complaining about the bad economy in relation to September 11? I can't remember...

User avatar
jOnNiE
Lux Hasselhoff
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
Location: in the bottom of the bottle

Post by jOnNiE » Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:55 pm

I know the atmosphere has changed many many times in the history of earth....creating ice ages.....and then melting those ice ages. But, with all the polution going on, i believe we are rapidly accelerating the natural warming of the earth. The earth has never experienced something like this before, and we are destroying it.
Kyoto addresses gasses that are not poisons
sorry, but in my opinion, pollution that we pump into the air from cars and industrialization is poison to everyhting that lives on this planet.

User avatar
hoodie
Burning Man
Posts: 4883
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by hoodie » Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:37 pm

Tyler, good point on there not being "Global" warming. But there *is* atmospheric warming. I don't hear anyone calling to end any sort of life-improving technology, but I do hear plenty of people (myself included) calling for technology that doesn't disturb the equilibrium that the Earth is in. Yes, the Earth is changing. Yes, the environment has shifts on it's own. But by not addressing our effects on those shifts, we will cause those shifts to be larger, much quicker, and much more devestating to ourselves. If anything, we want to keep the Earth as it is; we know we can live here now and all of our technologies are developed to help us for right now.

We are affecting the world in SO MANY WAYS it's disgusting. We are so incapable of predicting the effects of our actions, especially over long periods of time, that it is imperative for us to use our inventiveness to work WITH reality rather than reasoning AGAINST it. We can close our eyes *really reaaaaaally hard* and come up with good reasons why we're not doing anything wrong. Or, we can figure out a way to keep living well while not continuing our pattern of starting and magnifying our ripples of chaos. Predictability in environment is GOOD FOR US. Saving natural structures for understanding and appreciation is GOOD FOR US. Manifest Destiny to control everything is GOOD FOR OUR EGOS, BUT NOT FOR OUR SURVIVAL. Let's work towards solving problems, not creating or blinding ourselves to them.

By the way, CO2 is important in some amounts. But to say CO2 = good shows a severe lack of desire to understand systems and equilibrium. CO2 is good in some quantities in some places. Not in large quantities in lots of places.

User avatar
the tide
:D
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Charlotte, US

Re: Disagree

Post by the tide » Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:47 pm

Tyler Granger wrote:CO2 is not pollution.
CO2 ‘dumping’ is pollution. CO2 emitted by the use of petroleum into the ‘livable’ planet’ and greater atmosphere is the problem. The ‘life cycle’ becomes lopsided with an amount of CO2 the earth at large is unable to ‘absorb’. Thus the life cycle is altered and the excess CO2 is and should be refereed to as pollution.
Tyler Granger wrote:At present because of urbanization the Plant side of the Earth Life Cycle is most at threat. By increasing CO2 the negative effects of urbanization is offset to some degree.
The trend of a warmer ‘livable planet’ seems to affect the ‘life cycle’ as well. Coupled with a warmer planet it seems that plants respond by ‘exhaling’ more CO2 than absorbed.
“A new study shows that during the 2003 heatwave, European plants produced more carbon dioxide than they absorbed from the atmosphere.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269066.stm

Tyler Granger wrote:It is a good thing to care about pollution and to limit it. But, industrialization makes things like hospitals, medicines, flood prevention, and well built housing possible. In order to stop the environment from changing the stopping of the process will have very negative effects on modern society. Finding a "New Balance" is far better then the "Pristine" utopianism.

Would you pay $50 for a gallon gas?
Would that ambulance that you call to save a loved one?
It seems at some level you’re using a static example of ‘industrialization’ with our present reliance on oil for fear mongering, impeding any real present day solutions such as Kyoto. Solutions must be made; part of those solutions are weaning from the buxom tit known as petroleum. $50 a gallon gas isn't such a far of proposition as supply is on a downward trend as demand is ever increasing.

* I sense the dichotomy in your argument Tyler. Are you playing devils advocate?

User avatar
hoodie
Burning Man
Posts: 4883
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by hoodie » Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:22 pm

Tyler, the world has also gone through many cycles completely inhospitable to human life. You're combining the arguments that 1. "It's OK, the world has been through it before" and 2. "We need to survive" without understanding the implications the two have on each other. Namely, WE WOULD NOT SURVIVE THROUGH MOST OF THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH. We can survive as the Earth exists at this time; we can also adapt our technology to survive as the Earth exists in other times.

However, our current technology is pushing the Earth away from its current state of equilibrium; we are disturbing systems that would not be currently changing, or would be changing at a much slower pace. Such as the CO2 cycle. Which has widespread effects on the rest of our atmosphere.

Since our current technology is pushing the Earth away from equilibrium, causing chaotic and unpredictable consequences, shouldn't we at least try to create sustainable technology? To use your own example, we won't be able to drive ambulances if we waste all of our resources for luxury goods and comforts. We use all the oil we have driving Hummers around? We don't have gas for ambulances. We find alternative sources of energy? We can drive Hummers AND ambulances.

You seem to think that the argument for environmental sustainability decreases options and comforts open to humans, when in fact, it's all about INCREASING options. The options we have right now are detrimental to us as a civilization. We need to create options that are SUSTAINABLE to us as a civilization. By ignoring new options, we're just decreasing paths of action we have available. We need to INCREASE options, INCREASE ideas, and INCREASE SUSTAINABILITY while we have the luxury to do so.

You can't jump tracks between arguments, you need to create a coherent whole. That's the problem with how we're treating our environment today; we are choosing to avoid understanding the whole problem (or sets of problems), the answers we have chosen, the answers we can possibly create, and the effects of those answers. The question is not nearly as simplistic as your argument sets forth.

User avatar
the tide
:D
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Charlotte, US

Re: Disagree

Post by the tide » Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:41 pm

Tyler Granger wrote: Let's live with that the best we can and not try to create a World that does the Ice Age thing.
Current carbon pollution prevents 'the Ica Age thing'?
:smt017 :smt030

User avatar
the tide
:D
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Charlotte, US

Post by the tide » Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:52 pm

So your answer is to plant more trees in urban area thus preventing an ice age. All the rest is sidebar. Wow, I'm so not surprised and I'll bet an inch of my wang that you're wrong.

User avatar
hoodie
Burning Man
Posts: 4883
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by hoodie » Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:52 pm

/me sees no way to continue this conversation without basic principles of chemistry, biology, and ecology being understood by all participants.

User avatar
the tide
:D
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Charlotte, US

Re: Disagree

Post by the tide » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:00 pm

address the following......
the tide wrote:
Tyler Granger wrote:CO2 is not pollution.
CO2 ‘dumping’ is pollution. CO2 emitted by the use of petroleum into the ‘livable’ planet’ and greater atmosphere is the problem. The ‘life cycle’ becomes lopsided with an amount of CO2 the earth at large is unable to ‘absorb’. Thus the life cycle is altered and the excess CO2 is and should be refereed to as pollution.
Tyler Granger wrote:At present because of urbanization the Plant side of the Earth Life Cycle is most at threat. By increasing CO2 the negative effects of urbanization is offset to some degree.
The trend of a warmer ‘livable planet’ seems to affect the ‘life cycle’ as well. Coupled with a warmer planet it seems that plants respond by ‘exhaling’ more CO2 than absorbed.
“A new study shows that during the 2003 heatwave, European plants produced more carbon dioxide than they absorbed from the atmosphere.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269066.stm

Tyler Granger wrote:It is a good thing to care about pollution and to limit it. But, industrialization makes things like hospitals, medicines, flood prevention, and well built housing possible. In order to stop the environment from changing the stopping of the process will have very negative effects on modern society. Finding a "New Balance" is far better then the "Pristine" utopianism.

Would you pay $50 for a gallon gas?
Would that ambulance that you call to save a loved one?
It seems at some level you’re using a static example of ‘industrialization’ with our present reliance on oil for fear mongering, impeding any real present day solutions such as Kyoto. Solutions must be made; part of those solutions are weaning from the buxom tit known as petroleum. $50 a gallon gas isn't such a far of proposition as supply is on a downward trend as demand is ever increasing.

* I sense the dichotomy in your argument Tyler. Are you playing devils advocate?

User avatar
the tide
:D
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Charlotte, US

Post by the tide » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:04 pm

Great dodge. Bye

User avatar
jOnNiE
Lux Hasselhoff
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
Location: in the bottom of the bottle

Post by jOnNiE » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:16 pm

thank you hoodie and tide!!
Tyler, i am not in anyway disrespecting your obvious education on this subject, but to say that excess C02 is not bad, is not logically right in my head. I didn't say anything about getting rid of industrialization, just to limit the amount of pollution we create.

User avatar
Mike
Lux Townie
Posts: 5662
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:42 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by Mike » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:22 pm

What we need is a way to run small combustion engines (with little cost of retro fit) with CO2 that is extracted from the air...the person that comes up with this idea, should get 70 virgins. :)

User avatar
jOnNiE
Lux Hasselhoff
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
Location: in the bottom of the bottle

Post by jOnNiE » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:24 pm

i don't know about the reward, but sounds like a good idea.

User avatar
One Big Wave
Lux Emo Star
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Hiding

Re: Make one point.

Post by One Big Wave » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:39 pm

Tyler Granger wrote:Make one point and let's see if you can defend at all your idiocy,
There is a direct correlation between the decrease of the % oxygen in the atmosphere and the increased commonality of cancer in our society. You can't possibly believe that increased rates of carbon dioxide and monoxide in the atmosphere is a good thing. Maybe we can start using leaded gasoline to save a couple cents on gas too. :roll:

User avatar
Demetri
Luxer
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:56 pm

Post by Demetri » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:47 pm

Here are a few facts about the U.S. and pollution that seem to be unknown:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env ... xi_per_cap

Nitrogen Oxide pollution per capita:

U.S. 3rd

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env ... io_per_cap

Carbon Dioxide produced per capita:


U.S. close 1st (just beating out luxembourg)


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env ... as_per_cap

Nuclear Waste per capita:

Canada first by a 200 percent margin. The U.S. a distant 2nd.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env ... _as_of_gdp

Control of pollution spending as percent of GDP:

U.S. as close 3rd


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_was_gen&int=-1

Waste generated per person:

U.S. 4th


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env ... cap&int=-1

per capita CO2 emissions: U.S. is 5th


Look at these facts. The U.S. is clearly not the single biggest polluter per capita.

The reason that the Clinton administration did not really follow the Kyoto Protocol is because, first, the U.S., because of its development, has a dependence on technology and advancement that oftentimes gets in the way of environmental concerns. Secondly, because we are already currently in a system that is reliant upon these things. And Thirdly, because it would have caused massive harm.

User avatar
altidude
Luxer
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Ventura, CA
Contact:

Re: Make one point.

Post by altidude » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:52 pm

One Big Wave wrote:There is a direct correlation between the decrease of the % oxygen in the atmosphere and the increased commonality of cancer in our society.
I found an interesting article from Nov. 2002 regarding drop in oxygen level.

User avatar
hoodie
Burning Man
Posts: 4883
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by hoodie » Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:14 pm

Wow. This will be my last post in this thread. It should have come a while ago. This thread should be locked for misinformation.

In any case, things can't get any better if people don't get some sort of good information, so I'll present a condensed case study of the Salton Sea.

The Salton Sea is a manmade lake in Southern California. If you've ever driven through there, it looks like a nuclear test site. The place is a veritable ghost town, the miles and miles of empty homes a tribute to its fallen stature.

The Salton Sea was actually a resort town at one time. Now, it suffers from algal blooms and massive fish die-offs routinely. I won't go into the whole story, but the ecosystem has reached a point where fish populations bloom from the nutrient rich (over-rich, actually) environment of the lake. It's actually an extrordinarily healthy environment -- for the algae in the lake. Then the fish population blossoms, to the point that the lake is deprived of oxygen. So all the fish die. All at once. And leave salt deposits, but also nutrients for the plants to grow on. So the plants grow in this deeply rich CO2 environment (remember, the fish converted all that oxygen to CO2, to the point the fish all died). But the fish had laid some eggs, so there is ANOTHER huge fish population. And they eat algae, and use up oxygen. Oops, not enough oxygen to support anymore, they all die. And the lake becomes more and more alkaline, even though there are HUGE populations of fish and plants. But this turnover is taxing the environment so much that it's becoming a death zone; soon neither plants nor animals will be able to stand the pH levels of the lake. So the CO2 didn't kill off the plants... directly. But the lack of balance in the system, a system which thrived off of copious amounts of CO2, eventually caused the system to be completely inhospitable to life.

The problem was based on a lack of equilibrium. Think of this as too much of a good thing. If the Salton Sea example was lost on you, think about food. Calories are good for people; they're energy, right? Let's get lots of calories. LOTS OF CALORIES! Too many calories, our bodies start going out of whack. But calrories are good, I tell you, GOOD! People starve without calories! They're the cowboy in the white hat! They can't be bad! Forget this equilibrium thing! I don't need equilibrium! Good = Need more. NEED MORE!

Need I say more?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest