GW Murders the Environment Again

"US emissions of greenhouse gases up 0.7 percent in 2003

US emissions of greenhouse gases increased 0.7 percent in 2003 from, driven by increased consumption of fossil fuels, the Department of Energy said Monday.
US emissions increased to 6.94 billion tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in 2003, up from 6.89 billion tonnes in 2002.

This represents roughly 24 percent of total world emissions in 2003, according to a report produced by the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department."

www.terradaily.com...

The US is murdering the planet according to all you treehuggers out there. However, Asia and Asia minor have roving clouds of polution that are killing trees. I posted that story a few weeks back. Who is worse?

George Bush hasn�t murdered the environment. That�s nonsense. Environmentalist murder the environment. Believe it or not, Capitalism actually helps the environment.

Greens vs. the Environment - Studies Show That Capitalism Helps The Enviornment
freerepublic.com...
In the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, National Aeronautics and Space Administration global-warming expert James Hansen notes that greenhouse gas emissions and global-warming projections are "consistently pessimistic." Hansen suggests that projections do not take into account the lower carbon dioxide and methane emissions that have resulted from technological advancements. He explains that the lower carbon dioxide emissions result from increased energy efficiency following the energy crisis in the 1970s and the lower methane emissions, from technological changes in agriculture.

Hansen's concludes on an optimistic note, saying "the main elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity." This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. He saw the "ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces.

Originally posted by Simulacra
Believe it or not, Capitalism actually helps the environment.

Only if it's made clear to them that protecting evironment is cheaper for them than destroying it!

www.globalissues.org...
www.globalissues.org...
www.globalissues.org...

One sharp example of environmental problems caused by multinational corporations, is the drive to extract oil from Nigeria. As the previous link, from this site's section on Africa shows, corporations have even backed the military to harrass, even kill, local people who continue to protest at the environmental and other problems the activities of the various oil companies have caused.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: "The Lincoln Encyclopedia", Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

how in the world can you blame this on President Bush ? Assuming that's what you mean by the title of this thread.

Come on, answers.... we're waiting...



hmmmm hmmmmm hmmmm



I didn't think so !!!!!!!

Originally posted by elevatedone
how in the world can you blame this on President Bush ? Assuming that's what you mean by the title of this thread.

Come on, answers.... we're waiting...

hmmmm hmmmmm hmmmm



I didn't think so !!!!!!!

As duely appointed emperor of the freeworld he is the root of all evil isn't he? Doesn't he control Haliburton thru "dicky"? Doesn't he control all that is "america"?

The only recourse to burning fossil fuels right now is nuclear power, which is actually very safe. Two problems is that the word "Nuclear" has a taboo in the US and much of the rest of the world. Add in that we're forced to store nuclear waste instead of reprocessing it back into fuel...

Right now, unless we totally revamp our society (which realistically cannot happen IMO), nuclear is the way to go. It would solve alot of problems.

Originally posted by Esoterica
The only recourse to burning fossil fuels right now is nuclear power, which is actually very safe. Two problems is that the word "Nuclear" has a taboo in the US and much of the rest of the world. Add in that we're forced to store nuclear waste instead of reprocessing it back into fuel...

Right now, unless we totally revamp our society (which realistically cannot happen IMO), nuclear is the way to go. It would solve alot of problems.

You are very correct sir. Nuclear is very safe. Too many stupid "China sydrome" movies. If the libs really want us to stop using "fossil fuel" you have the right idea. But the Libs don't want to fix things, just blame others.

Can you say 3 mile island and chrnobal? yea nukler power is the way to go.
never mind the mealt downs that WILL accor glowing are they? o thats compleatly normal .
Wast that is active for 50,000 years and then some humm sounds like a fool proff plane to me. Bad news untill our science gets a grip on dark matter and dark energy we are stuck in the oil age there are no other fule sources we can massproduce in the quinites we need even coal is mostly used for boilers to run turbines .
But If we can figerout what dark energy is and how to harreness it wala a neverending supply .
Ps never mind the people who will try stealing the products of nuk plants for there own perposes.

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
Can you say 3 mile island and chrnobal? yea nukler power is the way to go.
never mind the mealt downs that WILL accor glowing are they? o thats compleatly normal .
Wast that is active for 50,000 years and then some humm sounds like a fool proff plane to me. Bad news untill our science gets a grip on dark matter and dark energy we are stuck in the oil age there are no other fule sources we can massproduce in the quinites we need even coal is mostly used for boilers to run turbines .
But If we can figerout what dark energy is and how to harreness it wala a neverending supply .
Ps never mind the people who will try stealing the products of nuk plants for there own perposes.

1. We've come a long way from 3 Mile Island.
2. You obviously have no clue what Dark Matter is. I know this, because nobody has any clue what Dark Matter is.
3. If you are going to argue against nuclear power, at least take the time to spell it correctly, especially considering it's spelled out for you several times in the post you are replying to. Helps people to decide to actually take the time to read what you say

Well regardless of blame if we keep this up Mother Nature is going to shake us off like the parasites we are eventually.

Originally posted by John Nada
Well regardless of blame if we keep this up Mother Nature is going to shake us off like the parasites we are eventually.

If by "Mother Nature", you mean us screwing up the environment so much that we can so longer sustain ourselves, then you are correct. If you're talking about Gaia getting pissed and having a bunch of volcanoes explode to wipe us out, then you've been reading too much Sci-Fi

I mean the Earth is a working system, and if we keep unbalancing and screwing up that system...well...the system is going to have a flush of it's waste as all systems do. That's what I mean.

Originally posted by John Nada
I mean the Earth is a working system, and if we keep unbalancing and screwing up that system...well...the system is going to have a flush of it's waste as all systems do. That's what I mean.

OK, so you're only slightly insane.

Nuclear meltdowns are not a fact of atomic energy. They happen when plants are poorly maintained or monitered. 3 Mile Island was a complete meltdown, but why isn't every New Englander glowing green? The potential dangers have been grossly overexagerated.

What would happen if a terrorist got their hands on spent nuclear fuel? NOTHING! Its called spent for a reason! It would be cheaper to purchase a pre-made bomb than to reprocess the used materials.

One of the problems with Nuclear energy is that studies show that it is more expensive to produce electricity than it is with fossil fuel plants. This is not even considering the cost of dismantling abandoned nuclear plants, something that hasn't been done yet.

Bear in mind that the steel used to build nuclear reactors becomes brittle after years of use and therefore unsafe. Reactors are only usable for an estimated 30-50 years.

Dr.Horacid, are you saying GW is responsible because he will not sign up for the KYOTO treaty?

Originally posted by Esoterica
OK, so you're only slightly insane.

hehe, I can live with that.

Oh, and the next time you take a crap keep telling yourself you must be slightly insane.

[edit on 14-12-2004 by John Nada]

Originally posted by John Nada
I mean the Earth is a working system, and if we keep unbalancing and screwing up that system...well...the system is going to have a flush of it's waste as all systems do. That's what I mean.

agree

We have enough alternative sources of energy - sun, wind, tidal waves - they don�t harm the environment. Yes - to bring them to the public cost a lot of money, but if we assume that the reason behind the war in Iraq is oil and we count the money spent there...

Chernobyl was a disaster which pretty much summed up the closing Soviet era: There was a major problem, but no one knew how to fix it (or bothered). For crying out loud they lied about what was going on, though it was obvious, they refused outside help, and their solution was to build a large concrete dome over the reactor. Three Mile Island, at least the men there had a clue as to what was going on. These were two isolated incidents which have held back the advancement of nuclear based energy sources.

I agree alot of people just flip out at the word nuclear. Nasa uses a nuclear fuel in many of its probes to power batteries.The famous voyager used one and I think the thing is still transmitting after all these years.That would not happen if it had chemical or solar power. This is not the same type of nuclear fuel used in bombs or reactors and is only a fraction as radioactive far less dangerous.

Yet people hear nuclear and protest NASA using this and make it seem like they are shooting nuclear weapons up into the air.

Originally posted by TJ11240
What would happen if a terrorist got their hands on spent nuclear fuel? NOTHING! Its called spent for a reason!

Actually it would be material for dirty bomb. Or you wouldn't even need bomb to distribute it, just put it to water sources or something like that.
Spent doesn't mean its safe... nuclear waste is radioactive thousands years. Otherwise nuclear power would be really good alternative for fossil fuels.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Nasa uses a nuclear fuel in many of its probes to power batteries.The famous voyager used one and I think the thing is still transmitting after all these years.That would not happen if it had chemical or solar power. This is not the same type of nuclear fuel used in bombs or reactors and is only a fraction as radioactive far less dangerous.

Those are called as radioisotope thermoelectric generators.
en.wikipedia.org...

Currently they're developing real nuclear reactor for JIMO mission because of much better "efficiency" and power output of them compared to RTGs
www.jpl.nasa.gov...