SCI/TECH: U.S Government To Be Sued Over Global Warming

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
A coalition of environmental groups including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, have been given the right by a Californian Court to sue the US Government over global warming. Two federal development agencies responsible for billions of dollars in loans to fund overseas projects including power plants emitting greenhouse gases and oil pipeline projects are the target of the lawsuit. The lawsuits mean that the onus is on Governments to provide evidence that global warming is not happening.
 



news.independent.co.uk
A judge in San Francisco gave permission for the two groups, along with four US cities, to sue two federal development agencies that provide billions of dollars in loans to fund projects overseas. Some of the projects are power plants that emit greenhouse gases while others include pipeline projects that allow the transfer of oil.

"This is the first time a US court has given a plaintiff the right to go to court solely on the global warming issue," Geoff Hand, a Vermont-based lawyer in the case, told The Independent. "It's a great advance."

The lawsuit was brought by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, along with the cities of Boulder, Colorado, and the Californian cities of Oakland, Santa Monica and Arcata. In the filing the cities argued that the impact of global warming - including rising sea levels and warmer ocean temperatures - would have a negative impact on their communities.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I personally believe that if this move brings it all out into the open and allows the public more access to information on global warming then this is a good thing.

I am not saying the federal Government is the only ones responsible for global warming as the responsibility falls on every person on the planets shoulders but it is a good start to get to the bottom of the matter and reveal once and for all the truth. That's all I and many others ask for...the truth and what global warming means to us personally.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Mayet]




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I'd like to be pedantic here and point out that the responsiblity of global warming doesnt rest on the shoulders of everyone on the planet. Half the World's population has never even made a phone call so its fair to say the blame is unevenly laid at the feet of the developed world. In particular the United States which represents 4% of the Worlds population and contributes 25% of the World's greenhouse gases.

The United States government may not be responsible for all the pollution responsible for global warming but its the largest contributer and refused the Kyoto Protocol hence its the logical first cab off the rank for litigation.

[edit on 26/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

NEW YORK — Officials in nine Northeastern states have reached a preliminary agreement to cap and then cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 10% by 2020, a Delaware official said Wednesday.

If the agreement is made final, it would be the first of its kind in the United States. The Bush administration has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a greenhouse gas reduction plan that has been adopted by about 150 other countries.

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont came together in 2003 to form a coalition, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to explore a market-driven cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions in the absence of mandatory emissions reductions at the national level.
LA Times



NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nine northeastern U.S. states are working on a plan to cap and then reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the first U.S. deal of its kind and one which would see the region breaking with President George W. Bush who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol

The move comes as California, Washington and Oregon are considering a similar pact -- a dynamic environmentalists say could pressure the federal government to adopt a national law. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the greenhouse gas reduction plan already adopted by over 150 countries.

Under the plan being worked on, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont would cap carbon dioxide emissions at 150 million tons a year -- roughly equal to the average emissions in the highest three years between 2000 and 2004.
R euters



Yes Subz I should reword my statement. it is a matter for every person on the planet to take an interest in and do what each and every person can do to stop this and get the planet back on track.

Africans are the land which has the less number of people responsible for global warming issues and yet it will be the land first hit by the effects of the problem.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Thats true Mayet


But the point im making is that the rest of the World is taking it uponselves to correct the wrongs of greenhouse gas emissions. They are doing this via the Kyoto protocol whilst the United States and Australia are not.

I think this court case will be interesting but of little impact on the over all problem. There is an institutional problem within the United States government that is holding their economy in higher regard than the existance of the human race as a species.

This court case might force the United States to again admit that the World is warming up but there isnt a cat in hells chance of them conceeding the fact that humans are contributing to it. Im not clued up on the intricacies of the U.S justice system but I assume the U.S government isnt bound to any civil court case. i.e. massive (talking trillions here to compensate the damage done by the U.S) compensation claims.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Well the question we should be asking of our governments, Australia and the US is
Why?
Why won't you sign?
Who is holding you to ransom?
Why won't you listen to the people?
Why are you being so arrogant and not fixing this problem?
What is your agenda?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz


The United States government may not be responsible for all the pollution responsible for global warming but its the largest contributer and refused the Kyoto Protocol hence its the logical first cab off the rank for litigation.

[edit on 26/8/05 by subz]


Nothing like slanting the truth a little. Actually Australia has the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world unless the figures have changed since 1999 and 2002.

www.tai.org.au...


www.ecologicalhomes.com.au...


Also allow me to point out that the US is not the most polluted country either.



Most Pollutted Countries
Rank Country Tons of Carbon per person
1 Qatar 20.05
2 United Arab Emirates 10.36
3 Kuwait 8.69
4 Guam 7.76
5 Bahrain 7.66
6 Singapore 7.04
7 United States 6.04






[edit on 8/26/2005 by shots]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
Well the question we should be asking of our governments, Australia and the US is
Why?
Why won't you sign?
Who is holding you to ransom?
Why won't you listen to the people?
Why are you being so arrogant and not fixing this problem?
What is your agenda?



the kyoto treaty isnt feasable and has proven it already, not even japan or europe has been able to stick to its limit.

why should we sign something that is impossible to stick to without destroying our economy?

why cant we cut pollution other ways which wont ruin our economy?

why are you being so arrogant to assume we do nothing to end pollution and that only the kyoto treaty can fix it?

what because we dont do what you think is best we're automatically arrogant?

the people demand whats impossible to, assuming technology is where it is not at, so why should such demands be listened to especially if its not possible to meet those demands?

why should government be blamed when its THE PEOPLE who use gas, plastics, power plants, litter and everything else? how does this suit stand on any legal basis? first THE PEOPLE pollute, global warming is A THEORY which has NOT been proven by anything but OBSERVATION and its still being questioned AND even if it is true its not just our people who contribute to pollution, so much about this screams of witch hunt and shouldnt even be a valid lawsuit.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
The United States government may not be responsible for all the pollution responsible for global warming but its the largest contributer and refused the Kyoto Protocol hence its the logical first cab off the rank for litigation.


Come on subz...:shk:
Kyoto Protocols?
You mean the Kyoto protocols that virtually no one that signed on to it is observing or is having great difficulty in observing?
You mean the same Kyoto Protocols that some environmentalist groups and organizations said was useless and would not have any impact on global warming.
You bet that China, the US, and others, including Japan and India, did not sign on to it for Kyoto was worthless, speculatively on my part.
They went on to sign a new agreement:
Moveon Beyond Kyoto
Yes to Growth; No to Kyoto
Way, Way Beyond Kyoto
Leaving the Europeans Behind





seekerof

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

the kyoto treaty isnt feasable and has proven it already, not even japan or europe has been able to stick to its limit.


In who's eyes is it unfeasible? Yours or the worlds? What is your alternative now you have thrown this option out as being unsuitable to you.


why should we sign something that is impossible to stick to without destroying our economy?


Destroy Your economy? How quaint. Wouldn't that be a shame to take you back to the levels of everyone else on this. Is America too much of a super power to risk her precious economy at the expense of polluting the planet.


why cant we cut pollution other ways which wont ruin our economy?


What a great idea, how about rethinking your economy and ensuring that the peoples of the future worldwide at least get an economy to play with.


why are you being so arrogant to assume we do nothing to end pollution and that only the kyoto treaty can fix it?


If i was that damned arrogant dear I would be providing the answers not asking the questions. I assume nothing. What are you and your government doing to stop this pollution occuring.


what because we dont do what you think is best we're automatically arrogant?


No, your reply is what makes you arrogant, I haven't even been given options, facts, truths or ideas to think I know what is best.


the people demand whats impossible to, assuming technology is where it is not at, so why should such demands be listened to especially if its not possible to meet those demands?


Because once again the people are not armed with fact figures and truths. People are not being given options. Options are being supressed, actually this whole issue is beign supressed by your government and mine. Who says it is not possible to meet the demands. Oh just because you may not be able to make a few new warheads, or send a 900 billion dollars mission to mars or get involved with a war because you are too busy saving the planet and changing your economy to fit with the future?


why should government be blamed when its THE PEOPLE who use gas, plastics, power plants, litter and everything else? how does this suit stand on any legal basis? first THE PEOPLE pollute, global warming is A THEORY which has NOT been proven by anything but OBSERVATION and its still being questioned AND even if it is true its not just our people who contribute to pollution, so much about this screams of witch hunt and shouldnt even be a valid lawsuit.


why do the people use plastics and pollute and drive polluting cars around and have huge bins full of wasted packaging at the end of a week. Why is there mass amounts of litter that can't be broken down?

The people don't have big choices on products they buy or vehicles they drive, fuel they use. The people atre stuck with the options given to them by the government and big business, oh wait, the government is big business. As you said its your economy, that economy is also lining the pockets of the elites with gold.

The people are asking for environmentally friendly products, the people are asking for alternative fuels, the people are asking to save the planet now.

But then there is people like you. People who would rather sweep the whole issue under the carpet and not even pretend its not happening..but actually deny it, deny responsibility.

Witch hunt? The witch hunts were another tool of suppression by those in charge. Witch Hunts were in denial of an idea, a thought and a way of life. Witch Hunts to to stifle kill and destroy that idea of something new and something different and something not mainstream. Also witches are enviromentally friendly little buggers. They worship the Earth and mother nature....They believe in replacing what is taken and also believe in reaping what you sow... reap away........

I would rethink the word witch hunt because I could quite easily use it to label your own thoughts and ideas.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   
In who's eyes is it unfeasible? Yours or the worlds? What is your alternative now you have thrown this option out as being unsuitable to you.

//
in noones "eyes" in the real world, economically and legally its unfeasable unless you want mass layoffs, government dictating what you drive, how much you can drive, how much power you can use, what you can buy, AND every country has failed in staying within the treaties limits thusfar, dont get mad at me for seeing the economic disaster in this threaty.

//--
Destroy Your economy? How quaint. Wouldn't that be a shame to take you back to the levels of everyone else on this. Is America too much of a super power to risk her precious economy at the expense of polluting the planet.

//

so we should accept massive job losses, homelessness and become a 3rd world country just so youre happy.

//----
What a great idea, how about rethinking your economy and ensuring that the peoples of the future worldwide at least get an economy to play with.

//

youre not arguing on what is realistic, only some paradise pipe dream of pollution just magically vanishing suddenly all while noone suffers by sudden destruction of our country, without our economy any effort in regards to alternative energy or any such thing will be destroyed because with 30% of the world economy gone, that would bring a great depression, twice before when our economy crashed it did exactly that, thinking by logic our action is protecting everyone, your idea would cause disaster.

//---

If i was that damned arrogant dear I would be providing the answers not asking the questions. I assume nothing. What are you and your government doing to stop this pollution occuring.

//

funny, YOU WERE ASSUMING then asserting you know this and that, and try researching, you might find we are doing quite alot with our own programs WITHOUT destroying our economy.

//---

No, your reply is what makes you arrogant, I haven't even been given options, facts, truths or ideas to think I know what is best.

//

right, stop throwing words around, i ask a reasonable question because you are asserting that we're arrogant for not sighning this treaty, and im arrogant?

AND if you dont have any facts or opinion or anything on this why did you even create this thread? are you THAT biased that you say things without any reason except the fact its america so it must be a good thing we're being sued?

//--
Because once again the people are not armed with fact figures and truths. People are not being given options. Options are being supressed, actually this whole issue is beign supressed by your government and mine. Who says it is not possible to meet the demands. Oh just because you may not be able to make a few new warheads, or send a 900 billion dollars mission to mars or get involved with a war because you are too busy saving the planet and changing your economy to fit with the future?

//

this is baseless conspiracy daitribe and personal bias, im not interested in your "opinion" and what the crap? 900 billion? NASA DOESNT EVEN GET THAT MUCH IN 100 YEARS AT ITS CURRENT BUDGET..that figure cant be true, and no were too busy thinking within reason and about our people to risk destroying our country.

//---

why do the people use plastics and pollute and drive polluting cars around and have huge bins full of wasted packaging at the end of a week. Why is there mass amounts of litter that can't be broken down?

//

because they do and not everything is boidegradable and they are wasteful(people), ask yourself, and plastics are very useful, i'd be dead without them and many others.

//---

The people don't have big choices on products they buy or vehicles they drive, fuel they use. The people atre stuck with the options given to them by the government and big business, oh wait, the government is big business. As you said its your economy, that economy is also lining the pockets of the elites with gold.

//

yes they do but attitudes like this are the reason people think they have no choices, government isnt part of business unless suddenly we became socialist, but whatever you wish to believe

//---

The people are asking for environmentally friendly products, the people are asking for alternative fuels, the people are asking to save the planet now.

//

many exist, they exist but the people mostly dont care enough to drive investment in such fuels, unless it benefits their wallet, if enough invested in these things they would have them.

//---

But then there is people like you. People who would rather sweep the whole issue under the carpet and not even pretend its not happening..but actually deny it, deny responsibility.

//

me, you, its not about us, its about reason and fact, i swept nothing over, i didnt say its not happening, i said it wasnt proven, as its a THEORY, its not fact, i was clear that it could be happening but that my reason and science has never undeniably PROVEN FOR A FACT that it is, especially since we have only begun understanding our enviroment and as yet we cant say if this warming is naturally recurring in cycles, from pollution or whatever.

//--

Witch hunt? The witch hunts were another tool of suppression by those in charge. Witch Hunts were in denial of an idea, a thought and a way of life. Witch Hunts to to stifle kill and destroy that idea of something new and something different and something not mainstream. Also witches are enviromentally friendly little buggers. They worship the Earth and mother nature....They believe in replacing what is taken and also believe in reaping what you sow... reap away........

//

or to pin blame on a scapegoat, and take it off the culprit, ie the people blaming government for what is the peoples fault, and thats nice but not really the discussion, im not against you or "witches".

//---

I would rethink the word witch hunt because I could quite easily use it to label your own thoughts and ideas.

//

right if you wish to take everything personal just u2u me, i didnt label you, i questioned your reason and pointed out your bias.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Another great post Mayet.
Great comments from you too subz.

IMO - if people understood exactly how global warming is affecting their health, finances, and futures - they immediately would jumpstart a 'new economy.' No more questions asked.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   


Mayet - People are not being given options. Options are being supressed, actually this whole issue is beign supressed by your government and mine.


The governments suppress much more than options and truths. They love telling lies also. Do you really think that the techonology everyone in the super power countries especially in America has access to is the most advanced technology that is available? I believe the government is suppressing much more advanced technology.

IT'S NOT ONLY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
WASHINGTON'S NEW WORLD ORDER WEAPONS HAVE THE ABILITY TO TRIGGER CLIMATE CHANGE

www.earthpulse.com...




The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases…



I believe the government can manupilate the weather, and casue signs and symptoms in Earth's atmosphere to look like it is warming up. They can use this not only for warfare, but also to control and manupliate us.

Do you honestly think the government is really going to re-think their economies, especially when the leaders can line their pockets with gold? Do you you really think that the average American citizen can really manupliate the economy? No, we can't. Actually it can be used to suppress us such as with inflation and interest rates. The government has us by the scruff of our necks.




why do the people use plastics and pollute and drive polluting cars around and have huge bins full of wasted packaging at the end of a week. Why is there mass amounts of litter that can't be broken down?


Is this the greenies mantra or what? I'll agree with namehere that this screams witchhunt. You don't want to know what I think of witches or the so called earth mother either. I'm sorry, no matter how much you desire us to go back to living like in the 1800's, it is not happening. I don't see that much of a desire to do so yourself, since you are using a computer, which is made of the dreaded plastic. I'm sure you wouldn't want to have to walk or bike several miles just to get to work let alone have to milk a cow to be able to drink milk. Milk can be sold in glass containers, but the company that makes the glass containers is also polluting our environment.

I'll end this part of my rant here. Oh by the way, you are reaping what you just sowed on this thread.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
in noones "eyes" in the real world, economically and legally its unfeasable unless you want mass layoffs, government dictating what you drive, how much you can drive, how much power you can use, what you can buy, AND every country has failed in staying within the treaties limits thus far, dont get mad at me for seeing the economic disaster in this threaty.


*Ah and now we get to what we buy, what we use, what we drive, how much we use. That same government produces money which makes us buy things. We get dished out this money as a reward for being good little minions and have this money taken away when we are deemed to be bad minions. We are controlled totally by this money
*I am not mad at you. I am discussing your words. I do not know you personally to get 'mad' at you.

so we should accept massive job losses, homelessness and become a 3rd world country just so youre happy.

*No it takes a total rethink. A total look at the whole issue start to finish. Our society and how it is built. What is important and what is not. What is our future and how can we learn from the past.

youre not arguing on what is realistic, only some paradise pipe dream of pollution just magically vanishing suddenly all while noone suffers by sudden destruction of our country, without our economy any effort in regards to alternative energy or any such thing will be destroyed because with 30% of the world economy gone, that would bring a great depression, twice before when our economy crashed it did exactly that, thinking by logic our action is protecting everyone, your idea would cause disaster.

where do I say that pollution will magically vanish? Once again regarding the economy the first statement need not be repeated here. Economy is built on money. Meanwhile Billy gates has tens of billions of dollars to his name and luxuries and riches and then there is Africa.......and Asia.......and every other third world country. A depression? Well its about time one was manufactured. I am sure it's on the Government's to do list somewhere. Nothing better than a downturn in economy to sort the minions. Depresions are built on money.

funny, YOU WERE ASSUMING then asserting you know this and that, and try researching, you might find we are doing quite alot with our own programs WITHOUT destroying our economy.

I was asserting just what? I remember I was asking a lot of questions, which have not been answered. I don't quite recall a page long post of the solutions to global warming "by Mayet who knows nothing". I think maybe you had better reread what I HAVE written and not read to much into what's not there.

right, stop throwing words around, i ask a reasonable question because you are asserting that we're arrogant for not sighning this treaty, and im arrogant?

I never throw words around. I speak from the heart.
Please reread what I wrote once again

Why are you being so arrogant and not fixing this problem?

I specifically said arrogant and not fixing the problem....I did not say arrogant for not siging treaty. I asked why the treaty wasn't signed. A question.... a perfectly standard way of gaining knowledge and learning something.


AND if you dont have any facts or opinion or anything on this why did you even create this thread? are you THAT biased that you say things without any reason except the fact its america so it must be a good thing we're being sued?

Did you happen to see which particular part of the forum you were on. Its ATSNN, the NEWS network where people report on NEWS. I do believe in all my honesty that I was reporting a news article that had hit the news feeds. Nowhere in my article can I detect even the slightest flavour of bias on my behalf. I have followed guidelines and even added a cutesy comment of my own at the bottom as required.


this is baseless conspiracy daitribe and personal bias, im not interested in your "opinion" and what the crap? 900 billion? NASA DOESNT EVEN GET THAT MUCH IN 100 YEARS AT ITS CURRENT BUDGET..that figure cant be true, and no were too busy thinking within reason and about our people to risk destroying our country.

I didn't ask you if you were interested in my opinion. I don't say what I feel to win friends. I have plenty thank you very much. Ok you win now its 900 million.


because they do and not everything is boidegradable and they are wasteful(people), ask yourself, and plastics are very useful, i'd be dead without them and many others.

Once again I and that is if you ever do read what I say, advocate balance. If you wish to be precise, Minimal wastage. We live in a very throw away society. It is not necessary to have so much wastage.


yes they do but attitudes like this are the reason people think they have no choices, government isnt part of business unless suddenly we became socialist, but whatever you wish to believe

excuse me while I choke over your comments there. Government is not a part of business *chortle


many exist, they exist but the people mostly dont care enough to drive investment in such fuels, unless it benefits their wallet, if enough invested in these things they would have them.

No argument. As I have said this is all money.


me, you, its not about us, its about reason and fact, i swept nothing over, i didnt say its not happening, i said it wasnt proven, as its a THEORY, its not fact, i was clear that it could be happening but that my reason and science has never undeniably PROVEN FOR A FACT that it is, especially since we have only begun understanding our enviroment and as yet we cant say if this warming is naturally recurring in cycles, from pollution or whatever.

I am afraid it is very much about us, you and I and everyone around us.
Once again if you read my very very first comment, way up in the news item I so lovingly provided for debate and knowledge, you would see that i did put forward a strong belief that we do not possess all the facts, we do not know the truths, we need facts, we need figures. I did say that looky looky. Read.

or to pin blame on a scapegoat, and take it off the culprit, ie the people blaming government for what is the peoples fault, and thats nice but not really the discussion, im not against you or "witches".

I am not a witch..though my children think I am when I know what they are up to..... People blaming government for whats the peoples thought?
*shakes head for fuzziness*. Hmm no............. the culprit could just ultimately the governemnts of this world who hold total power? or is it big business *shakes fuzziness again.


right if you wish to take everything personal just u2u me, i didnt label you, i questioned your reason and pointed out your bias.

question away, no U2U'ing though my hubby might get jealous of all the attention.
Bias?............... sugarbritches.....everyones biased.....I kept mine out of the article so thats a no pointer.


[edit on 27-8-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
I believe the government can manupilate the weather, and casue signs and symptoms in Earth's atmosphere to look like it is warming up. They can use this not only for warfare, but also to control and manupliate us.

totaly agree but i also think money is a great suppression tool

Is this the greenies mantra or what? I'll agree with namehere that this screams witchhunt. You don't want to know what I think of witches or the so called earth mother either. I'm sorry, no matter how much you desire us to go back to living like in the 1800's, it is not happening. I don't see that much of a desire to do so yourself, since you are using a computer, which is made of the dreaded plastic. I'm sure you wouldn't want to have to walk or bike several miles just to get to work let alone have to milk a cow to be able to drink milk. Milk can be sold in glass containers, but the company that makes the glass containers is also polluting our environment.

Greenies mantra? I am not really 100 percent sure if it is, I will have to catch one running around out in the forest saving trees and ask them. I do not recall advocating going back the the 1800's. Once again I do recall my stance on balance. Walk or ride the bike miles to get milk? been there done that. Walked 20 kilometres with 6 bags of groceries and three kids including a baby once. That was fun. Milk cows? no I get sore hands after a bit, besides my neighbours wouldn't like it. I much prefer the arrangement I have with a friend on a dairy. i get milk for the kids. he gets his computers fixed free. Glass is great, fully recycling. fully sick stuff that. and you know something coca cola tastes so much better from a glass bottle. Yeah the company pollutes but when you compare the pollution from the whole production of glass drink bottles to the whole production from plastic drink bottles, I know the way I would go.

I'll end this part of my rant here. Oh by the way, you are reaping what you just sowed on this thread.

I know
..... isn't it great. I opened debate, got people thinking, got people arguing points and putting forth their opinions on a subject that matters.
I love that sowing and reaping, action and reaction...change...movement

non stagnation.....


[edit on 27-8-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Nothing like slanting the truth a little. Actually Australia has the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world unless the figures have changed since 1999 and 2002.

Who's talking per capita? I said the United States is the "largest contributer" of greenhouse gases. One nation that accounts for 25% of the Worlds emissions. That is a fact, not an opinion or an attempt to slant the truth. If you want to justify it with numbers, be my guest but thats a different issue. If you can show me a country that emits more greenhouse gases than the United States then I will admit my mistake.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Come on subz...:shk:
Kyoto Protocols?
You mean the Kyoto protocols that virtually no one that signed on to it is observing or is having great difficulty in observing?

The point is that they are reducing their emissions and have targets to strive for. That beats carrying along your merry way like the United States and Australia are.


Originally posted by Seekerof
You mean the same Kyoto Protocols that some environmentalist groups and organizations said was useless and would not have any impact on global warming.

They said it wouldnt have an impact on global warming? I find that hard to believe as any reduction, however slight, would reduce global warming atleast minutely. I'd question the financial backing of such environmentalist groups.


Originally posted by Seekerof
You bet that China, the US, and others, including Japan and India, did not sign on to it for Kyoto was worthless, speculatively on my part.

You'll find they thought it was worthless because the worlds largest greenhouse gas emitter didnt sign on to it. Other nations, including my own United Kingdom, did sign on to Kyoto and they arent that far off meeting their targets.

Im still waiting for the Bush administration's technological silver bullet that they seem to think will save the planet at the 11th hour like in some bad Hollywood disaster movie.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I dont think the Kyoto Protocol is perfect but its the best thing out there we have atm to try and start dealing with what i believe is our greatest struggle ever. The Kyoto Protocol is used by those who profit in the hydrocarbon economy to divide us so that they can merrily keep destroying the environment. The mainstream political parties dont really seem to care about tackling this issue either and the right (repubs, neocons etc) are the worse of the bunch. No-one in their right mind thinks Bush is doing good enough for the environment.

Why cant we just have sane leadership in our countries??



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz


I said the United States is the "largest contributer" of greenhouse gases. One nation that accounts for 25% of the Worlds emissions. That is a fact, not an opinion or an attempt to slant the truth.


So you say; but you have not furnished any proof, while I have shown you that statistically Australia produces more green house gases.
And kindly note that one of my own sources was the Australia government not some green jeans site, kindly do the very same if you care to reply.


[edit on 8/27/2005 by shots]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I think this lawsuit is mostly for show, just like the Kyoto protocol. Neither has much chance of success.

I also believe we are facing an imminent (in natures timeframe) environmental catastrophe, somewhat of our own doing in accelerating nature's inherent cycles. We are woefully unprepared for this, and the suffering could be tremendous. I'm not saying doomsday is tomorrow, but its close, and we are greasing a slick downslope. The Earth is out of balance, and its starting to wobble, like a spinning top getting ready to fall over on its side.

People don't want to change what they are doing because they don't want to give up their 'standard of living', something everyone is constantly trying to improve. A shift in the economy toward a viable and sustainable future would threaten that precious 'standard of living', especially for the powers that be, and we can't have that, can we? Hence the lack of progress.

It seems we would rather relentlessly pursue the golden calf today, than ensure a sustainable ecology for our children tomorrow.

Only a true recognition of the dire straits we are in as a global community, and a shift in the paradigm of our efforts at survival will bring about an effective response to this looming challenge.

Unfortunately for all of us, the odds are against that, and I think time is running out. Things certainly can't go on like this much longer, imo.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   




I've worked it all out. THIS is America's technological silver bullet to counter global warming: Mr. Freeze!



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
So you say; but you have not furnished any proof, while I have shown you that statistically Australia produces more green house gases.
And kindly note that one of my own sources was the Australia government not some green jeans site, kindly do the very same if you care to reply.

What are you talking about shots? Do you comprehend the difference between being the worlds' largest contributer and the largest contributer per capita?

The United States has 10x more people than Australia does, that means that if Australia pumps out more than a 10th of what America does than it will pollute more per capita. That DOES NOT change the fact that as a value figure the United States puts out more green house gases than any other nation on Earth.

If Australia polluted more, which you seem to confuse with the per capita values, then that would mean Australia (more than the United States according to you) and the United States (25%) contribute over 50% of the Worlds greenhouse gases alone!

Its not my fault you are incapable (purposely or accidently) confusing the two values here.

But you want proof of what im saying, ok here you go:


But developing countries say historical responsibility for global warming lies with nations that industrialised first, and primarily with the United States, which by itself accounts for a quarter of all global greenhouse-gas pollution.

AFP Article


The United States, which accounts for one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, and Australia have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, saying it would harm their economies by raising energy prices, and cost five million jobs in the US alone

AAP Article from The Age Newspaper (Australian)


The United States, which accounts for one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases,

ABC News Article


The United States, which accounts for one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases,

Yahoo! News Article

Shall I go on? Shots, if you can show me any source of information that says that Australia produces any where near 25% of the Worlds' greenhouse gases I will eat my hat! Until then, re-read the original post you've seized upon, understand that per capita means sod all to the point I was making, and give it a rest!

[edit on 27/8/05 by subz]





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join