SCI/TECH: Queen Elizabeth Urges US Global Warming Rethink

Queen Elizabeth is urging the US to rethink its policy on global warming. She has asked Tony Blair's office to lobby the US into following Russia's example on ratifying the Kyoto protocol.



It is a very rare occasion that Queen Elizabeth makes political statesments like this. She is also well informed by leading expert's on climate change.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
US and Australia won�t sign Kyoto protocol


[edit on 31-10-2004 by Banshee]

Well now, at last, something worth debating.

Appart from terrorism, this topic in itself is the most important we are facing today, and what we and our children will be facing in years, decades and maybe even centuries to come.

What i fear is that there is really nothing being done to prepare for the worse, all that is being done is talk about the problem, and trying to pass a treaty that won't do much to stop the climate change we are facing.

If the Queen is so informed, would she make an issue about the peak oil? Just my two cents...

Originally posted by spaceghost
If the Queen is so informed, would she make an issue about the peak oil?

Peak oil will lead to less polluting cars. Either less cars or no cars at all. Or cars which runs on alternative fuel/electricity. Peak oil will not lead to more pollution anyways.

Originally posted by Hellmutt

Originally posted by spaceghost
If the Queen is so informed, would she make an issue about the peak oil?

Peak oil will lead to less polluting cars. Either less cars or no cars at all. Or cars which runs on alternative fuel/electricity. Peak oil will not lead to more pollution anyways.

Well, peak oil would lead to gas being more expensive, as well as everything else, including food and everything that is transported or that depends directly or indirectly on oil.

Most societies in the world depend on oil, not only for travel, but to produce many needed products, and to transport them.

We use plastic, which is produced from oil, for a wide variety of reasons, one of them is to make pacemakers...

So pretty much when peak oil hit us, even thou it will take sometime for us to realize we already reached peak oil, it will be already too late to do anything. Even if every nation in the world agreed and we started to work on finding more efficient ways to produce energy, it will take more than a decade...and that's too late.

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Most societies in the world depend on oil, not only for travel, but to produce many needed products, and to transport them.

We use plastic, which is produced from oil, for a wide variety of reasons, one of them is to make pacemakers...

Well, then we should find alternative (and less polluting) ways of transporting the goods and produce energy. And save the oil that�s left for the most necessary things instead.

Originally posted by Hellmutt

Originally posted by Muaddib
Most societies in the world depend on oil, not only for travel, but to produce many needed products, and to transport them.

We use plastic, which is produced from oil, for a wide variety of reasons, one of them is to make pacemakers...

Well, then we should find alternative (and less polluting) ways of transporting the goods and produce energy. And save the oil that�s left for the most necessary things instead.

The problem is, we don't have those alternative ways that would make it possible for us not to use oil anymore.

It will take a decade or more to even do enough research, if every country in the world agreed and decided to spend most of their budgets in finding these alternative ways.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Hellmutt

Originally posted by Muaddib
Most societies in the world depend on oil, not only for travel, but to produce many needed products, and to transport them.

We use plastic, which is produced from oil, for a wide variety of reasons, one of them is to make pacemakers...

Well, then we should find alternative (and less polluting) ways of transporting the goods and produce energy. And save the oil that�s left for the most necessary things instead.

The problem is, we don't have those alternative ways that would make it possible for us not to use oil anymore.

It will take a decade or more to even do enough research, if every country in the world agreed and decided to spend most of their budgets in finding these alternative ways.

It may take a while to fully switch to renewable energy, but all we need to do is reduce oil usage. It is "peak oil", not the depletion of all oil. So long as conservation efforts, and improvements in efficiency reduce usage by the same amount as production declines, there will be enough oil. If we can manage to reduce oil need faster than the decline in production, we will be even better off.

We don't need to end all oil use. What we need to do is to reduce the demand for oil. There are lots of ways we could start trying to reduce oil usage, today. Then, demand can continue to drop.

The discussion about 'global warming' is valid.
Does it or does it not exhist? Is it real, or is it
junk science? Etc. etc. IF it's real, and there is
serious questions as to if it is, what can be done
about it? All good discussion.

As far as Queen Elizabeth goes, I don't understand
why she said anything. I question her motives.
(Yes, I see a possible conspiracy here). We get
nothing of substance out of her for decades. She
warns Diana's former butler that there are 'other
powers' that run the world (remember that?) ... and
now suddenly she is talking science? hmmmm ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The discussion about 'global warming' is valid.
Does it or does it not exhist? Is it real, or is it
junk science? Etc. etc. IF it's real, and there is
serious questions as to if it is, what can be done
about it? All good discussion.

As far as Queen Elizabeth goes, I don't understand
why she said anything. I question her motives.

I suspect Queen Elizabeth is speaking out because the problem is extremely urgent - and not being handled. ...the science is not at all in question - the only questions left are "When will the pendulum swing to the abrupt cooling stage? ...When will the ice age hit?"


.

Her majesty is no doubt very much aware of the significance of the timing of her statement.

Which, of course, leads me to wonder...

Originally posted by Majic
Her majesty is no doubt very much aware of the significance of the timing of her statement.

Which, of course, leads me to wonder...

Uh huh. uh huh. Looks like Bush is losing ALL his allies. Her majesty is not unaware of public sentiment...



.

If Her Majesty is >serious< about the global warming problem, she will begin to subsidize [with her OWN cash] the development of peat-burning, wind-driven, solar and magnetic systems of power, to empower the Commonwealth.

If she's just blowing smoke, she won't do any of those things. She'll leave it to son HRH Charles, Prince of Wales, or to her cousin--uncle's daughter, to do--in succession, since none of her children QUALIFY to succeed her.

Chai

.
.
.As I understand it, the British people do not want the Bush US as an ally, or support his position on Kyoto - the Queen is dependent upon the people for her position and income, so she's forced to take a stand.


.

in reply to Emily_Cragg...

The queen has ordered that one of her houses (I think Balmoral), is to be supplied with only hydro-electricity generated on site, from one of the local rivers. I assume that there are also plans for her other residences.

Its about time someone of standing and influence comment on the problems were facing with climate change. And if her comments help open debate so much the better.

As for her timing, has Bush or Kerry made an issue of climate change and environment in any of their speeches??

P.S.
I think its criminal that the US government hasnt signed up to Kyoto.

Originally posted by spacemunkey
in reply to Emily_Cragg...


P.S.
I think its criminal that the US government hasnt signed up to Kyoto.

So does the rest of the world apparently - it's not just the Queen of England... have you been watching the US dollar plummet?



.

As far as Queen Elizabeth goes, I don't understand
why she said anything. I question her motives.
(Yes, I see a possible conspiracy here). We get
nothing of substance out of her for decades. She
warns Diana's former butler that there are 'other
powers' that run the world (remember that?) ... and
now suddenly she is talking science? hmmmm ...

We do get something out of her...vast quantities of revenue from tourism and trade deals..but that is another thread.
Also, what is this about her saying "other powers". i remember her saying something to that effect, but is their any more detail please?

Or is she talking through her HAT?

If Her Majesty is >serious< about the global warming problem, she will begin to subsidize [with her OWN cash] the development of peat-burning, wind-driven, solar and magnetic systems of power, to empower the Commonwealth.

If she's just blowing smoke, she won't do any of those things. She'll leave it to son HRH Charles, Prince of Wales, or to her cousin--uncle's daughter, to do--in succession, since none of her children QUALIFY to succeed her.

Chai

the Queen doesn't actually have that kind of money. She makes about �12 million a year. Of which she spends mostly on her own upkeep (remarkably economic, for what she gets us in return). Some comes from the Taxpayer, the rest from her assets.

She is worth about �1 billion, but again, that is mainly tied up in assets, and not cash in the bank. So she doesn't actually have alot to go to raw research into other power alternatives, plus the fact she supports dozens of other causes/charities out of her pocket.


On the subject matter though, i think it must be a well timed statement (over due if you ask me) that means something, but we need to know why she is saying it now, rather than 5 or 10 years ago....