 |
| |
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Fuel cell is a great idea. But before that, we need to make people buy more fuel efficient cars. The government should increase the tax on the gasoline. The fuel cell technology is still about 5 - 10 years down the road. |
I am against any additional tax on fuel.
quote:
The old industrial sectors may be of decreasing importance to the developed world, but are crucial to the third world. We shouldn't think only of ourselves, rich rich priviledged people of this planet. |
Well, take a look at a country like India or China. They may be big polluters but they are trying to focus more on the high tech. Right now the high tech sector is a bit iffy, but they move to different sectors, like the manufacturing sector.
Ozz:
Kyoto is going to kill the economy, that is not a solution for any environmental problems. Of course your little agenda says otherwise.
quote:
Errr. Dumb enough to post a source instead of just
flapping my virtual lips in the breeze. Put up your
proof or are you just brain fartin'? |
Your source sucks you little farting liberal... stop with the rhetoric because nobody buys it anymore.
quote:
Yeah, they can sell the waste to terrorists right? |
Are you trying to make yourself look foolish? Because I never suggest doing so. What kind of fool are you? I am suggesting the developed world find a way to dispose of nuclear waste effectively.
quote:
The less of that crap floating around for like the
next 10,000 years the better. Nuclear is worse
than oil. |
You are quite dumb... get a clue... nuclear emits minimal air pollution. There are possibilities which will allow different types of nuclear isotopes to be used, which have longer half lifes, providing more electricity. I am not sure what kind of research is occuring, but more potent forms of nuclear energy are being researched. The end result will be more power due to higher grade isotopes and less amounts of waste.
quote:
Go hydro-electric and tidal, use fuel cells for autos. |
Hydroelectric is a inadequate. Not even all the strong enough rivers in the world can produce enough power.
Think again you have no clue what so ever.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Ozz:You are quite dumb... get a clue... nuclear emits minimal air pollution. There are possibilities which will allow different types of nuclear isotopes to be used, which have longer half lifes, providing more electricity. I am not sure what kind of research is occuring, but more potent forms of nuclear energy are being researched. The end result will be more power due to higher grade isotopes and less amounts of waste.
Hydroelectric is a inadequate. Not even all the strong enough rivers in the world can produce enough power.
Think again you have no clue what so ever. |
Right, I'll check your opinions again AFTER you take
basic physics, ( that is if you can pass it :P )
Hydroelectric power is not generated by rivers, Dr Einstein, It's potential energy stored in any elevated body of water, like any bay when the tide goes out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozz
I don't believe anyone can forecast the environmental effects of global warning, anymore than anyone can forecast the economic effects of Kyoto. No one can
even prove man is responsible.
What Kyoto boils down to is, a promise to the rest of
the world to go from being a filthy self destructive civilization, to a less filthy self destructive civilization.
There are lot of other benefits to be had by reducing
pollution. The economic arguments don't hold, the same
arguments were used when catalyic converters were
first put on cars, the cost would depress the auto industry and cause a depression. These same arguments appear whenever anti-pollution laws appear
on the table.
Canada's benefit of signing Kyoto now, watching the
US sign the bottom of it in 2006. |
OZZ, While this is probably beyond the scope of what Canada does, the ways we reduce greenhouse gases is also important. If we simply put limits on industry, they will flee. If instead we invest in clean power plants, electric trains to replace cars and reduce polluting traffic jams, I think there could be tremedous public benefits to be had in the effort in addition to reducing pollution.
But there are the Al Gore type solutions of simply imposing extreme taxes on energy while not earmarking that money for the "conservation" effort. I think this is kind of thinking scares people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
"If we simply put limits on industry, they will flee. If instead we invest in clean power plants, electric trains to replace cars and reduce polluting traffic jams, I think there could be tremedous public benefits to be had in the effort in addition to reducing pollution."
We have been working under these ideas to no effect for decades. We need Industry AND the consumer to work within a framework that promotes new technologies in products that pollute as well. We can promote industries that take decisive steps in reducing greenhouse gases, cleaner burning cars, higher fuel efficiency, energy efficient housing. These actions will have negative effects in some areas and positive in others. More efficient fuel use will lead to huge savings for consumers and industry, the fuel-cell will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels which will have to be done at some point in the future as they are finite. Industry won't come to these decisions on their own or at least they won't do it quickly enough. The long term benefits are more then worthwhile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
OZZ, While this is probably beyond the scope of what Canada does, the ways we reduce greenhouse gases is also important. If we simply put limits on industry, they will flee. If instead we invest in clean power plants, electric trains to replace cars and reduce polluting traffic jams, I think there could be tremedous public benefits to be had in the effort in addition to reducing pollution.
But there are the Al Gore type solutions of simply imposing extreme taxes on energy while not earmarking that money for the "conservation" effort. I think this is kind of thinking scares people. |
Your absolutely right, Industry fleeing is exactly what is going to happen. Then the trade barriers will go up.
Once the barriers go up industry will develop industries
to tap the profit out of the areas they abandoned. if
their is a profit to be made, that niche will be filled.
Economic dislocation is going to happen, it fact it has
to get industrial development moving. As for "Gore
Type solutions" that goes with any government
intiative.
Kind of like having hemorriods, pain in the ass getting
them removed, pain in the ass to leave them be. Things
will move along better in the long run if you pay the price
and pluck them out, and you can keep your shorts clean to boot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
Sorry, i though the time long past due for something tasteless and vuglar. Yet somehow fitting to the topic
at hand.
Here's another:
"Diease prevention is just good management"
from a barbacue apron I got from a veternary
medical supply company. It pays to run a clean operation, in any industry. If you pay the short term costs, you get the long term gains.
Kyoto is a short term cost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Companies like Shell and others are currently running negligable research programs for renewable energies. They're PR campaigns. The plan doesn't only have to entail slapping fines on industries but also giving benefits to industries that take active steps towards renewable energies and green technoloiges encouraging these new endeavours. The more countries that sign or start taking steps toward greenhouse reductions, the more profitable these new industries will be. Non-signers will find themselves behind the times very shortly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
"Who am I kidding? I want to breath aswell.... and I have no problem with capitalism advancing to the next level. I hate old industry."
Is this an agreement or am I reading it wrong?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Economic dislocation will not happen because you green plans will not be accepted. |
Buzz... wrong again,
They are already accepted, and industries that don't
comply will eithier bring themselves up to standard or
become extinct. Any industry not complying will have
it's market limited to the non Kyoto world by trade
barriers.
Not only that those countries accepting the filthy
dislocationed industry will be international pariahs.
Not that they are'nt beginning to look like that now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Cool, you know I just made the connection. For the longest time I was trying to figure out who your avatar was, I recognized him but I couldn't quite remember. You ARE Fez! Damn I'm stupid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
"Better environment" - but for whom?
"Universal benefits" - really? How does Canada benefit?
The environmental downsides the Canadians will be protecting against are located elsewhere, outside Canada. From my understanding, Canada will receive tremendous benefits from a warmer climate.
The above is the practical view. The strict view, which I personally find extremist, is that any change is "bad" even if is "good." |
Wow, that's a tremendously narrow-minded view. Having a warmer climate may mean better crop growing conditions and a longer summer tourist season, but there are enormous downsides too. First off, a warmer climate doesn't meant that the temperature will simply go up a couple of degrees uniformly across the land. You should expect some areas to become more prone to massive storms and drought. Second, even a more agreeable temperature in currently non-arable areas does little to make them more productive if good soils don't exist. Third, the possible impact on flora and fauna may be far from beneficial, as the changes may be more rapid than can be naturally adapted to.
Having said this, I'm far from some tree-hugging environmentalist that thinks we need immediate and massive changes or we're all going to die. I just think your statement is very ill thought out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
I call for extremely large subsidies for new technology ventures. |
Wrong again, This is exactly what will raise taxes, kill
new "clean" industry and lower produtivity in tech
development.
Your just a closet pinko Socialist with your state funded
commie ideals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
Wow, that's a tremendously narrow-minded view. Having a warmer climate may mean better crop growing conditions and a longer summer tourist season, but there are enormous downsides too. First off, a warmer climate doesn't meant that the temperature will simply go up a couple of degrees uniformly across the land. You should expect some areas to become more prone to massive storms and drought. Second, even a more agreeable temperature in currently non-arable areas does little to make them more productive if good soils don't exist. Third, the possible impact on flora and fauna may be far from beneficial, as the changes may be more rapid than can be naturally adapted to.
Having said this, I'm far from some tree-hugging environmentalist that thinks we need immediate and massive changes or we're all going to die. I just think your statement is very ill thought out. |
I stated the argument concisely as I could. There are professors who make the same argument with a lot of citation to authority. The argument is primarily based on the actual prediction of the environmental models.
I agree, of course, that radical and change can devastate because flora and fauna cannot adapt fast enough. But we are actually finding that the climate change is happening with glacial slowness, if at all. (No pun intended.)
Regardless, there has to be more debate on the fundamentals of what will happen before we decide that that warmer future is something that we do not want and must sacrifice to avoid. For example, we might find an ideal climate for Earth might be 5 degrees C warmer than now. In fact, I believe we did have that “ideal” climate 8000 years ago. The question would then become how we could get to 5 degrees warmer, and stop, with minimal environmental damage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-12-2002 23:03
|