USA WAKE UP!

[shropshire 0]

It may not suit me ....... but it fits well



Actually, I'm really not jealous. I'm not a petrol head, so big cars don't interest me at all. I have the car and bike (American at that) that I like and as a Skydiver, I do use at least, my fair share of oil).

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 18]

Quote

It may not suit me ....... but it fits well



Actually, I'm really not jealous. I'm not a petrol head, so big cars don't interest me at all. I have the car and bike (American at that) that I like and as a Skydiver, I do use at least, my fair share of oil).

Very quick!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In this case the US have been the obstructing part.

Not that I am disagreeing with you, but this is also a perspective issue. The US may view the UN as being obstructive.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Trent 0]

Actually, I just got back from India this past week... interestingly I see a topic on something that really bothered me as I watched the international news media bash the US for the Bali stuff.

Anyone, ANYONE who says that the US is a bigger polluter than India or China is misinformed, lying, or just dumb. I was shocked to see that the DAILY visibility is less than a couple of miles because of the pollution. Yeah, sure, Delhi's a big city... so it's dirty, right? Wrong, it did NOT get any better within the 300 mile radius from Delhi either. The amount of factories belching God-knows-what is ridiculous there. There may not be more SUVs there, but there is traffic as far as the eye can see.

I get back home to Houston, which is supposedly one of the US's worse polluters, right? Visibility unlimited. No chemical or burning stink in the air. No black snot when you blow your nose.

If visible pollution levels are such that you can barely breathe in places like India and China (been there too and it was not as bad as India but it wasn't nearly as nice as it is at home), then what can we assume about the harmful stuff that we don't see?

Makes me wonder how they really measure these pollution levels and if it isn't easy for some pretty obvious bad-stuff to get missed.

Oh, hello again!

[434 2]

Is that an excuse for not taking part in something that will be one of the most important issue for the upcoming future? Man made or not there is coming big changes, and then you can not blame India nor China. We all have the uppertunity to push every country for the better, and that have to include USA

[martin-o 0]

During late 19 century and early 20 century there was a horse manure crisis in Europe and America. Scientist and experts calculated that the cities wouldn't be able to grow any further because of the environmental hazards with all the manure laying around... Then came fossil fueled vehicles and everyone was delighted about the improved city environment.

Of course the US is still, for the most part, using better techniques when producing gods and energy. But it's not always the things you see that kills you.

And again, who is consuming the gods that comes out of India and China? Who is owning the sweatshops? Western capitalist is exploiting the cheap labor and week enforcement of work safety constantly.

When was the last time you wore an American made piece of clothing, except your jumpsuit ?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Is that an excuse for not taking part in something that will be one of the most important issue for the upcoming future? Man made or not there is coming big changes, and then you can not blame India nor China. We all have the uppertunity to push every country for the better, and that have to include USA

I view the kind of anecdotes Trent relates, which I have also observed in Asian states, to be testament to the success of the US environmental policy & regulatory legislation of the late 1960s and 1970s.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Trent 0]

Quote

I view the kind of anecdotes Trent relates, which I have also observed in Asian states, to be testament to the success of the US environmental policy & regulatory legislation of the late 1960s and 1970s.

Exactly. I think it is intellectually dishonest and shows the true political side of the global environmental movement to single out the US as it does, constantly. Why harangue the countries that ARE doing something to get better and who will continue to get better, then let the bigger (IMO) polluters slide???

I think the US would take care of itself with all of our environmentalists here and the fact that we like to live healthy (for the most part). Why do we need to sign onto some international, politically motivated accords? Why not pester those that probably won't improve on their own and most likely don't even care to?

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,471]

>I think it is intellectually dishonest and shows the true political side of the
>global environmental movement to single out the US as it does, constantly.

We are most often attacked because we are the worst offender.

>I think the US would take care of itself with all of our environmentalists
>here . . . .

If that were the case there wouldn't be any problem. But we are still the worst offender. China will catch up soon, but that's the future.

>and the fact that we like to live healthy (for the most part).

What does "living healthy" have to do with CO2 emissions? And when did the most obese large nation on the planet become one that likes to live healthy? (9th if you include places like Nauru, Samoa, Tonga etc)

>Why not pester those that probably won't improve on their own and most
>likely don't even care to?

You have just described the US.

[martin-o 0]

I know this is a bit of topic but let me ask you this question. If you were to choose three areas where you think the US is lacking, in an international comparison, which would it be? Surely you can't be good at everything.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I view the kind of anecdotes Trent relates, which I have also observed in Asian states, to be testament to the success of the US environmental policy & regulatory legislation of the late 1960s and 1970s.

Exactly. I think it is intellectually dishonest and shows the true political side of the global environmental movement to single out the US as it does, constantly. Why harangue the countries that ARE doing something to get better and who will continue to get better, then let the bigger (IMO) polluters slide???

I think the US would take care of itself with all of our environmentalists here and the fact that we like to live healthy (for the most part). Why do we need to sign onto some international, politically motivated accords? Why not pester those that probably won't improve on their own and most likely don't even care to?

Perhaps not surprisingly, I take a somewhat different lesson. Free market forces in the US did not want environmental regulation then … and many still don’t. Every once and a while the notion of eliminating the EPA as a cabinet level office arises.

One lesson I take is that the globalized world of the 21st century is not likely to respond in a manner limiting pollution unless supranational bodies -- representing national interests -- act, e.g., through multilateral UN-based efforts, through bi- or tri-lateral efforts, through regional approaches (such as ASEAN), through free market pressure of environmentalism/green movement in business, or through international NGOs.

How to balance forces to enable the good of free markets, particularly entrepeneurial capitalism, and limit bad, such as Chinese pollution of their own cities and sending lead-painted toys to the US, etc. is a challenge.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Trent 0]

Quote

We are most often attacked because we are the worst offender.

Really? What I've seen says otherwise. I'll take our "worst pollution in the world" over a month living in Delhi or Beijing. I'll bet you would too if you'd seen how bad it is there.

Convince me that we're worse on our environment than countries where you can't see more than a couple of miles and you never see blue sky because of the pollution.

Quote

What does "living healthy" have to do with CO2 emissions? And when did the most obese large nation on the planet become one that likes to live healthy? (9th if you include places like Nauru, Samoa, Tonga etc)

I think that as a whole, the US is at least just as concerned with the environment as the other "western" countries and much more concerned than most countries in the world. If the US didn't care, as a whole, then why are there so many environmental agencies, news stories, activist groups, commercials, marketing for environmentally friendly stuff, etc? Maybe I should have said living clean instead.

I think that PEOPLE in the US do care and I think that there are market forces that will make it in the interest of manufacturers to be more environmentally friendly. Just look at the popularity of hybrids, organic foods, smart houses, solar, wind power, etc. It's getting better and it isn't because we've been told to do it by the UN.

And to the poster asking if I think the US is lacking in anything, sure. We have bad public transportation in most cities, we have an education system that needs to be better, we have too many people that don't work hard. That's 3... there's plenty more. I just don't think that we're the absolute worst as is often implied by the international media.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,471]

>Really?

Yes, really. See attached.

>I'll take our "worst pollution in the world" over a month living in Delhi or Beijing.

We're talking about CO2 here, not total pollution.

>I think that as a whole, the US is at least just as concerned with the
>environment as the other "western" countries . . .

Based on our actions, we're less concerned than Japan or Germany, more concerned than China.

>If the US didn't care, as a whole, then why are there so many
>environmental agencies, news stories, activist groups, commercials,
>marketing for environmentally friendly stuff, etc?

Because there are a lot of noisy bastards here in the US on both sides of the aisle. There's as much market for deep-fried Twinkies and Cadillac Escalades as there is for solar power systems and Priuses.

>I think that PEOPLE in the US do care and I think that there are market
>forces that will make it in the interest of manufacturers to be more
>environmentally friendly.

Not really. It is in the interests of the manufacturers to APPEAR more environmentally friendly, even if they change absolutely nothing. It's called greenwashing.

Take pollution in LA. Back in the 1970's, everyone was complaining about all the pollution from the vehicles in the basin. Car companies promised solutions, showed concept cars (including a hybrid, shown on the cover of a 1975 Popular Science) claimed that the cars of the future would be 100% clean - and did absolutely nothing about it. They kept selling the same cars they were making money with the year before. People didn't demand cars that met any environmental standards because 1) there WERE no environmental standards and 2) it's the prisoner's dilemma - if you're the only one who spends more for the cleaner car you get no benefit from it, but you DO get a benefit from buying the cheaper, dirtier car.

But people wanted cleaner air. So they told their government to do something about it. California created the CARB, and mandated cleaner cars. Something similar happened over gas shortages a few years later, and CAFE was created.

Well, the car manufacturers screamed bloody murder. It will drive us out of business! We'll have to sell only Pintos! All those claims they made a few years back were forgotten when the government asked them to actually provide what they had promised.

Lo and behold, the air got cleaner, cars got cheaper in the long run, more people than ever bought larger cars, and everyone was happy. (Well, I'm sure a lot of politicians and car company execs weren't happy, but all in all it worked quite well.)

That's a case of regulation doing something that private industry cannot do on its own.

If we do want to continue to clean the air (whether of CO2 or other pollutants) it will take governmental incentives (like CAFE) governmental regulations (like the Clean Air Act) private industry (like Evergreen and A123) and consumer choice (like the people who install solar hot water heaters.) All are critical if any changes are to be made.

[Gawain 0]

Where's that attachment from?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Where's that attachment from?

The "consensus", perhaps?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Where's that attachment from?

The "consensus", perhaps?

I thought that too, but then I remembered an OFFICIAL BS graph in relation to uncited sources, etc.

See attached.

Notice that as the year has progressed, the level of BS has expanded way out of proportion. Notice how the graph file name is "official".




Really...this is from the source.

P.S. I'm not officially poo-pooing Bill's post/attachment, I just want to see what else that source offers as well.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Trent 0]

Quote

Yes, really. See attached.

How do you measure those emissions in a place like India, where you probably can't even get a decent census. What are the numbers based on? Projections or actual samples (and how'd they sample)?

Quote

We're talking about CO2 here, not total pollution.

Sorry, you don't get to choose what I'm talking about. Is CO2 really the worst pollution out there? I thought it was CO, wait that was old news. I thought it was C, wait, nope... old too. I thought it was toxins in the air and water, nah... doesn't make the US look like the worst and we can't have that!

Quote

Based on our actions, we're less concerned than Japan or Germany, more concerned than China.

So we're behind places with less than half of our population? GASP!!! But ahead of places with 5 times our population? SHOCK!!

What's the point? Bet we're still doing more on our own than most of the world. Hell, my local sheriff's department has an environmental branch.

Quote

Not really. It is in the interests of the manufacturers to APPEAR more environmentally friendly, even if they change absolutely nothing. It's called greenwashing.

Take pollution in LA. Back in the 1970's...

You just described a great way that the US took care of its own environmental actions. So, you're saying that we DO care and DO things to make it better on our own? Glad you agree with me.

Why do we need to sign some politically motivated BS from "the world" to keep doing our own, good, things?

Oh, hello again!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why do we need to sign some politically motivated BS from "the world" to keep doing our own, good, things?

To FEEL good.

(and to allow them to make our economy and populace slaves to any perception of need or want by those that wish to climb on our shoulders to keep from drowning)..................... (sorry, hard to say that with a straight face)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants