On Nov 18, 11:44 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ...
On Nov 17, 6:35 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote
On Nov 17, 10:31 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
They're starting on their own, 2pid. We still outdo them in many
areas. Perhaps we should (and I know this is not how your 'mind'
works) take care of business at home before pointing fingers
elsewhe
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html
You always make irrelevant links that actually prove my point.
Do you actually think that the people of China will not do anything
about it? There is already civil unrest over the issue. The government
recognizes there is a problem and they are trying to take steps
(albeit unsucessfully so far, but that will likely change) and the
people certainly do.
Lol...they can't get grip on smog and you expect the chinese
people to accept hardship over CO2?
2pid, you really do need to read some history. Really.
I think discussing this with you is a waste. Why? Because you believe
the fall of the former USSR is a direct result of "The Great
Communicator".
You're not just confused, you're delusional.
No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail
eventually all on its own. Iraq would have had political change all on
its own. They did not "need" us for regime change. And the Chinese
will eventually take care of themselves.
Intervention may speed things up a little, like perhaps reagan's
influence may have influenced, but not caused, the collapse of the
former USSR.
As we impose restrictions domestically without trade restrictions
then manufacturing just moves to contract manufacturers in China
who are supplied with energy from coal fired plants with no restrictions
nor concerns.
You of course get cheap goods.
Which gets back to outsourcing and trade agreements. And it proves my
point perfectly: business does only that which is good for business.
Voluntary measures will not work.
and partial implementations with Kyoto free zones become voluntary.
Business will relocate and kyoto increases the economic incentive to
do so. Trade restrictions must be a part or we will simply be cutting
our own throats to no avail.
I agree. Trade restrictions are, for the time being, on a national
level. We do not, apparently enforce. But we encourage outsourcing. We
need the slave class. Your party is all about business. They will do
nothing.
Clinton signed NAFTA...Hillary seems to be willing to go against the
open trade policy of Bill but no candidate save Thompson who
foolishly argues for free trade has put forward a very clear position.
What a wiggle we have here. Clinton "signed" it, and it is his
"policy" so he is responsible for it.
"NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United
States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the
Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries
signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the
legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition
in all three countries, especially among intellectuals (i.e.
liburrals) who stated that it was an ill-conceived initiative. In the
United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton
made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. During his
presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which
he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush
under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original
agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and
NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these
side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132
Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43
Republicans, and 1 independent against).[5] and the U.S. Senate passed
it by 61-38[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...rade_Agreement
As a matter of curoisity, which party had control of Congress then?
Do you remember the "giant sucking sound" predicted by Perot? LOL!
Actually, I think even going completely green and completely disengaging
from the world economy will still be to no avail.
Then we're ****ed. I'm going outside to burn some forest right now.
How about starting to relocate some low lying cities to higher areas?
Would this be less expensive than reducing emissions?
If we remove everybody from coastal areas likely to be affected, what
would this cost? LA, New York, Miami (most of Florida, actually),
Seattle, Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, the Gulf coast, and on and
on...
Rebuilding New Orleans where it sinks was stupid when it could
have been rebuilt bigger, better, and more beautiful on the other
side of the lake on high ground.
We buckle to sentiment.
Yeah, like increasing CAFE standards. We're so sentimental about low
MPG in our auto fleet. China's standards are higher than ours.
You don't want to stop immigration to our own country which drives our
polluting economic growth.
I never said that, either, 2pid. Are you capable of making an argument
without making **** up? LOL!
I've been arguing that point and all you have for it is ridicule.
I stated my position in another post. You are against ALL immigration.
I never said that, either, moron. Are you capable of making an argument
without making **** up?
"You don't want to stop immigration to our own country which drives
our
polluting economic growth."
Does that mean "all" to you? How bizarre.
What does it mean to you? How bizarre.
I see no exceptions either specifically stated or implied.
You have no clearly stated positions beyond childish ridicule
of others who do.
I have positions. You've never asked for them before.
Thanks for admitting you're all about ridiculing others while
keeping quiet on your own views.
Thanks for admitting that you've blustered like a drunken politician
while never asking for someone's views.
Poor sssshhhhhieee, he needs to be asked.
In case you haven't noticed, you, nob, and Bratzi are about the only
ones here who do not ask. You blare out your political views, unless
specifically asked for them. I agree with you: I am very much unlike
all three of you.
Same thing on audio, Mr. Shhhieee Paranoid won't even discuss his
own system for fear someone might ridicule him.
Irrelevant.
But just for you:
I have a 500 wpc amp, a CD player, two main speakers, a subwoofer, two
turntables, some wires and cables, a tuner, and several tape machines,
not all of which are in use.
I rest my case.
I forgot: I have a preamp, too. And I forgot to mention that I am very
happy with the sound.
What else do you feel you need to know? Do brands make a big
difference to you? If so, why?
Very well: they are all Panasonic. LOL!
I ahev asked for
yours. You tend to bail when that happens.
I don't need your requests. I bail on your BS questions
with bogus inuendos.
Uh-huh. Two "Ns", 2pid.
BTW, I recommend "Lions for Lambs". It's an excellent movie. I saw it
last night.
Go see it again and again...it could be one of the few movies
where you alone could have a box office impact.
No, not the McDonald's argument. I asked you. What did you think of
it?
(I've been asking for your review of it for some time, yet you always
bail, as you do again here.)
Have you seen this "trainwreck of a movie" yet?
See?
Kyoto is not designed as a "be all, end all" solution. It's designed
as a start. Recognizing that developing countries would have more
strain by limiting emissions, Kyoto built in some considerations. I
think Kyoto should be adopted by the US.
I think in such a dire situation the idea that we can afford
Kyoto exempt zones in a global economy will just accelerate the
destruction
of forests and habitat left which happen to reside in 3rd world
(Kyoto exempt) territories.
Rainforests have been getting destroyed for several decades. Kyoto may
or may not change that.
CITES tries to help halt that.
CITES was drafted in the 60's you buffoon.
I'm aware of that, you buffoon. How does that counter the point that
rainforests have been getting destroyed, as I said, waaaaaaaaaaaaay up
there one sentence ago,"for several decades"?
They've been getting destroyed while CITES has been in effect.
What did it accomplish?
Apparently, only one of the species covered by it has gone extinct.
Neither of us can say how many might have without it.
Hint: it doesn't.
It obviously has not worked.
Then we should remove it and trust that people and business will do
the right thing.
We should define strategies that work.
There are none as far as GW, based on what you've said. It appears to
me your position is "Let's just get used to warmer weather." Oh, and
you apparently buy the argument that CO2 is an "excellent and
effective aerial fertilizer".
Did I miss something?
Use economic incentive and market forces to preserve and protect
instead of the foolish stupidity of policies like CITES.
Ah, the libertarian view that the market will fix everything. Then the
market will fix China's environmental woes and we have nothing to
worry about there. End of 'discussion' on that topic.
While CITES is
a step i the right direction, it is not a "be all, end all" either.
For example, some tonewoods are on that list. Try to find guitars, for
example, that are currently produced with Brazilian Rosewood.
CITES actually backfired by restricting and eliminating forest management.
So, in your estimation, MORE Brazilian rosewood has been harvested as
a result of CITES? LOL!
No..it's been burned off and used for cattle grazing since forest has
no economic value given CITES eliminates trade in it hardwoods.
So, as I said, your position is the CITES actually *increased* Amazon
basin deforestation, the history of the topic be damned. LOL!
Banning some species trade makes the value of the land they occupy
worthless and in some cases...contributes to clear cutting the land
for other less lucrative activities.
The clear-cutting was going on anyways, 2pid. CITES removed markets
for certain endangered species, as it was designed to do. If there's
an issue, it's in enforcement.
The issue is in strategy. Need to create a system that makes
it economically unrewarding to clear the land.
CITES didn't do that.
How can it? How can Kyoto?
That's the Brazilian government's bailiwick, just like it's our
governments duty to "economically unreward" fuel inefficiency and so
on.
We are not willing to do so, so why look to Brazil?
If there was a market for products of the rain forest, embrace
it, subsidize it, manage it to encourage rain forest cultivation.
The drug companies should do it, if nobody else will. It's in their
market interests. Many new drugs come from the plants in the region,
and many more are potentially available. So why haven't they?
Just plain banning trade in certain species doesn't do anything
but encourage people to clear the land for other uses.
It encourages no such thing. As I proved, that would go on anyway. It
*removes* one incentive. It does not *create* a new one.
As I said, it's a step in the right direction. You are trying to turn
it into the "be-all, end-all" that I specifically said it was not.
As I said, it's not a "be all, end all" but a step in the right
direction.
See?
But that's tree hugging stupidity. It was a foolish step that
clearly has not worked.
Out of, what, 30,000 endangered species included in CITES, only one
has gone extinct in the 40 years since CITES was written.
Those damned "tree-hugging environmental whackos". They lost one.
Here is your 'argument': Some species covered by CITES had market
value, so they were very carefully and responsibly harvested in the
rainforests to take advantage of the market price.
No...I didn't say they were. I said they could be.
And world peace "could" happen.
Don't eliminate the market by banning it...use the market
to advantage to preserve and cultivate rather than destroy.
Like American business has been doing in China and elsewhere in the
world?
Then why would Exxon/Mobil spend so much to create doubt? That seems
contradictory.
But CITES removed
the market value of those species, so areas that contained these CITES-
restricted species were less valuable. Therefore, they were clear-cut
because the land was now worthless.
Facts show this to be true. The clear land to create pasture.
Find a way to make that land as rain forest to rewarding to turn
into pasture and it won't happen.
The people with capital *may* agree. The dirt-poor who need to
subsistence farm or get land *may* not.
Anything else?
(See below for the real reasons, cheerfully provided by you.)
LOL!
Stupid ecologists are idiots when it comes to actually understanding
the consequences of their actions.
Not everybody is as bright as you are. Most aren't even close. Many of
those that are close have been institutionalized for their own safety.
Same old ****....you can't make a reasoned argument so you
turn to crap.
Um, OK. Business will do what is right, even though it is business
that is largely responsible for deforesting Indonesia, it is business
that is largely responsible for the ecological disasters in China, and
business plays a large part in clearing the Amazon basin...
But you may be right. It may be business, suddenly with some attack of
concience, that will save the Brazilian rainforest, if we would only
be so farsighted as you to see what trading freely in endangered
species will accomplish.
That's pretty much what I said above. Why did that offend you?
You want rain forests to be maintained, you can't completely
eliminate their market value.
LOL!
CITES did all that? Or was it Kyoto?
Sigh....
Yes, I was giving you **** for believing something that the evidence
and the history clearly does not support.
I believe that if we are to be taken seriously, we need to have *our*
house in order before we start worrying about what others are doing.
We do not.
Fine. How about starting with a zero population growth policy?
Another piece of evidence concerning your immigration views, as if we
needed one.
I see your commitment to protecting the environment is
really limited. Tell me...how many people do you think
this country can support with a decent quality of life
without creating unsustainable ecological damage?
That depends on what you mean. Do you mean "without changing a damned
thing", the position you've been arguing? Probably not much.
Or do you mean if we do some things like shift from non-renewable
energy to geo-thermal, wind, and other sources? If we raise our CAFE
standards? If we consume less beef, as methane is also an issue
(another thing that I've done to lower my footprint)? If we use more
rail to transport goods instead of 4-6MPG tractor-trailers (but we
need immediate gratification, don't we)? If we tax gasoline like it is
in other parts of the world?
If we tighten coal plant emissions requirements?
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/program...ems/futuregen/
Note the government influence here. And he
"Miller said that Sebelius had pledged not to oppose the plants but
that her position was clear after her "moral steward" remark. "That
implies that we're not moral stewards of the land, which we don't
appreciate one bit," he said."
LOL! Delicate sensibilities are offended.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1802452_2.html
Good for Kansas. This almost makes up for teaching ID in schools.