Consensus? What consensus?

[bowtieguy]

Lugnut,

you bring up a few good points, just don't make the mistake generalizing ALL Americans as wasteful (and full waist for that matter ).

also, do not forget china and india have not implimented clean air legislation, at least not as stringent as the US.

finally, their must be a level playing field in regards to pollution legislation. certainly the country allowing for more margin of error will get more industry! and don't get me started on taxes!

[civic_matic_00]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

Lugnut,

you bring up a few good points, just don't make the mistake generalizing ALL Americans as wasteful (and full waist for that matter ).

also, do not forget china and india have not implimented clean air legislation, at least not as stringent as the US.

finally, their must be a level playing field in regards to pollution legislation. certainly the country allowing for more margin of error will get more industry! and don't get me started on taxes!

Guess who's really at fault as to why China and India are not implementing clean air legislation or why they did not sign onto the Kyoto Protocol?


http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php/i...p?pageId=69909

Throughout the Clinton administration, Gore was "Mr. Environment." He directed negotiations at virtually every U.N. Climate Change meeting during the 1990s working toward the Kyoto Protocol. When the negotiations stalled in Kyoto in 1997 because the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution directing the president not to accept the Protocol unless it applied to China and India and other developing nations, Gore flew in to save the day. Despite the Senate's resolution, Al stood before thousands of U.N. delegates in Kyoto and announced that he had instructed the U.S. delegation to be "more flexible" in their negotiations. At the last moment, the Protocol was adopted, without participation by developing nations.

================================================== =

yep, Al's done a lot for the environment alright.

[civic_matic_00]

Here's more about Al Gore's Kyoto Protocol "flexibility":

http://sovereignty.net/p/clim/kyotorpt.htm

Enter Prince Albert

A flock of helicopters rattled the windows of the Miyako Hotel until the Vice President's chopper landed on the hotel's heliport and deposited the most important person to attend the negotiations. Environmental NGOs proclaimed that Al Gore would deliver the dynamite necessary to break up the log-jams that plagued the proceedings. Gore's contribution to the celebration was hardly a firecracker. His speech to the delegates contained the usual rhetoric to which he appended "I am instructing our delegation right now to show increased negotiating flexibility if a comrehensive plan can be put in place."

Disappointment descended upon the delegates; environmental NGOs were outraged. A report published by the Climate Action Network was headlined "Gore's Climate Fraud," CNN ran clips of Gore campaigning in 1992, criticizing President Bush's inaction on climate change, contrasted by Gore's statement made to the Kyoto delegates. A spokesman for Friends of the Earth (FOE) stood before TV cameras reading from Gore's 1992 book Earth in the Balance, in front of huge banners with the words "Gore in the Balance." Gore's presence did create a minor ripple in the negotiations. Although Gore refused to define "increased flexibility," it took only minutes to learn (through our corridor intelligence systems) that Gore had authorized the American delegation to increase the U.S. negotiating position from reductions to 1990 levels to a target 3-1/2% below 1990 levels provided that China would accept some kind of language that could be interpreted as an agreement to accept some kind of commitment at some point in the future. The corridors were abuzz for nearly two hours until word was passed that China was holding firm, flatly refusing to accept any language that could be construed as accepting commitments to reduce emissions.

We can only imagine the frustration that must have accompanied Gore's report to Clinton, who, in recent weeks, gave the Communist Chinese government a 21-gun salute, a red-carpet White House reception, a port at Long Beach California -- and nuclear technology. The Chinese government reciprocated with a resounding no to Clinton's demand for "meaningful participation" by developing nations.

In the palatial Presidential Suite, (one floor above our humble bedroom-press room-broadcast center) Gore convened one of those unofficial non-meetings that never occurred, attended by the ministers from Japan, the EU (Luxembourg, UK, and Netherlands), to ponder the next step in the negotiations after the Chinese rebuff. The meeting concluded at 2:00 am after our corridor scouts were asleep. Chairman Estrada (Argentina) announced that a new revision of the negotiating text would be issued at 3:00 pm Tuesday, less than 24-hours before the scheduled adjournment.

At 8:00 pm the announcement came. The Chairman's new revised text included differentiated targets that would grant Australia permission to increase emission by 5% above 1990 levels while requiring the U.S. to reduce emission by 5% below 1990 levels by 2010. Japan's target was set at 4-1/2% below 1990, and the European Union's target set at 8% below 1990 levels. Still no movement by China on the all-important compliance by developing nations. Again, the delegates retreated behind closed doors, not to be heard from again until Wednesday morning -- a scant few hours before the delegates would be climbing onto airplanes heading home.

Wednesday, December 10, was scheduled to be the day the agreement would be adopted. The day's program announced a plenary session at 3:00 pm, followed by scheduled news briefings from the Secretariat and from most of the major delegations. A reception was scheduled at 8:00 pm at the Kyoto Concert Hall -- to celebrate. Three o'clock came and went. On the schedule board, all the times changed to "TBA." Five o'clock, seven o'clock, still no word from behind the closed doors of several working-group negotiating session. A flurry of speculation circulated through the corridors; "it may be about to blow-up." Finally, a little past eight, Chairman Estrada emerged, obviously weary, to announce that the working groups had all reported, and that he would take the reports and produce still another "final" draft of the agreement which would be ready at 11:00 pm. Delegates would then reconvene to consider the changes.

Relieved, but exhausted, the delegates, observers, and reporters found places to nap, places to eat, and some returned to their hotels for a shower and change of clothes in preparation for another night-long vigil. We had radio programs scheduled every two hours throughout the night. We expected to be able to report the final outcome of the conference, but the negotiations were still going on. At 7:35 am, on Thursday, December 11, -- just hours before our flight departed -- a friend who had spent the night at the conference hall slipped the final, final, amended agreement under our hotel room door. The delegates had finally agreed on the language of the document, although they still had to clear several other agenda items before the actual formal adoption. It was finally done. At nearly noon, after a marathon all-night negotiating session, the deal was finally complete. The position so confidently presented by the President and Vice President of the United States had been overwhelmed by China's tenacity. The President said that any target beyond returning to 1990 levels would be "unrealistic." In the end, he accepted 7% below 1990 levels as a target -- a reduction in excess of 40% from current levels of emission. The President said he would not accept an agreement that did not require "meaningful participation" by developing countries. In the end, he accepted an agreement that requires nothing from developing countries. The only reference to developing countries in the agreement specifies "no new commitments." The White House caved in, crumbled, and turned America's energy policy over to the United Nations.

==================================================

not many democrats or environmentalists will admit today that Al Gore messed up a good opportunity for developing countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

[suspendedhatch]

More with this crap? The hippies are just making this up to get rich by saving the environment then?

Were you also one of those people that believed cigarettes weren't harmful and it was just a big conspiracy?

What does any of this have to do with gas? Do you think gas prices are high because of global warming? I think it's the other way around. I think the conservatives finally realized that we have a problem and so they are finally caving in and acknowledging global warming in order to get the public motivated to quit our oil addiction.

Our economy isn't going to crash... Getting off of oil is going to create all kinds of new opportunities. Could be the next New Deal. Instead of exporting all our money to the middle east we'll be spending it within our borders. Oil companies have been using lobbyists to keep us on that old technology for far too long. Not to mention that they have had their people directly in control of our gov't for some time now (Clinton, Bush, Cheney). And they will continue to hang on to it until there is no more money to be made from oil. Unfortunately, the oil is never going to run out!

Oil makes us weak as a country. It makes us dependent on countries that hate us. Essentially we're funding terrorists every time we fill up at the pump. Even if you buy domestic oil, you're fueling the demand for oil in general. We need to supplant that old technology with something home grown right here in the states so we can cut this leash to the middle east. I don't mean that we should quit oil right away. But all the new generation of cars, trucks, planes etc should be on some alternative power source. This will reduce the demand on oil and all the old gas-fueled engines can live out their useful lives.

The technology is there it just needs some infrastructure put behind it.

[civic_matic_00]

Originally Posted by suspendedhatch

More with this crap? The hippies are just making this up to get rich by saving the environment then?

Were you also one of those people that believed cigarettes weren't harmful and it was just a big conspiracy?

so much for making things up. the debate is not about cigarettes.

What does any of this have to do with gas? Do you think gas prices are high because of global warming? I think it's the other way around. I think the conservatives finally realized that we have a problem and so they are finally caving in and acknowledging global warming in order to get the public motivated to quit our oil addiction.

it has everything to do with gas. gas prices are high because of lack of supply...lack of supply was caused by people convinced of the fear of global warming.

on the contrary, it's the global warming theory that is now showing holes. we are in trouble now because of the fear created by global warming.

call it oil addiction, the fact remains that nothing can replace oil 100%. since we still need oil, the debate as to whether we increase domestic drilling or not is a valid debate.

Our economy isn't going to crash... Getting off of oil is going to create all kinds of new opportunities. Could be the next New Deal. Instead of exporting all our money to the middle east we'll be spending it within our borders. Oil companies have been using lobbyists to keep us on that old technology for far too long. Not to mention that they have had their people directly in control of our gov't for some time now (Clinton, Bush, Cheney). And they will continue to hang on to it until there is no more money to be made from oil. Unfortunately, the oil is never going to run out!

the economy isn't going to crash? where have you been? the economy is crashing!

that's just it, instead of sending all of our money overseas, keep it here by drilling more domestic oil while we transition to alternative energy. how come you still can't understand that? you expect us to keep buying oil until alternative energy replaces oil 100%, THAT WILL NOT HAPPN ANY TIME SOON!

Oil makes us weak as a country. It makes us dependent on countries that hate us. Essentially we're funding terrorists every time we fill up at the pump. Even if you buy domestic oil, you're fueling the demand for oil in general. We need to supplant that old technology with something home grown right here in the states so we can cut this leash to the middle east. I don't mean that we should quit oil right away. But all the new generation of cars, trucks, planes etc should be on some alternative power source. This will reduce the demand on oil and all the old gas-fueled engines can live out their useful lives.

WRONG! Oil doesn't make us a weak country, IMPORTING OIL makes us a weak country. it's totally amazing how you can't logically analyse the problem and pin point the actual root cause of the problem.

yes, we are funding terrorists while we keep importing oil, and since alternative energy can't replace oil overnight, isn't the logical solution is to drill for more domestic oil until alternative energy is able to replace oil?

where will you get the funds fast enough to ensure that alternative energy gets the attention it deserves? you certainly won't get it while we keep importing oil.

again, the only way to not fund terrorists, to increase funding for atlernative energy, and to ensure we don't have another energy crisis is to drill our own oil.

The technology is there it just needs some infrastructure put behind it.

infrastructure that will not appear from thin air without funding...funding that can be increase with increase in domestic oil...domestic oil that we can phase out when alternative energy increases in capacity,

take the blinders off and analyse the actual problem. all the reasons you gave are great but you still haven't offered any solid steps as to how we will get out of oil and have alternative energy replace our energy needs.

you agree that it's bad to keep sending money overseas....what do you propose we do to stop it? are we to stop driving our cars now and wait for 100% fossil fuel free cars? I don't know about you but I have a family to feed and I need to drive a FOSSIL FUELED CAR in order to get to work.

[civic_matic_00]

oh and to add to that....apparently Al Gore can't live without oil either since it's been caught on camera that his limo was idling with the A/C on for quite some time while he was delivering his speech for alternative energy!

[suspendedhatch]

Al Gore is a dumb-*** and would never have turned environmentalist if he had been given the presidency (I wont say "won" because he did in fact win it). I hate democrats. I'm not a big fan of Obama but I'd take him over Mccain. That's not saying much cuz I'd take just about anyone over them both. So now that we have that out of the way...

There is no gas shortage. There is plenty of gas available outside of the middle east. Drilling for oil will make a lot of rich people get even richer. Unfortunately it's going to cause all kinds of irreversible damage, but hey, people will get richer. Will gas prices go down? Hell no! Gas prices WILL NEVER GO DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY. The most gas will ever go down is less than a dollar per gallon. More like .50. That's just business.

Yeah the economy is bad now but it's not a disaster like the great depression or like you see in some other countries. If this economic down turn is all we had to worry about if we instantly dropped gasoline and switched to alternative energy then it would be well worth it. But there's no need to instantly and completely shut off the oil.

Maybe try getting your info from somewhere other than conservative talk radio and Fox news. You simply can't trust any American media because it's in corporate hands. Oh wait, it's LIBERAL. Yeah right I wish it was! I wish someone could direct me to some of this liberal media.

How do I propose we solve the problem? Well we seem to have billions of dollars a day to drop bombs in foreign countries. Troops are dying, the bad guys are winning. We're not any safer... Why not use SOME of that money to build a network of electric "gas" stations or natural gas stations? Or Swarzenaeggers (forgive the spelling) electric highway? Anyway I never proclaimed myself to have all the answers. I could brainstorm ideas at best. But anyone can plainly see that we are on the wrong path. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. There are plenty of possible solutions, but conservatives just want to go with what will make the most money for the companies lobbying them. BUT AT WHAT COST? I will have grandchildren 10 years from now. By then, people like you will be a bad joke. Just like how the woman with a hole in her neck preaching against smoking while toking a cigarette is a bad joke. That was a SIMILIE.

So enough with emulating Hannity PLEASE. Bad enough I have to listen to it at work!

[suspendedhatch]

And stop pretending like drilling for oil now is going to be instant and cost-free while building alternative energy sources is cost prohibitive and will take too long. Last I checked, off-shore oil rigs, oil pipelines, refineries, and transport networks cost money, take a long time to put in place, are vulnerable to accidents, weather, and terrorist attacks. Windmills, geothermal plants, tidal power, etc seem like pretty viable options by comparison.

Stop pretending like the technology isn't here! The technology has been up and running for over 20 years. Not only in other countries but right here in the states!

Stop pretending like the money isn't there. If congress can write Bush a blank check to borrow money from Japan and China and throw it at the middle east, then they can write a much smaller check to build infrastructure and fund research and development. (this happens to be the cause of our lagging economy btw)

If Bush and Clinton hadn't each vetoed requirements for stricter mpg on SUV's we wouldn't be paying the gas prices we are now. The SUV craze proved to the oil companies that people were willing to pay much more for gas. With so little regulation (we don't want to be like Venezuela and pay 12 cents a gallon after all) and with their hands in government, there was nothing stopping them from increasing gas prices. Originally they shut down refineries for "maintenance" to justify it but they don't even bother doing that anymore!

[GasSavers_topher]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

LugNut, I understand your concern.

But my concern lies with spending trillions of dollars and slamming the brakes on multiple world economies for science that is disputable (and not the-world-is-too-flat kind of disputable).

And, I don't classify that as wishing away a concern, but rather seeing things realistically and not emotionally. Not that I'm saying you are guilty of that, it's just that it seems to be the main argument for that course action.

Logical not emotional right . I do agree that even if CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, I'm still not 100% convinced it has NO correlation, I do agree there is much emotion behind the argument. I do think though that we should focus on preserving and restore what natural glory this country has such as wetland, old growth forests, and water ways because there contributions are not measuralbe.

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by suspendedhatch

...the bad guys are winning. We're not any safer...

is that right?