| Author |
Message |
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
 Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:54 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | The Kyoto Protocol was useless. Canada should never have signed it, it is merely a concession to developing countries and does nothing to limit the effects of global warming. Even I, a strong advocate for environmentally-friendly applications, acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol will not be effective. |
It was never going to be effective with Russia and the US backing down, what with them being the two major polluters. Russia has now signed it, I think.
Regardless, it's not about the effectiveness, which I already mentioned was questionable. Put simply it is that Bush is not co-operating because it means a hit to the American economy. His view that the economy comes before the environment is scandalous. Even if this treaty were proven to be the best thing to happen to the world in a long while, he still wouldn't sign it.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:19 am |
|
There's no point in harming the economy when it's not going to help the environment.
If every other country wanted to go jump off of a bridge, would you expect America to follow? lol 
Seriously, though, America is not Europe. The values of the American people are still rather traditionalist in comparison, and the average person here (just over half of them) does not want a leader to go the same way that Europe goes, and has gone.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:48 pm |
|
I don't know much about the Kyoto Protocol, as near as I can tell, the intentions were good but the implimentation was horrible.
As for the American economy and environment, I think the government should be doing more about the horrible SUVs. Just look at the Hummer! They aren't even required to test their emmissions or miles/gallon.
We could be doing so much more just by insisting on higher standards on our cars.
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:34 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | If every other country wanted to go jump off of a bridge, would you expect America to follow? lol |
I fail to see the connection.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:44 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | | If every other country wanted to go jump off of a bridge, would you expect America to follow? lol |
I fail to see the connection. |
The point is that you cannot expect the United States to follow suit, just because the rest of the world does. Ultimately the President is looking out for the interests of his citizens, not the rest of the world (barring some very extreme, and iminant circumstances). I've long said that politics should be more domestic than it is, and that voters in the U.S. need to choose for themselves, not for others.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:00 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Kyre wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | | If every other country wanted to go jump off of a bridge, would you expect America to follow? lol |
I fail to see the connection. |
The point is that you cannot expect the United States to follow suit, just because the rest of the world does. Ultimately the President is looking out for the interests of his citizens, not the rest of the world (barring some very extreme, and iminant circumstances). I've long said that politics should be more domestic than it is, and that voters in the U.S. need to choose for themselves, not for others. |
But aren't we all one global community? Shouldn't we be looking out for the interests of human society, not our own nation? World first, nation second.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:11 pm |
|
If I had the choice between voting for two candidates, one who was interested in preserving a global community, and one who was interested in preserving my country, I'd go with the country one. Of course it's important to have allies, etc. However, the idea of a president taking the world into account before his citizens seems a little odd.
I'm not saying that it's not important to be friendly with neighbors, but I'd rather have them angry at us, then have their ideals come before our (the US') own.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:13 pm |
|
Yes, I understand that. And it's not always black in white, although I think a fair analogy would be giving to charity: You wouldn't give all of your money away to charity and become poor yourself, just like you wouldn't pour all your money and resources into the world and not take care of your citizens. But I think that less nationalism and a better sense of global community would do the world a lot of good.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:06 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Kyre wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | | If every other country wanted to go jump off of a bridge, would you expect America to follow? lol |
I fail to see the connection. |
The point is that you cannot expect the United States to follow suit, just because the rest of the world does. Ultimately the President is looking out for the interests of his citizens, not the rest of the world (barring some very extreme, and iminant circumstances). I've long said that politics should be more domestic than it is, and that voters in the U.S. need to choose for themselves, not for others. |
EXACTLY. Especially when Global Warming is not a serious threat.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:38 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Yes, I understand that. And it's not always black in white, although I think a fair analogy would be giving to charity: You wouldn't give all of your money away to charity and become poor yourself, just like you wouldn't pour all your money and resources into the world and not take care of your citizens. But I think that less nationalism and a better sense of global community would do the world a lot of good. |
True but in all fairness the US isn't the only country that does that.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:23 am |
|
Global warming isnt a serious threat? NOT NOW, but in the future, IT SURE AS HELL WILL BE! Why put off something until later so you dont have to worry about it, to make others deal with it later? (i.e. your children and grandchildren)
Why? I never know.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:34 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | | Kyre wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | | If every other country wanted to go jump off of a bridge, would you expect America to follow? lol |
I fail to see the connection. |
The point is that you cannot expect the United States to follow suit, just because the rest of the world does. Ultimately the President is looking out for the interests of his citizens, not the rest of the world (barring some very extreme, and iminant circumstances). I've long said that politics should be more domestic than it is, and that voters in the U.S. need to choose for themselves, not for others. |
EXACTLY. Especially when Global Warming is not a serious threat. |
As Defiant said, I think that is rubbish, putting it politely. Is it just a random chance that El Nino is increasing these days, when the temprature of the earth has increased by 1 degree celcius in the last centuary when before that it was increasing 1 degree every 10 000 years. In Britain flooding has become much more of a problem. Look at America, there was all those hurricanes one after the other. I'm not saying it was Global Warming the caused it, but it definatly played a part. This is probably the main point that I have against Bush, his lack of regard for the enviroment, and it affects the whole world, not just America. I'm not saying we're perfect, but at least we're not just ignoring the facts.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:37 pm |
|
The Hurricane problem is, so I've heard, something like a 40-year cycle that's rather common. And the flooding thing is kind of odd. L.A. got an abnormal amount of rain a while back, and everyone screamed global warming. Turns out, L.A. got more rain one year back in the 1800's. I'm not sure I can go for the whole global warming...thing. I need to investigate further, really.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:49 pm |
|
I know some of these things happen like this, but Africa is a better example than I gave. People would probably know less about it. The average year for faimine in one of the countries there (have to check what one axactly) has increased recently from 6 to 3 years. Also the dry seasons are getting longer and so on, with worse floods during the wet season.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:06 pm |
|
Decreasing phytoplankton in the oceans . . .
Increased carbon dioxide . . . which may be a cycle, but human contaminants are increasing amount nonetheless. Reading The Trikon Deception has been very insightful . . .
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:20 pm |
|
Decreasing...phytoplankton, you say? That's very, VERY, funny. You ARE aware that copepods are the most UV-resistant of any creature on earth? The possibility of THEM being affected by an increase in UV or temperature is very, very, low. They are some of the most numerous creatures in the sea, with a temperature tolerance almost unmatched. (And, interestingly, I don't know this because someone told me. I conducted the experiments myself.) You tell me that phytoplankton is starting to dissipate? Heh. (Yes, copepods are sometimes characterized as 'zooplankton', but they do not generally require much or any algae to feed, and if all the phytoplankton for some freak reason died, there are large quantities in the 'abyss' around hydrothermal vents.) Copepods, scientists have mused, could be here even if almost everything else on earth couldn't survive. Phytoplankton, the strict definition of the plant, is grown in very bright, very hot places. A strangely increased temperature is good for phytoplankton. I grow them every day. And CO2 is an extremely low percentage of the air.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:26 pm |
|
Not UV or CO2, toxic waste being dumped into the oceans. It's the primary subplot of Bova's novel. The toxins kill of the phytoplankton, which reduces the carbon sink abilities of the ocean, and also starts killing off whales.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:27 pm |
|
Alright, I can agree with that. Thought you were referring to global warming. However, it would take a great deal of toxins. The reproduction rate of phyto- and zooplankton is extremely high. The possibility of affecting that wide of a range would be against the odds. You figure with the sea algae isochrysis--one of many algaes of its kind that feeds the majority of sealife--can go from 1/4 liters, to densely populating 6 gallons of seawater in three days. With only 5 milliliters of nutrients, mind you.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:20 pm |
|
Off topic! Why what a thing I have started!
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
