RunRyder RC
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 1912 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics Main Discussion › Global Warming
11-08-2005 05:29 AM  14 years ago
HGlider

rrNovice

Durango, Colorado

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Gotta love the blaming global warming theories. Hell The Arctic or Antartic (or both) used to be a jungle. Weather and climates change naturally. The fact of recording weather is just a recent thing in the lifetime of man on the earth. Even ice rings (from glacier and polar drillings) and tree rings show major weather changes. And that was before Bush was elected. Before I'll admidt to it I want to see the proof. As just the change in weather is not proof of the cause. By the way we also had an ice age recently. Who do we blame that on? I think that was closer to the Clinton years.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 05:11 PM  14 years ago
divebomber

rrNovice

California

MyPosts All Forum Topic
No, Insp. Fuzz, belief in Global Warming doesn't make anyone a looney liberal or a wacked conservative. As you've noted, there have been warming trends over the last few years, as there have been in previous decades. So far, the data doesn't support a 'man-made' warming trend. Computer models are the driving force behind most of these allegations (and a supportive Federal Administration for eight years) and, as we've seen, models can be manipulated to give desired results.

Here's a few facts to consider:

1. We've only been able to accurately measure weather gradients for the last 20-30 years. The sum of our measured data (though most of it inaccurate) only covers the last 300 years or so. Do some research on the summer of 1775. You'll find it was one of the hottest on record. Of course we only have data from the New England area. Texas was still part of Spain.

2. Satellite data and surface data show huge descrepancies that are still, for the most part, unexplained and uncompensated for in current models.

3. Historical temperature 'guesses' are based on theory. They have to be, of course, since the thermometer did not exist 2000 years ago. But they are still just guesses, and thus can be manipulated by political climate.

4. The United States is NOT the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, despite what the world press wants you to think. That assertion is a fallacy since no other country monitors and reports emmissions in the same detail or accuracy as the US. (Except for perhaps Britian) It's actually the developing industrial countries such as China and India. Does anyone think that they monitor NOx emmissions of thier power plants? And does anyone really believe they will abide by a Kyoto treaty? Especially in an atmosphere that lacks a self-loathing press just waiting to break some big story about how some company is cheating on the emmissions requirements? Nope. Only here would that happen (and again, maybe Britain).

5. In the 70's the fear was the approaching Ice Age. There was abundant data and modeling that made it perfectly clear to all enlightened individuals that we were heading head-first into an ice age. Then, in the early 90's it was ozone depletion and the increase of UV-B. Of course, that scream died to a slight murmur as data point after data point showed that, not only was UV-B not increasing (as the Gore-ites cried that it would), but it actually decreased in areas where increases were a theoretical 'given'. Now, all of that has gone away, thrown into the dustbin of unsubstantiated pop-science, only to be replaced by Global warming. And I bet most people didn't even notice the segway.

6. As humans, we tend to judge our environment based on our limited time within it. For example, In a world-wide poll in 2000, Madonna was voted the most influential musical figure of the last century. Forget Mozart, Souza, or Cole Porter. Most of their fans couldn't vote. They were dead. Same goes for our current situation. Many people forget, or didn't live through, the warming trend of the first part of the 20th Century. Many of our current temp records still lie within that period. Not only that, the Glaciers were receeding during that time also. The cooling trend after the early forties saw the rebound.

With this in mind, it's no wonder that the most influential group in our nation, tha Baby Boomers, who were born from the forties to mid-1960's, would believe so readily in Global Warming, and that it is caused by them (or should I saw 'us', since I too, am a baby boomer). We grew up during a cooling trend and we believe, as a whole, that we are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Why couldn't we influence global climate? Hell, we made the pet rock popular and put Jimmy Carter into office!

My point is this - There is currently a warming trend. Most apolitical scientists believe it's a standard blip on the radar screen, or at least, theres no conclusive data to point the finger at the United States for causing it. And many of them lost their jobs in the Clinton-Gore era when they spoke up. That doesn't mean that they support unchecked raping of the environment. But at the same time, the ridiculous Kyoto treaty is nothing more than a panacea designed to retard the United States and redistribute wealth to other countries. It has very little ability or design to control the exact thing it's supposed to be about; Global Warming.

So, in short, is the planet warming? -Probably. Is it just a slight trend and part of the natural earth cycle? Probably. Is it going to destroy the world? Who knows. Are our SUV's repsonsible? Not likely. Will the Kyoto Treaty be a good step towards it prevention? Not in a million years.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 05:32 PM  14 years ago
Yug

rrMaster

UK. Herts

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Well put.
A few months ago, i read somewhere that rather an astonishing amount of methane is released as a result of flatulance from all the various animals.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 06:18 PM  14 years ago
HGlider

rrNovice

Durango, Colorado

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Beano tablets for cows. I can see it coming.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 06:39 PM  14 years ago
spaceman spiff

rrKey Veteran

Tucson

MyPosts All Forum Topic
💎Sustaining Member
I read an article the other day that indicated that polar ice caps have been getting thicker recently, could be just a short term or local trend, but it does have some folks wondering.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 08:29 PM  14 years ago
Yug

rrMaster

UK. Herts

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Seems like people will print anything ?
The article I read suggested they were getting substantially thinner.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 08:31 PM  14 years ago
Ed Moore

rrNovice

West Sussex, UK

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Most apolitical scientists believe it's a standard blip on the radar screen, or at least, theres no conclusive data to point the finger at the United States for causing it.
You've clumped together two entirely unrelated ideas as one. Most scientists, period, accept the earth is warming and that it is partially due to human causes. No one is really blaming the US, it just happens to be the largest energy consumer per capita so with people having a natural desire to point fingers, it's someone to point the finger at.

yes there are blips here and there with ele nino or solar activity or what have you, but we know that the earth is currently heating up faster (or to put it mathematically since english is so ambiguous, d(temp)/dt is greater) than it 'should' be, based on ice records and what have you, and that there is a lot of extra CO2 in the atmosphere that is proven to be directly there because of human activity, and so one puts two and two together.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 09:15 PM  14 years ago
spaceman spiff

rrKey Veteran

Tucson

MyPosts All Forum Topic
💎Sustaining Member
Seems it would make less difference that light is hitting a clear gas than the types of surfaces the light hits when it gets here.

In the case of the light hitting grass and trees the loin's share of the energy is absorbed in chemical reactions and is not converted into heat.

Guy, No doubt it matters what time period and location where the measurements are taken. They didn't use that data to debunk the generally accepted trend, but if that continues for a number of years in enough locations they might. if you are interested, i'll see if i can find the article again.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 09:48 PM  14 years ago
Ed Moore

rrNovice

West Sussex, UK

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Careful with all this 'clear gas' talk. We're not talking about visible wavelengths here, but UV, which CO2 absorbs well, and so stops it being reflected back out into space.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 09:54 PM  14 years ago
spaceman spiff

rrKey Veteran

Tucson

MyPosts All Forum Topic
💎Sustaining Member
i suppose that is true, but if light energy that passes thru is being absorbed by grass and converted into chemical reactions it is not reflected to heat the air again, so any effect of green house gas is reduced by some amout by the presence of grass as compared to a reflective surface like a painted roof.


What percent of the total light energy will affect CO2? If i remember corectly there are only very specific frequencies that can be absorbed by a gass, but plants absorb broad band. Anyway, seems like most of light energy will be converted to heat by asphalt road, or dark volcanic soil, but most of it would be converted to chemical reaction by a plant, so it seems reasonable that chopping down forest to build cities and roads could conceivably make more of a difference, than the cars on those roads.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 10:09 PM  14 years ago
Ed Moore

rrNovice

West Sussex, UK

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Well the forest arguement is also exceptionally important becuse of course vegitation removes CO2 from the atmosphere and turns it into oxygen and chemical potential energy (glucose).

I did chair a junior biology debate/brainstorming session about global warming, where they started talking about needed to design a device that could somehow remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and then they decided that it would be even better if they could maybe turn it into something useful ('perhaps oxygen' I suggested, seeing where this was going) and then they moved onto the massive scale with which something like this would have to be deployed, so they started talking about 'maybe building itself, and even maintaining itself' and so on. So after about half an hour of discussion about this exciting revolutionary new invention they were going to make millions with, I enjoyed telling them that they'd just designed a tree
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 10:14 PM  14 years ago
spaceman spiff

rrKey Veteran

Tucson

MyPosts All Forum Topic
💎Sustaining Member
sweet!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-08-2005 11:22 PM  14 years ago
Yug

rrMaster

UK. Herts

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I dunno about this. As I see it the earths oceans are far more relevant to Oxygen and CO2 cycling whereby many of the microbiological exchange processes are light driven. I would have thought that Ozone depletion would have far greater impact due to the fantastic properties of the gas. Its ability to absorb UV which is quite a destructive wavelength and many living organisms on earth are sensitive to correct proportions of this. Plus the fact that Ozone is a magnificent oxidizer and hence a natural purifier as it oxidizes harmful chemicals in the atmosphere and reduces them to 'safe' components. I've always thought the powers that be are completely barking, using chlorine in our water purification process. Chlorine is horrible stuff. They should use Ozone which is about 3000 times more reactive than chlorine plus it has a lifetime of perhaps 30 minutes. It has other tremendous properties too, like promoting rapid response times for white blood cells in the healing process. Check it out.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-09-2005 04:40 PM  14 years ago
divebomber

rrNovice

California

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Ed,
You've clumped together two entirely unrelated ideas as one.
Thank you! I agree that cyclical "Global Warming" and "the US causing it" are "unrelated". Unfortunately, many in the world do not. If you need proof, read the Kyoto Treaty.
[The US] just happens to be the largest energy consumer per capita
True, but not all of that energy use generates greenhouse gasses. Plus, you're using per capita, not overall total. Again, the US is expected, through the Kyoto treaty and the socialist press, to take the brunt of the expense. When you look at total greenhouse gas emmissions, the US is NOT the highest producer. Yet we're expected to take the greatest financial hit.
but we know that the earth is currently heating up faster (or to put it mathematically since english is so ambiguous, d(temp)/dt is greater) than it 'should' be, based on ice records and what have you, and that there is a lot of extra CO2 in the atmosphere that is proven to be directly there because of human activity,
Actually, we don't KNOW either of these. Both of these are assertions based on theory and interpretation of ice records and other subjective information. There are just as many (if not more) scientists who do not agree with these assertions.

Unfortunately, environmentalism has become the secularist's religion, and they cling to it despite contrary information as any zealot does.

I'm no biologist, so I can't discuss in detail the mechanisms that are involved in all of this. Sure, I could make stuff up, wrap my self in the cloth of Environmental High Priesthood and hammer anyone who doesn't agree with me, ala B. Striesand or L. Decaprio, et.al. However, I do digest opinions on both sides and the reality is that I've not seen any conclusive evidence to indicate that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon and that the Kyoto Treaty will have any effect on it.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-09-2005 06:51 PM  14 years ago
Ed Moore

rrNovice

West Sussex, UK

MyPosts All Forum Topic
True, but not all of that energy use generates greenhouse gasses. Plus, you're using per capita, not overall total. Again, the US is expected, through the Kyoto treaty and the socialist press, to take the brunt of the expense. When you look at total greenhouse gas emmissions, the US is NOT the highest producer. Yet we're expected to take the greatest financial hit.
I'm not sure from where you're citing your figures, but according to the UN and IEA make the US the highest greenhouse gas producer PERIOD, and per capita. It is both. Unless you have significantly newer figures than I do (2004), or have some basis on which to dispute their claims, you are simply wrong.
Actually, we don't KNOW either of these. Both of these are assertions based on theory and interpretation of ice records and other subjective information. There are just as many (if not more) scientists who do not agree with these assertions.
I'm beginning to think you're pulling these 'facts' out of thin air. The combined peer-reviewed journal publications in supporting human-activity induced temperature change outnumber those against it by 8 or 9 to one (according to Science journal). These jornals are not the preserve of the poster-boy environmentalists that you cited, but climatologists and other scientists.

To split up your final sentance into it's two separate points, one cannot say Global Warming is an entirely man-made phenominon, we don't know that. However, unless there is some entirely new factor at work which no one has anticipated, we know that an increase in CO2 levels increases the temperature of the lower atmosphere. CO2 levels change naturally anyway, but we also KNOW that there is a significant amount of it in the atmosphere that we have put there. I don't know why you say the ice cores are inconclusive, they can see quite easily the atmospherical levels of CO2 at the time from the amount dissolved in the ice. I appreciate we can never 'prove' that global warming is a man made phenominon, in just the same way that we can never 'prove' F=ma. We can only look at the evidence.

Point 2: Kyoto. Most people agree it's a waste of time now as China will overtake the US as the biggest polluter and GH-gas emitter sometime around 2025 if it continues at its current rates, and kyoto effectivelly ignores this. I can't speak for what US environmentalists think, but the focus has very much shifted away from it in Europe, as it's a solution based on a model which is no longer valid. Either way, companies and industries are going to have to start thinking about cleaning up, so the movement from some US states currently is only pre-empting the enevitable.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-10-2005 04:23 AM  14 years ago
divebomber

rrNovice

California

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Ed,
I'm beginning to think you're pulling these 'facts' out of thin air.
Ha! "Out of thin air"! That's good. But let's talk about your facts for a moment.
according to the UN and IEA make the US the highest greenhouse gas producer PERIOD, and per capita. It is both.
Where does the UN and the IEA (and the IPCC for that matter) get their data? Do they send little groups of eco-monitors to take random samples around the world? Nope. They compile the data reported by the individual governments. Note that last line. Who in the world has the most accurate and comprehensive monitoring and reporting system for emmissions? Here's a guess- not China. Not India, either. Not Japan, England, or Germany. Certainly not France. It's the US! That's right! The good 'ol US is the first with the mostest. Do you think for a moment that China is reporting their numbers with any accuracy? No. Mostly, they're interpolating etimates base on the number of vehicles in the country, industrial centers, etc. And if you don't think that this lends itself to a little "subjective tweaking" for the good of their country, then you need to apply for an internship in the halls of the UN. What you'll find will disgust you.

Sure, there are estimates added based on global data aquired through other means, i.e. satellites, etc. But for the most part, the individual government reporting is the basis for the rankings.

Now, step back and realize that you're putting your faith in the UN; perhaps one of the most corrupt political organizations in the world, whose primary goal is their own individual enrichment. Thus was born the Kyoto Treaty.

In one breath, you stake a logical argument on data from a corrupt organization and then admit that a protocol established by the same body with the same data is a joke.
Either way, companies and industries are going to have to start thinking about cleaning up, so the movement from some US states currently is only pre-empting the enevitable.
I'm not sure if you've tried to build a refinery in the US lately, but it is almost impossible. Not so with most other countries. In other words, the US has done more than any other nation to reduce emmissions and has some of the most stringent restrictions in the world. And if it is inevitable, why are we worried?
The combined peer-reviewed journal publications in supporting human-activity induced temperature change outnumber those against it by 8 or 9 to one (according to Science journal).
"Science" is a reasonable magazine, but is hardly the academic peer-reviewed scientific journal that you may believe. And besides, science is not a democracy. At one time, 9 out of 10 scientists believed space travel was impossible. Or travel past the speed of sound. Luckily, we didn't take a vote and side with the winner.

The reality is that there are legitimate voices of dessention on the issue. And they have solid science and logical thought on their side also. And the percentage of dessention is much greater in this area than most other hard sciences; especially ones that control world political policy.

Let's talk about your 'ice' data, since that seems to be the hinge point for your belief. Many scientific skeptics believe that judging CO2 levels from ice cores is 'problematic'. And when one considers that the method for obtaining the CO2 measurements stems from the work of a single scientist, a Frenchman named J.M. Barnola, the 'problematic' part becomes more obvious. Many have found fault with his models and assumptions. Yet, most of the work citing core samples are based on his assumptions and methods. So, I'm naturally skeptical. Additionally, there are many who believe that temperature increases cause increases in CO2, not just the other way around. If you're truly interested in the 'other' view of Global Warming and man-kind's role, here's a site for you :

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WV...house_data.html
I appreciate we can never 'prove' that global warming is a man made phenominon, in just the same way that we can never 'prove' F=ma.
F=ma is proven on a daily basis. Especially everytime I try a new trick with my Raptor. It is readily demonstrated in any middle school lab. It can be modeled and predicted with extreme accuracy at any given moment. Global warming because of human CO2 emmissions can not be so easily demonstrated as shown by the logical arguments on both sides of the table. I don't hear the same arguments in the halls of science over F=ma.

The reality is that we can bat this around forever. Neither you nor I have the conclusive data to prove one way or the other. As a student of engineering, you are in an environment that seems to most people to be absolute; no grey. However, as you grow into your chosen field of logic, you will find that most complex information dessiminated is tailored to the target audience. And I quote:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest. Dr Stephen Schneider (Oct 1989)"
And speaking or Dr. Schneider, here's an entertaining site that has some interesting info on him, the coming Ice Age, and your ice cores, etc.
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm

I can assure you that politics and newspaper sales are way too involved in the Global Warming issue for the current dialogue to have any real meaning.

SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-10-2005 04:46 AM  14 years ago
Inspector Fuzz

rrKey Veteran

NLA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Lots of gas...
Pun intended.. Everyone is worried about the greenhouse gasses...
I am much more concerned with the amount of heat that torching these fossil fuels is causing.. Never mind the air pollution..
Think about how much heat is coming out of a gallon of gas and how many gallons are being burned.. This heat is not getting out into space.. It's staying here..
Yeah, in know the planet is big.. It's possible to heat a football stadium, I don't see why you can't heat a planet.. You just burn more gas..
Besides, I think the earth is probably much better "insulated" to retain heat than a stadium..
JEFF
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-10-2005 05:32 AM  14 years ago
spaceman spiff

rrKey Veteran

Tucson

MyPosts All Forum Topic
💎Sustaining Member
Just googled up some interesting info:

http://www.severewx.com/Radiation/absorption.html

http://www.ghgonline.org/carbondioxide.htm


342 W/M2 (watts per squre meter), is comming from the sun, but only 67 W/M2 is being absorbed by the air. i thought it would have been more than that. 168W/M hits the surface.

There are 4,047 Square meters in an acre, so for every acre of forest cut down there is potentially 680,000 watts of extra heat from the sun, (per acre)

curently there are over 29,000,000 acres of forest cleared each year so there is a potential for energy absorption increase of 19,720,000,000,000 watts , most of which would have been absorbed in a chemical process that absorbs carbon, but is now largely being converted to heat in the soil. Actuall number will of course be lower due to regrowth and reflection, but still it is a very big number

Also found that water is the primary green house gas.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-10-2005 08:23 AM  14 years ago
HGlider

rrNovice

Durango, Colorado

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I could start another post about this but I figured this would be good a place as any as it is related. Is anybody else tired of all the doom and
gloom crap by all the forms of media? Even the so called science channels on cable and satelite say we are gonna die by earthquakes, tornados, a comet or asteroid slamming into the Earth, killer bees, killer
flu, the food that we eat, the suns rays, killer gerbils etc etc. Ok I made up the killer gerbils but give some jerk time with a science grant and he'll do some sort of experiment to prove that too. Personally I think that alot of research scientists should be fired and never get a penny from the Government again. There are alot of research scientists doing great work. It's the one getting my tax money to see what happens to a rat that is fed a diet of 2 bags of lays potato chips a day. If the rats could talk we all know what they'd say. "Got a beer or soda to go with this?" Of course they get sick. especially with no drinks to wash the chips down. We've all heard that butter's bad for you. Now margarine is bad too. Give me a break. If I see one more "recent studies have found XXXX to be bad for you" I am going to scream. It's not that I want to ignore things that are real. Its just even the educational channels are also finding out hype sells wether it's true or not. Who can you trust anymore? Look hard enough on any subject and you'll probablly find some research to support both ends on the subject.

I'd just like to see once somebody say Tommorow will be nice and sunny with almost no chance of the world blowing up. It's no wonder the kids of today are so mixed up. What would you do if almost every aspect of the media just shows the Doom and Gloom. I have talked to alot of kids and most will say they don't think much about the future as it's proven there isn't going to be any. According to the media that is.

Rant Off . Sorry
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-10-2005 10:52 AM  14 years ago
Ed Moore

rrNovice

West Sussex, UK

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Divebomber,

You are right, neither of us can prove this either way as we can both question each others sources and assumptions. Time will be the judge on this one.

However, seeing as I move into the field of logic, as you put it, I must questions some of yours.
Who in the world has the most accurate and comprehensive monitoring and reporting system for emmissions? Here's a guess- not China. Not India, either. Not Japan, England, or Germany. Certainly not France. It's the US! That's right!
This is an incredibly bold statement to make without any evidence. Most environmental consultants would agree that the UK has the most accurate monitoring infrastructure BUT that is only on account of it being much smaller than most countires (it is, afterall, about the size of a US state) and so easier to keep tabs on a correspondingly smaller energy industry. i have no doubt that the US would be the most accurate if it were in that position aswell, but it isn't in that position, and it is does not have the most accurate mechanisms in place. That's not a specific criticism, it's just an enevitable consequence of being on a larger scale.

Which brings me on to say that, as the largest economy in the world, and being a very large country physically, it's not unreasonable to assume it to be the largest producer of greenhouse gases. Note, I'm not saying the US is the emissions boogyman, farting noxious chemicals into the atmosphere 24/7, it's just very big and needs a lot energy to support it. Again this is just simple fact rather than any anti-US sentiment. If the UK was its size, we'd probably be the biggest polluter. I don't see the need to start getting defensive about it and crying foul play and bias.
Now, step back and realize that you're putting your faith in the UN; perhaps one of the most corrupt political organizations in the world, whose primary goal is their own individual enrichment.
Or perhaps not. It's not without it's problems, of course, and some parts of it are corrupt. But it's a leap of faith to say that this extends into other departments and sub organisations like UEA, WHO, UNESCO, whatever. It would be akin to me saying that I cannot trust anything the US government says because it is entirely corrupt. I don't believe that, I presume you don't either, but just as you 'know' that the populist liberal sentiment, that GWB and his administration is rotten and corrupt and in it for oil, is wrong, you also know that every single mistake they make is seized upon and extrapolated to they point that they persuade temselves that nothing they say or do, now or ever, can be trusted. Well this is the same. And I don't really buy it.
I'm not sure if you've tried to build a refinery in the US lately, but it is almost impossible. Not so with most other countries. In other words, the US has done more than any other nation to reduce emmissions and has some of the most stringent restrictions in the world.
This made me laugh. You've made statement A, and concluded Statement B from it. You can't base your conclusion, that the US has done more than any other country to reduce emissions, on it being more difficult to build a refinary. More importantly, both of these statements are wrong. I'm currently working on a refining project in the US, and I can tell you know that the feeling in the office is much more relaxed because there are so many fewer environmental targets (or environmental 'headaches' as they're known here) than there have been for doing the stuff they usually do in Europe. I can tell you, categorically, that it is easier, in the environmental sense, to design and build refinaries there. QED. Granted, it has much better policies than 'most' countries if you define 'most' as not including western Europe (places like Poland still don't really understand the word 'envirnment') but to go on to say that it has done more than any other country is a bit of an insult. This is no where more evident than in the number of US states that are breaking away from the administration to introduce their own more stringent environmental standards because they are, quote, 'lagging behind'. It's not like you can't become a low carbon society, you've got some of the best guys working on the best technology in the world. It just needs some impetus, which it's now getting, even if it's not from the top.

I take all your points, but I do they you extrapolate outlandish and incorrect conclusions from them. maybe I'm guilty of the same, infact I almost certainly am, but some of the stuff you've said is just wrong. OK, so this arguement is largely besides the point as China is going to have the largest economy before long and is currently the 2nd largest polluter, and will be the largest very soon. We can just hope that it focuses on it's greener side, which indeed it seems to be with the much increased number of foreign environmental consulting firms shaping it's industry.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 1912 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics Main Discussion › Global Warming
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 7  Topic Subscribe

Monday, July 13 - 12:33 pm - Copyright © 2000-2020 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online