I watched the movie the other day and it's very compelling stuff if you aren't already aware of the severity of the issue. I did find it pretty funny how Gore was riding a car everywhere he went though... Someone brought up how there's no point stressing out about the situation because no one's going to make lifestyle changes.... I completely disagree with that. You go to places in Europe, you'll see that a lot of cities have an ideal urban form that conveniently allows people to use various modes of transportation. Switzerland, for example, has the best biking trails I've ever seen. It's obvious that the city planners were catering more toward the bikers and pedestrians than people riding cars, that's why many people there don't even own cars. Other cities in Europe also have a public transport system that is far superior to any of the ones we have in North America. That's when you gotta ask, why don't our city planners have a similar mentality? It's just sad that the fat cats running the oil/car industries have such a huge influence on the government that we probably will never see a major change.... On the other hand though, we can't just blame the gov't for this problem. We all could easily do our part to help the situation. If everyone started using public transport and ride their bikes more often, the gov't will have no other choice but to change their ways.
One heard about the Kyoto protocol today, which is kind of upsetting actually. The UN wants to spend 150 billion dollars a year to try to cut on emissions, which will only extend the life of the Earth six extra years by the year 2100. For half that amount one could feed all humans, as well as provide healthcare and eliminate diseases for them. One heard that Gore's movie makes up statistics as well (his comment on the ocean rising 20 ft is dubious, as other experts claim it will only be 1 foot).
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">One heard about the Kyoto protocol today, which is kind of upsetting actually. The UN wants to spend 150 billion dollars a year to try to cut on emissions, which will only extend the life of the Earth six extra years by the year 2100. For half that amount one could feed all humans, as well as provide healthcare and eliminate diseases for them. One heard that Gore's movie makes up statistics as well (his comment on the ocean rising 20 ft is dubious, as other experts claim it will only be 1 foot).</div> jbb's charlatan intellectual strikes again. did u know that most scientists have reached a consensus- global warming is an empirical reality. and in the spirit of throwing out random numbers- the us spends 4 billion a month in iraq while parts of new orleans remain a ghostown. and about feeding the power- u would know if u did any research on developmental studies that it isn't cost or scarcity but accesibiility (how to deliver food to the remotest parts of the globe) that keeps us from feeding the power. nonetheless, i look forward to another article from chris hitchens in an attempt to refute my points.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">jbb's charlatan intellectual strikes again. did u know that most scientists have reached a consensus- global warming is an empirical reality. and in the spirit of throwing out random numbers- the us spends 4 billion a month in iraq while parts of new orleans remain a ghostown. and about feeding the power- u would know if u did any research on developmental studies that it isn't cost or scarcity but accesibiility (how to deliver food to the remotest parts of the globe) that keeps us from feeding the power. nonetheless, i look forward to another article from chris hitchens in an attempt to refute my points.</div> Well first, you're obnoxious, however, one was reporting the news to you, not an opinion (in the previous post). One said the Kyoto protocol is ridiculous, not that one thinks Global Warming doesn't exist. However, our priorities need to be put in perspective, 150 billion is too much for such a small action. Some other type of plan must be put into effect, the kyoto protocol is ineffective. One more thing, the "feeding the poor" statement, is just one of the many things one could do with 75 billion dollars a year.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">jbb's charlatan intellectual strikes again. did u know that most scientists have reached a consensus- global warming is an empirical reality. and in the spirit of throwing out random numbers- the us spends 4 billion a month in iraq while parts of new orleans remain a ghostown.</div> Not only that, but the US gives over $450 million a month to the Israeli government and military.... and it's naive to think that that money is being used to promote "peace" in the middle east. $150 billion is still a lot of money, but at least it's going to a good cause. I also want to point out how the gov't/media likes to use word manipulation to lessen the severity of things such as global warming. Notice how they like throwing the term "climate change" instead? Or how they refer to it as global warming "theory"? And they still want to call it a theory despite most scientists (and when i say most, I mean like a 100:1 ratio) stating that it is an obvious fact.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">Not only that, but the US gives over $450 million a month to the Israeli government and military.... and it's naive to think that that money is being used to promote "peace" in the middle east. $150 billion is still a lot of money, but at least it's going to a good cause.</div> No it's not a good cause... There won't be any noticeable effects and costs much more than the war in Iraq or giving 450 million a month to Israel. If I recall, the US hasn't signed it yet and not every nation is held to the same emission standards (e.g. some nations can still increase their emissions and some only have to maintain their current state).
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">No it's not a good cause... There won't be any noticeable effects and is much more than the war in Iraq or giving 450 million a month to Israel. If I recall, the US hasn't signed it yet and not every nation is held to the same emission standards (e.g. some nations can still increase their emissions and some only have to maintain their current state).</div> whoa easy there..... I dare you to tell that to the people of New Orleans who lost their homes. Or even the people in Africa who're suffering from the extreme drought. Global warming has proven to be tied in directly to these issue. There's no way people can say this isn't a concern yet are content with their gov't spending billions on this so called anti-terrorism project.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">whoa easy there..... I dare you to tell that to the people of New Orleans who lost their homes. Or even the people in Africa who're suffering from the extreme drought. Global warming has proven to be tied in directly to these issue. There's no way people can say this isn't a concern yet are content with their gov't spending billions on this so called anti-terrorism project.</div> "Easy there" what? We might as well use the 150 billion to directly assist those New Orleans/African natives you're so worried about. Global warming is a problem, but the kyoto protocol does little for the price it requires. Global Warming is not the issue here, but a poorly thought out plan.
I can understand your stance on the amount of money being spent on global warming..... but I was only referring to your statement that the money being spent is not for a good cause or that there "won't be any noticeable effects". In no way did I imply that we should spend that much to help out the people of New Orleans/Africa..... but then again, if they're spending so much to help out Israel, why not?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">I can understand your stance on the amount of money being spent on global warming..... but I was only referring to your statement that the money being spent is not for a good cause or that there "won't be any noticeable effects". In no way did I imply that we should spend that much to help out the people of New Orleans/Africa..... but then again, if they're spending so much to help out Israel, why not?</div> If people want to spend millions of dollars on New Orleans, Africa, rough neighborhoods and such, one would not have a problem with that. Global Warming is a good cause to spend money on, only if an intelligent solution can be drafted. The protocol on the table right now is in a horrible infant state. Money would be better used for other matters.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Ice:</div><div class="quote_post"> Thats actually very true. I guess the creation of the Prius and all the other Hybrids is a start to that, but some people will never change their habits. </div> Actually, if you think about it, the Hybrids and lower emissions cars really do little to help us in the long run. Its a nice development sure, but once a country like China goes into the full fledged first world level, the pros of Hybrids won't matter anymore since there's going to be a lot more people driving cars- putting the carbon dioxide into the air again.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">One heard about the Kyoto protocol today, which is kind of upsetting actually. The UN wants to spend 150 billion dollars a year to try to cut on emissions, which will only extend the life of the Earth six extra years by the year 2100. For half that amount one could feed all humans, as well as provide healthcare and eliminate diseases for them. One heard that Gore's movie makes up statistics as well (his comment on the ocean rising 20 ft is dubious, as other experts claim it will only be 1 foot).</div> If that is your arguement, then the US government spent 518.1 billion dollars last year on military. Take 75 billion dollars out of that and they still would spend 443.1 billion dollars on military. Scroll down to the military section. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html I think even if Kyoto goes into effect some countries will choose not to comply with it and will be able to produce things cheaper (like China, India, or African countries). I guess it would still make a difference with the countries that do comply.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SkiptoMyLue11:</div><div class="quote_post">If that is your arguement, then the US government spent 518.1 billion dollars last year on military. Take 75 billion dollars out of that and they still would spend 443.1 billion dollars on military. Scroll down to the military section. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html I think even if Kyoto goes into effect some countries will choose not to comply with it and will be able to produce things cheaper (like China, India, or African countries). I guess it would still make a difference with the countries that do comply.</div> the argument about india and china is absurd cause the west has a more protracted and sadly celebrated (ever heard of the industrial revolution?) history of environmental disregard. and in regards to the Uncle Sam's military budget- the most frightening part of the figure is that if u added up the military budgets of the next 11 countries, they still wouldn't equal or surpass US spending. in describing america's preoccupation with war -president eisenhower coined the "military industrial complex" which fuses money, power and might.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">in describing america's preoccupation with war -president eisenhower coined the "military industrial complex" which fuses money, power and might.</div> I watched that speech by eisenhower the other day.... pretty compelling considering the situation we see ourselves in right now.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SkiptoMyLue11:</div><div class="quote_post">If that is your arguement, then the US government spent 518.1 billion dollars last year on military. Take 75 billion dollars out of that and they still would spend 443.1 billion dollars on military. </div> Yes but considering how fruitless the Kyoto protocol is, one would rather spend money on the military. Or if one wants, we could take 75 billion out of our military's budget too if one yearns for it so much. Either way, the Kyoto protocol should be ignored. Regarding our nation's spending, the United States spends more on Health and Human services (such as welfare) than on defense (580 Billion compared to 518). http://federalbudget.com
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Yes but considering how fruitless the Kyoto protocol is, I'd rather spend money on the military. Or if one wants, we could take 75 billion out of our military's budget too if one yearns for it so much. Either way, the Kyoto protocol should be ignored. Regarding our nation's spending, the United States spends more on Health and Human services (such as welfare) than on defense. http://federalbudget.com</div> and hence your deficit. fyi, mathematicians haven't found a sufficient enough number to capture just how indebted u are. bush says his plan is going to cut the deficit in half, i and sane people across the globe scoffed at it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post"> Regarding our nation's spending, the United States spends more on Health and Human services (such as welfare) than on defense (580 Billion compared to 518). http://federalbudget.com</div> If we spend so much on it, then why does the U.S. have among the worst health statistics of all rich nations? That seems ridiculous to me. Btw, I still don't know why we are still using cars that run on gasoline when Brazil has successfully made cars that run on ethanol. I don't think most countries have even acknowledged it. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4602972.stm This would help turn the direction toward an alternative source for gasoline world wide.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">If we spend so much on it, then why does the U.S. have among the worst health statistics of all rich nations? That seems ridiculous to me. </div> sadly its pronounced amongst the poor and black. to that end, the infant mortality numbers for african americans is the same as malaysia's. as an aside- infant mortality numbers are typically ignored in the west because its a non-issue but not in america. oh yeah- your education related numbers are even more pathetic, thanks to outsourcing u guys still have enigineers, doctors and scientists to make those kick arse bombs of yours.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">sadly its pronounced amongst the poor and black. to that end, the infant mortality numbers for african americans is the same as malaysia's. as an aside- infant mortality numbers are typically ignored in the west because its a non-issue but not in america. </div> That's a sad truth. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">oh yeah- your education related numbers are even more pathetic,</div> Truth is, I'm a HS dropout. I'm still getting my diploma but not in the conventional means of obtaining one. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">thanks to outsourcing u guys still have enigineers, doctors and scientists to make those kick arse bombs of yours.</div> First off, I don't think doctors go about making "kick arse bombs". If doctors were making bombs then I must have missed something. Secondly, why so hostile against America?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">If we spend so much on it, then why does the U.S. has among the worst health statistics of all rich nations? That seems ridiculous to me. Btw, I still don't know why we are still using cars that run on gasoline when Brazil has successfully made cars that run on ethanol. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4602972.stm This would help turn the direction toward an alternative source.</div> The reason why we don't use much ethanol here is b/c the demand for fuel is so great that we just don't have enough natural capital to keep up with it. It would take a heck of a lot of corn and land area to feed our cars if we go the ethanol route. Well, that's the official reason that we're given as to why we don't use much ethanol here. It is pretty interesting how Brazil has this nice gasoline/ethanol mix where users can easily choose b/w the two fuels.... they have cars where you can make a choice to either fill it up w/ oil or ethanol, pretty ingenious. Honestly though, I think these alternative fuels are only just a quick fix. We inevitably must make lifestyle changes because the day of the automobile will soon be a thing of the past (or at the very least, we just won't be using it much).
