Automotive Bailout vs. the morons in Washington

[topspeed]

GM and Chrysler just announced that they need $30 billion in loans/credit lines or will face bankruptcy by March. This amount includes the $17b already approved by Washington.

Here's the rub, it you didn't catch the witch hunt the jacka$$'s in DC put the Big 3 through, the one thing that became painfully obvious was that the politicos haven't the faintest clue as to how the automotive industry works. They don't realize most vehicles have a 4 year development period. They can't comprehend the amount of engineering and innovation involved in trying to design a car that is economical enough to reach their pipedream 35mpg CAFE standard in the face of ever more stringent safety standards and market demands for more gizmos (both of which add weight, which in turn makes a car less economical!). You can't just stop GM or Chrysler on a dime and turn the sucker around. These companies aren't Corvette's, they're Peterbuilts with triple axle trailers!

Pelosi, that clueless b!tch, has stated she hopes Obama's new autos task force will help the "transformation of our domestic automobile industry into a viable, technologically advanced, and globally competitive manufacturing force."

Uh, huh.

Ford's Fusion Hybrid, developed solely in house without government funding (unlike Toyota's Synergy Hybrid system), betters the Camry Hybrid by 8mpg(!) city, is actually fun to drive, and is built just as well, if not better than the Camry or Accord.

The European Ford Mondeo is a Car of the Year and the new Fiesta is recognized as the "A" class standard. Not the VW Polo. Not the Yaris. Not the Fit.

A C6 Corvette will go toe to toe with any sports car on the planet...at half the price and with better mpg. The ZR1 has repeatedly beaten Ferrari Scuderia's, Lambo LP560/4's, and Porsche GT2's in comparisons, regardless of price. Factor in the the 2X-5X premium for the Euro's and it's nolo contendere.

The Pontiac G8 offers BMW M5 performance for half the price. It is also likely much more reliable.

The Caddy CTS-V offers better performance than the M5 with a $20,000 discount to boot!.

However, if you are to believe Pelosi and the rest of her cronies, American's can't build a car worth a damn. :mad:

The Wall Street crooks that put us in this mess knew exactly what they were doing, and yet we hand over $750 billion (as an appetizer) with no questions asked. Auto manufacturers face the worst market in 40 years with overall sales down to an estimated 10.2 million units (compared to 17 million units in '05) and are being blamed for their own malaise. This has hit everyone: Toyota is posting it's first loss...EVER...of $2.1 billion after recording a $20 billion profit for the previous year.

GM is already cutting 45,000 jobs, 4 car lines, and closing 5 plants to survive. That represents and drop in the bucket compared to the ripple effect of what will happen should the largest automotive corporation (and 5th largest corporation, period) go bankrupt. Suppliers, engineering firms, R&D companies...every last one of them are history.

Look, I'm not defending GM or Chrysler's poor judgement. The Aztec and Aspen certainly merit a "WTH?" response. That said, we can't have the largest, most influential car market in the world and only have one (Ford) domestic manufacturer. That's absurd. We can't become England.

/rant

[kexodusc]

You make some good points Speedy...take out the mistakes in labor contracts, bad vehicle decisions, and even some quality issues, and their still struggling near all-time lows like Nissan, Mazda, Toyota, etc...
I've said it for years, it's cool to hate the US companies, so everyone gets on the band wagon.
I worked for Honda for a bit several years ago, very low on the ladder of course, but I know internal competitive research concluded domestic vehicles in many classes had matched quality or exceeded in some areas, yet public perception was a mere fraction of Honda's. And it's just a glorified popularity contest in the end - facts be damned.

It's hard to shed that bad image.

On the other hand, I can guarantee you the Big Bath Theory is being exploited here. Whatever those car companies tell you they need, cut by half. They'll try and write off decades of bad business decisions and debt to start over again here. I'd do it too if I was them, get the most you can. By looking so bad in 2009 and 2010 the suits will come out smelling like the cat's @ss in 2011 at the first sign of turnaround. Bah.

There should probably be 2 US Auto manufacturers, and 1/2 the number of dealerships. But what do I know. I'll let the experts figure this one out.

[JSE]

I know this will anger some here but I think GM, Chrysler and probably Ford before it's all said and done, need to go through a managed bankruptcy. I say let them fail and help them rebuild. I'm not sure there is any other way for them to get out from under and correct their operating structure (not sure of the correct word/phrase there). I don't think they will ever be able to exist again as is. They need to trim the fat, get lean and more efficient. No way the unions will allow them to do this but bankruptcy could force their hands.

I want the big three to survive but I think the only way to change their corporate ideolgy is to tear them down and build them back up. As it is now, we are just throwing money into sinking ships.

[Feanor]

....
Here's the rub, it you didn't catch the witch hunt the jacka$$'s in DC put the Big 3 through, the one thing that became painfully obvious was that the politicos haven't the faintest clue as to how the automotive industry works. They don't realize most vehicles have a 4 year development period. They can't comprehend the amount of engineering and innovation involved in trying to design a car that is economical enough to reach their pipedream 35mpg CAFE standard in the face of ever more stringent safety standards and market demands for more gizmos (both of which add weight, which in turn makes a car less economical!). You can't just stop GM or Chrysler on a dime and turn the sucker around. These companies aren't Corvette's, they're Peterbuilts with triple axle trailers!
..

The rub, indeed, is that the North American automakers have had 40 effing years to smarten up and failed all the while.

Circa 1970 or '71 I walked from the Volvo dealership to the Ford dealership to check out the Torino mid-sized. When I mentioned Volvo, the salesman laughed distainfully: "There'll be a few people interested in those foreign makes because they're exotic, but most people don't and never will want them." hah HAH. It was head-in-the-sand for decades, and vestiges of that attitude persist right up to today.

We're in for a damned hard recession. There is certainly no justice in bailing out these greedy, stupid auto companies and their greedy, stupid unions when so many others will hurt as bad or worse. Maybe I agree with JSE: let 'em fail, then pick up the pieces.

[IBSTORMIN]

We're in for a damned hard recession. There is certainly no justice in bailing out these greedy, stupid auto companies and their greedy, stupid unions when so many others will hurt as bad or worse. Maybe I agree with JSE: let 'em fail, then pick up the pieces.

Add to that the greedy, stupid banks. NONE of them should have been given a bailout. The recession is here my friends. The smart businesses that played it straight will survive and the ones that didn't should learn from it, not be bailed out just to do it again because there are no consequences (Don't worry about it, the Government will bail us out again if we get into trouble!). Where IS all this money the government is throwing around coming from?

[ForeverAutumn]

I know this will anger some here but I think GM, Chrysler and probably Ford before it's all said and done, need to go through a managed bankruptcy. I say let them fail and help them rebuild. I'm not sure there is any other way for them to get out from under and correct their operating structure (not sure of the correct word/phrase there). I don't think they will ever be able to exist again as is. They need to trim the fat, get lean and more efficient. No way the unions will allow them to do this but bankruptcy could force their hands.

I want the big three to survive but I think the only way to change their corporate ideolgy is to tear them down and build them back up. As it is now, we are just throwing money into sinking ships.

I'm with you JSE. I feel bad for all the workers and other businesses that would be affected. But it's not right for my taxes to be used to bail out a troubled business. I'd rather see my tax dollars go towards padding the Unemployment Insurance benefits to help the families involved, while these companies are restructured to be more efficient in the future. And find a way to put a leash on the union. I'm all for protecting the workers but there comes a time when the cost of all of that protection is just going to backfire. That time is now.

[topspeed]

Add to that the greedy, stupid banks. NONE of them should have been given a bailout. The recession is here my friends. The smart businesses that played it straight will survive and the ones that didn't should learn from it, not be bailed out just to do it again because there are no consequences (Don't worry about it, the Government will bail us out again if we get into trouble!). Where IS all this money the government is throwing around coming from?
From US! You know, the ones that were stupid enough to not get greedy and over-extend ourselves while trying to keep up with the Jones'. We work our buns off to pay our mortgages, pay our taxes, pay our bills. And what do we get for it? We get to pay for some CFO's golden parachute and Gulfstream they gleefully gut their company.


I know this will anger some here but I think GM, Chrysler and probably Ford before it's all said and done, need to go through a managed bankruptcy. I say let them fail and help them rebuild. I'm not sure there is any other way for them to get out from under and correct their operating structure (not sure of the correct word/phrase there). I don't think they will ever be able to exist again as is. They need to trim the fat, get lean and more efficient. No way the unions will allow them to do this but bankruptcy could force their hands.

And find a way to put a leash on the union. I'm all for protecting the workers but there comes a time when the cost of all of that protection is just going to backfire. That time is now.
This is the ONLY upside to bankruptcy. The UAW has stated they have made concessions, just not nearly enough. The Job Banks have to stop. The UAW needs to understand they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Holding management hostage is not a bargaining technique, it's destroying our ability to build a competitive product. Washington wants higher quality? No problem. "Greener" cars? Easy. BlueTooth, voice controlled navi, and complete iPod integration? Simple. Despite what Washington belives, domestic automakers are willing and able to provide all of this right now. All it takes is money.

Average wage for a UAW member: $71/hr.

Average wage for non-union right-to-work employee: $30/hr.

Slice your labor cost in half and see how much more content and quality you can put into a vehicle at the same price point. Amazing, huh?


The rub, indeed, is that the North American automakers have had 40 effing years to smarten up and failed all the while. I disagree. Toyota has been trying to crack the largest sector in America (full sized trucks) for over 25 years and still haven't gotten it right. The new Tundra factory in Texas, a project that went over budget by $400million, was shuttered for 3 months because vehicles are sitting on the lots. The Nissan Titan is going to become a re-badged Dodge Ram. The Fusion and Malibu are better cars than the Camry or Accord according to the press. The Focus routinely outsold the Civic during the '90's.

Kex hit it on the head: it's public perception. The press wax poetic about the Prius, yet fail to tell you the carbon footprint to build it far exceeds that of a Ford Focus. American manufacturer's have been given a bad rap. Sure, the cars made in the '70's sucked. No question. However, they got their act together and brought us such semianl vehicles as the '86 Taurus, Jeep Cherokee, and Caddy CTS. Unfortunately, old reps die hard, whether deserved or not.

There are so many layers as to why domestic manufacturers are in the plight they are in. Bad decisions, questionable product strategy, and over expansion all played major roles. However, technological leadership, innovation, and quality are not to blame. To say we can't build a competitive vehicle is simply wrong.

[GMichael]

Average wage for a UAW member: $71/hr.

Average wage for non-union right-to-work employee: $30/hr.

.

Where do I apply? I'll take either job.:incazzato:

[Sugar Beats]

Add to that the greedy, stupid banks. NONE of them should have been given a bailout. The recession is here my friends. The smart businesses that played it straight will survive and the ones that didn't should learn from it, not be bailed out just to do it again because there are no consequences (Don't worry about it, the Government will bail us out again if we get into trouble!). Where IS all this money the government is throwing around coming from?


Here, here. I totally agree. All they are doing is printing more. Get those printing presses' a rollin'.
All it's going to do is compound the debt we are already suffering from and the brunt of it will be felt for years to come. My kids, their kids.. and like that commercial, and so on & so on.

[IBSTORMIN]

Here, here. I totally agree. All they are doing is printing more. Get those printing presses' a rollin'.
All it's going to do is compound the debt we are already suffering from and the brunt of it will be felt for years to come. My kids, their kids.. and like that commercial, and so on & so on.

My understanding is printing it lowers the value of the dollar overseas so they won't do that. We just borrow it from China, again. Soon we won't own the country and all we will produce here is babies. Of course we are importing those now too.

[ForeverAutumn]

My understanding is printing it lowers the value of the dollar overseas so they won't do that. We just borrow it from China, again. Soon we won't own the country and all we will produce here is babies. Of course we are importing those now too.

Could you please print some money soon? I'll be in the US in April and I need the US dollar to get a little weaker before I come. The exchange rate is a b!tch.

[IBSTORMIN]

Could you please print some money soon? I'll be in the US in April and I need the US dollar to get a little weaker before I come. The exchange rate is a b!tch.

NoNoNO. I said they aren't printing money, at least I don't think they are and I don't want the dollar to get weak. What are you wanting a bailout like everyone else???

Guys, where are we coming from? Where are we going to?

[Feanor]

...

Kex hit it on the head: it's public perception. The press wax poetic about the Prius, yet fail to tell you the carbon footprint to build it far exceeds that of a Ford Focus. American manufacturer's have been given a bad rap. Sure, the cars made in the '70's sucked. No question. However, they got their act together and brought us such semianl vehicles as the '86 Taurus, Jeep Cherokee, and Caddy CTS. Unfortunately, old reps die hard, whether deserved or not.

There are so many layers as to why domestic manufacturers are in the plight they are in. Bad decisions, questionable product strategy, and over expansion all played major roles. However, technological leadership, innovation, and quality are not to blame. To say we can't build a competitive vehicle is simply wrong.

You are right that it isn't just the cars. Maybe not even primarily the cars which have indeed improved over the 40 years I spoke of. Certainly the techinology gap is much narrower today, although I'd say (as a matter of perception?) that most of the NA improvement has be the last decade. (BTW, I have myself driven exclusively NA cars for the last 27 years.)

Funny you should mention trucks. As our sage, Kex, pointed out not long ago, mini-vans, pick-ups, and SUVs have buoyed the NA industry in recent decades and without them it would have foundered long since. But it was clear to anyone with the least foresight knew that the era of these gas guzzlers was bound to end, yet no provision was made for this inevidability.

I think we agree that a big part of the blame goes to the unions. Needless to say they have always known that their workers were grossly over paid relative to other domestic workers. When foreign competition emerged -- and here I'm back to talking 40 years or longer -- the perceptive realized that the days of this disparity had to end eventually, but again, no concessions were made to inevidability.

No, no, companies, shareholders, and present and former workers alike must be swept aside. If motor vehical manufacture is to survive at all in NA, the industry must be born anew on a wiser foundation.

[IBSTORMIN]

No, no, companies, shareholders, and present and former workers alike must be swept aside. If motor vehical manufacture is to survive at all in NA, the industry must be born anew on a wiser foundation.

Maybe a new car manufacturer will arise from NA. Now would be the time. Someone with the guts and money to steal all the best from the big three as their ships sink and build a new NA car manufacturer using the resources of GM & Chrysler sold at auction at a fraction of the cost?

[Feanor]

Maybe a new car manufacturer will arise from NA. Now would be the time. Someone with the guts and money to steal all the best from the big three as their ships sink and build a new NA car manufacturer using the resources of GM & Chrysler sold at auction at a fraction of the cost?

It's probably what's necessary. But who? Maybe the goverment could do it -- or, since we don't believe in socialism, maybe the goverment could bribe someone to do it through myriad concessions and guarantees.

[IBSTORMIN]

It's probably what's necessary. But who? Maybe the goverment could do it -- or, since we don't believe in socialism, maybe the goverment could bribe someone to do it through myriad concessions and guarantees.

With the government involved, it would probably be some foreign country they would give a tax break, concessions and guarantees to but they would have to disguise it with an NA figurehead. Kinda scary now that I said it!

[JSE]

Maybe a new car manufacturer will arise from NA. Now would be the time. Someone with the guts and money to steal all the best from the big three as their ships sink and build a new NA car manufacturer using the resources of GM & Chrysler sold at auction at a fraction of the cost?


I seriously doubt a totally new car manufacturer would come out of all this. However, I can definitely see consolidation into maybe 2 major companies. Maybe Chrysler would be merged into GM or Ford or maybe both? Dodge goes to GM and Jeep goes to Ford? Who knows.

The one thing that is clear is they pretty much need almost start over from scratch. Like Kex hinted at earlier, we don't need 30 dealers for each brand in each big city. Here in the Houston, I bet there are at least 30 Chevy and Ford dealers while they are probably 8 to 10 Toyota dealers. It's ridiculous. I even think 8 to 10 Toyota dealers is too much.

[kexodusc]

I know a lot of taxpayers are mad and looking for blood, a punching bag etc....In all fairness, I just hope they do a bit of research, a bit of thinking, and don't fall victim to the easy way out that is making UAW the big scapegoat for all of this. They're maybe 20% of it max, but they get more bad publicity than the all the crappy managers and CEO's, lazy engineers, greedy shareholders, ignorant courts, and visionless governments over the last 4 decades that have created the environment that exists today.

These are people at the end of the day and I don't like seeing anyone persecuted more than they deserve.

True, they do introduce some bloat to the cost structure, and they are terribly unwilling to concede compensation levels that are unhealthy for the companies that employ them, but as I try to tell people, a large majority of that bloat was never predicted or intended by the UAW, and the reality is even if UAW labor costs were cheaper than transplant (Honda, Toyota etc) labor costs, we'd still be in the same situation we are in now - 2 companies on the verge of bankruptcy and another not far behind.

If you believe the Union, union labor costs are only 10% of production costs for vehicles. If you believe Ford or GM it's closer to 13-14%. Split the difference, and we're still only talking a competitive disadvantage of 20% or so on a chunk of 10% or so of the cost of vehicles. Do the math on the impact on final price of the vehicle it's only a few percent. Granted that's a big difference in an extremely oversaturated market, but considering domestic vehicles are still cheaper for the large part, price isn't everything. Is it too impossible to demand that GM and Ford make up that 2 or 3% disadvantage somewhere else on the other 90% of costs? I guess it is.

If it was just labor - we would expect GM, Chrysler, Ford etc to be proportionaletly behind the ball - But are things at GM, Chrysler and Ford only 3% or 4% , even 8% worse of than Honda, Toyota etc right now? Not even close...so there's plenty more blame to get thrown around out there, but nobody knows who those guilty parties are, so back to UAW bashing.

The labor rates Speedy posted above are consistent with what I've seen at $71/hr if we look at the largest figures for pensions and insured benefits. If you consider the concessions the UAW has given in recent bargaining rounds (ie, changes to VEBA, bringing compensation in line with non-union transplants, etc) that figures drops to $58/hr. When you consider that the average transplant workers' compensation is around $48 that's not nearly as shocking. This leads me to believe that gap is going to get bridged soon enough.

There's been a lot of talk about how the so called legacy costs are to blame - and, well, to a certain extent they are. Of that $71 figure, $16/hr is attibutable to legacy costs for retirees. Those are benefits for people that were bargained for in good-faith and agreed to by management in the past. That $16/hr disadvantage was never anticpated to be so much by the UAW, or managers and all their consultants when those benefits were awarded. I've spoken before about the actuarial science behind funding benefit plans, but these things have snowballed into costing several times more than the worst-case assumptions used back in the day...It's not like UAW went out there to bankrupt these guys, but every time there's a problem, they get the most criticism and are expected to give up the most concessions. If I was retired with the promise of a pension that was guaranteed to me in good faith, I'd be pretty damn pissed off too if people came back and said we need you to downgrade your lifestyle until you die. But I know why people blame them...you can't undo all the other gaffs, and the only constantly scapegoat in all this is the union. It shouldn't have been negotiated, but management was too damn worried about the impact on the bottom line for a few quarters or a year too worry about the long term handicap they were locking themselves into. That's not a line workers' mistake.

Well Kex is gonna make a bold prediction - the Auto companies are going to get bailed out, the labor costs are going to move inline with the transplant companies very fast, and in 7 or 10 years we're going to see a US auto company still teetering on the brink of disaster, because all the focus is on labor and productivity, not distribution, marketing, or design. And even if it was, there's too many players in the market and only the very best can make a buck. We'll be back in 10 years talking about another crisis. Only then there will be nobody left to blame except a culture that has always been focused on short-term gain.

[IBSTORMIN]

I know a lot of taxpayers are mad and looking for blood, a punching bag etc....In all fairness, I just hope they do a bit of research, a bit of thinking, and don't fall victim to the easy way out that is making UAW the big scapegoat for all of this. They're maybe 20% of it max, but they get more bad publicity than the all the crappy managers and CEO's, lazy engineers, greedy shareholders, ignorant courts, and visionless governments over the last 4 decades that have created the environment that exists today.

When UNSKILLED labor that is worth $10/hour is making $71/hour AND have the arrogance to think they have the right to that much money, it pisses people off.
Anyone can put a bolt in the same place on the same car on an assembly line all day.

I know of a small refractory company owner that was ruined by a union steward he would not give in to. The steward got mad one day, closed the owner's office door and told the him that if he didn't agree to his demands, he was going to ruin him. The owner said the damands were ridiculous and he didn't give in. The union steward then stirred up so much trouble that within a year, the man had to close his doors. He couldn't get anybody to work, he was late on orders, he lost customers, etc. EVERYONE that worked for him LOST THEIR JOBS. He said it broke his heart when his workers came to him and asked what they should do now. How did the union steward and the union itself help it's people in that situation?
The UAW is all about power, just like this scenario they can't see the forest for the trees. Granted, the car companies have made mistakes but I have worked in non-union and union dealerships and the union people have an arrogance to them that make it a difficult place to work. The arrogance needs to stop. Too bad they took it this far. The unskilled will be making $10 an hour soon as they should be. The skilled will not have it easy but should have transferable skills.

The biggest problem is, manufacturing is leaving the U.S. and that's NOT just a car company problem.

[ForeverAutumn]

There's been a lot of talk about how the so called legacy costs are to blame - and, well, to a certain extent they are. Of that $71 figure, $16/hr is attibutable to legacy costs for retirees. Those are benefits for people that were bargained for in good-faith and agreed to by management in the past. That $16/hr disadvantage was never anticpated to be so much by the UAW, or managers and all their consultants when those benefits were awarded. I've spoken before about the actuarial science behind funding benefit plans, but these things have snowballed into costing several times more than the worst-case assumptions used back in the day...It's not like UAW went out there to bankrupt these guys, but every time there's a problem, they get the most criticism and are expected to give up the most concessions. If I was retired with the promise of a pension that was guaranteed to me in good faith, I'd be pretty damn pissed off too if people came back and said we need you to downgrade your lifestyle until you die. But I know why people blame them...you can't undo all the other gaffs, and the only constantly scapegoat in all this is the union. It shouldn't have been negotiated, but management was too damn worried about the impact on the bottom line for a few quarters or a year too worry about the long term handicap they were locking themselves into. That's not a line workers' mistake.


Where does it stop, I ask. This morning I read that GM Canada is asking the Federal and Provincial governments for assistance with funding their pension plan. The bulk of this liability will fall on the Ontario government since most of GMs Canadian operations are in Ontario and pensions are provincially legislated.

As an Ontario tax payer, I oppose this move. Someone managed to negotiate retirement plans that were far too rich to be realistic and now it’s up to unrelated tax payers to bail them out.

I understand the domino effect that will happen (mainly in Ontario) if GM went belly up and I can live with pitching in to ensure that people stay employed and businesses stay viable. But to now be asked to fix a broken pension plan on top of that just makes me steam. Who’s fixing my pension plan? :incazzato:

[JSE]

Lots of good info............


I agree that labor costs are only part of the problem. The big three really need to be completely overhauled from top to bottom. They need to be forced to make major and drastic changes. From top to bottom, there are too many overpaid, under performing, greedy, set in their ways, stubborn, non creative, fossils taking up space within the walls of the big three. Weed these people out and start over with fresh ideas and a new corporate structure and culture.

I also worry nothing will really change once they are bailed out. We will put a bandaid on the problem and buy a few more years (if that) but eventually we'll be right back at this point. That's why they need to fail to survive. I really don't see any other way.

[Feanor]

...
Well Kex is gonna make a bold prediction - the Auto companies are going to get bailed out, the labor costs are going to move inline with the transplant companies very fast, and in 7 or 10 years we're going to see a US auto company still teetering on the brink of disaster, because all the focus is on labor and productivity, not distribution, marketing, or design. And even if it was, there's too many players in the market and only the very best can make a buck. We'll be back in 10 years talking about another crisis. Only then there will be nobody left to blame except a culture that has always been focused on short-term gain.

Your last paragraph is the best because it is there that you tacitly acknowledge the problem rather than just apologizing for the UAW.

No, it isn't all just the fault of the UAW. Personally I never said that. But the mistakes have been clear and obvious for decades; the NA makers have been -- reluctantly, I should say -- playing catch-up with foreign makers. Their recent successes, as mentioned by topspeed, are too little and too late. It need not have been that way except for greed and lack of foresight.

North American auto companies are, ultimately, not compeditive with the off-shore manufacturers. Or in some form, they might continue to be compeditive assembling cars here, but the parts will be made off-shore by workers earning $0.10 on the dollar vs. UAW. Either way, the solution isn't going to include UAW @ $71/hr.

[kexodusc]

Yep, my personal, mine-all-mine, biased, un-PC opinion is that no fewer than 2 major automakers have to fail (1 US, one foreign) and that whole industry has to change from the point of sale back to the drawing board.

FYI, full disclosure. First, I'm not apologizing for the UAW - they've made enough stupid mistakes and sold out enough of their own membership over the years that nobody can say they aren't deserving of a portion of the pain. Their lack of vision and unwillingness to be a partner in the industry will be their downfall.

I'm a bit different than you guys maybe, I go to meetings several times a week and have to put up with too much anti-union rhetoric from my clients who are mostly large employers with unions of their own. It's taking its toll on me. I'm not a union sympathizer per se...my family ran car dealerships in the US until they went under a few years back, and they had to fight unions too, much to their demise, I have good cause to have a personal anti-union vendetta.

But I just wish the people at the top, would get their share of the blame - not just passing criticism about a few CEO's flying jets to D.C. to ask for bailout money, but real, country ruining criticism. Right now they're being "asked what do you need?" Instead they should be asked "What would you like for your last meal?"

I hate that one party is taking 90% of the blame for a much smaller portion of the cause. They are less popular than Hitler these days and they are the ones that are going to get hurt the most. Hell, a lot of those union guys could give a rats ass about the UAW, they just want to work, and those are the terms. Start any decertification nonsense, and your dog goes missing and car gets vandalized...bah. Union haters. You'll get your pound of flesh soon enough. But at the end of the day you won't feel any better.

As for bailouts - I'm not opposed to them. If the investment in the bailout even breaks even over time, it's good. One could argue the means of production is a necessary expense to have in domestic borders. If it makes a penny or two, even better. I dunno...it's bailouts without a viable action plan for recovery and repayment I struggle with. I'm just not convinced there's going to be enough substantial change, but hopefully I'm wrong.

Bah...this stuff takes Kex to a dark place and he's gonna try and stay out of it.

[ForeverAutumn]

But I just wish the people at the top, would get their share of the blame - not just passing criticism about a few CEO's flying jets to D.C. to ask for bailout money, but real, country ruining criticism. Right now they're being "asked what do you need?" Instead they should be asked "What would you like for your last meal?"

Great statement.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Not to over-simplfy, and as usual kex you're right on the money, but more and more, each day that goes by I want to just move the hell out of this country.

BTW,

$75 billion to help stop mortgage foreclosures.

$750 billion+ to bail out the banks (Greenspan says nationalizing the banks may not be a bad idea)

$17 billion and potentially $30 BILLION more for the auto makers

Nationalization? Isn't that what happaens in SOCIALIST countries?

[kexodusc]

Not to over-simplfy, and as usual kex you're right on the money, but more and more, each day that goes by I want to just move the hell out of this country.

BTW,

$75 billion to help stop mortgage foreclosures.

$750 billion+ to bail out the banks (Greenspan says nationalizing the banks may not be a bad idea)

$17 billion and potentially $30 BILLION more for the auto makers

Nationalization? Isn't that what happaens in SOCIALIST countries?
Rich we've got to unlearn a lot of the half-truth political ideologies we've been taught. A lot of that talk is just black and white bull**** that doesn't exist in reality, and the politicians use it to divide us. If we were at war with an aggressor, we'd expect tax funds to go to a SOCIALIST program called the army to defend us. Police, fire fighters, etc...those are noble. But a national regulated economic system built to protect society from the threat of unchecked greed and dishonesty is somehow socialist? No way.

As undesirable as it is, I think a bailout is far better than the alternative. This is a controlled descent instead of a nosedive. We're all going down fast, but more of us will survive this way.

If you want to think of it in political rhetoric terms...it's America investing in America, rather than turning its back on itself. "Not my problem" and "everyman for himself" got us into this mess.

[nightflier]

A lot of good points, but I'd like to point out that the "the jacka$$'s in DC", i.e. our current president and his new government, were urging that conditions and transparency be placed on the bank bailout, back when the last administration & congress just wanted to give them a blank check. I also have to side with Kex that the Unions, for all their past errors, aren't the biggest problem with the automakers' woes. Yes, I know they jumped on the SUV bandwagon, but the CEO's & upper management have been behaving like hogs for far too long as well. The private jets to Washington, the golden parachutes, and corporate vacations are an affront that should be tempered.

Likewise, the companies themselves have made this bed they now have to lay in. Maybe everyone should revisit Who Killed the Electric Car? If that was not arrogance and waste, then I don't know what is. It also wasn't just the 70s that saw pathetically bad engineering, either. I remember the 80's duds too, the Dodge Aries K, the Buick wanabe luxury look-alikes, and the monikers for Ford's Taught-us, the Fucus, the Mustink, and the Exploder. Then there's the whole Hummer nonsense, the pathetic Jeeps, and the SUV one-upsmanship of the last few years. These are all more recent memories. There were some good cars, but also a lot of bad ones, and more importantly a lot of unnecessary ones looking for imagined new niches. Our car industry depended too much on continued, unrealistic growth and that was bound to end someday.

Also a note on the bank bail-out: in case people missed it, this was a knee-jerk reaction to a run on our whole monetary system. It wasn't something that could have been avoided. Yes, more heads should have rolled and accountability & transparency should have been included in the final drafts, but the bail-out needed to happen to keep Western banking alive. Of course, this wasn't the first time this happened, and we really haven't learned from those past mistakes, but because we haven't, the tax-payers had to once again bail someone out. My guess was that the last administration in Washington was hoping that the party would last until after they were out of office, only it didn't. Want to know were all that money went? Try pay-offs, graft, corruption both in the private sector and with government contracts. They knew the party would end and they did nothing to right the ship as it was heading off-course - they only hoped it would stay afloat long enough to survive the last election and it didn't. When the crap hit the fan, they made the fix such a poisoned pill that the next administration would surely choke on it. Well, we'll see if that will actually happen.

This is a correction, not unlike others we've had, though probably just as severe. Our way of life, our love affair with cars, bad food, self-pampering, limitless investments, entertainment, and even overly expensive audio gear, however small a portion of this issue that is, cannot sustain itself indefinitely. The disparity between our lives and those of the majority of the rest of the world is too great to be economically sustainable. $71 per hour? $30 per hour? $10 per hour? Try $2 per week, and in some cases less than $1 per week. That's disparity. And then when you consider that some of us, like the CEOs of some of these banks, make $200-300 per hour? That's beyond obscene.

By the way, I'm not just speaking from a distance. My brother is an engineer for a major American manufacturing company (yes, they still exist), and his job is also on the line. Four members of his team (of 10) have already been fired. His wife lost her job in advertising six months ago. I've agreed to take a pay-cut to keep my job, and my wife was told that by this Summer her whole department will be eliminated (35 people out of work). My father was forced into early retirement, and my sister and her husband had to move to the Far East to keep working. This is a major correction, all right.

[3-LockBox]

The average wage in the US is ...$31.00/hr?

Say what?!?! :yikes: exsqueez me? baking powder?

Oh please missah Brer Fox, don't throw poor old me in dat der briar patch...

bwahahahahahah...I would love, LOVE, LOVE to make 31 bucks an hour

I wonder how someone came up with that kinda figure. If a non-union company started a factory making cars in say, Ferndale WA, they'd start somewhere around $11-$12 per hour, maybe even less, and certainly not much more. They'd top out around $16/hr.

BTW: Didn't read that somewhere, I LIVE IT! I got outta electronics because the pay was low. I made as much cleaning sh!tters as I did fixing telephone equipment. I hate to come off like a jackass, but how bad am I supposed to feel about what is a small percentage of wage earners in this country? How much bailout burden do real people get to shoulder? How much money does the government get to throw at companies who haven't shown good faith with their own funds? And how many high paying jobs does this save? Is there a real cost benefit analysis to this bailout? And is there any guarantee that these same companies won't move factories over-seas as soon as they get their money?

The majority of people living in this country make less than 'living wage'. And that includes all kinds of jobs and so-called careers, not just janitors and berry pickers.

[kexodusc]

The average wage in the US is ...$31.00/hr?

Say what?!?! :yikes: exsqueez me? baking powder?

Oh please missah Brer Fox, don't throw poor old me in dat der briar patch...

bwahahahahahah...I would love, LOVE, LOVE to make 31 bucks an hour

I wonder how someone came up with that kinda figure. If a non-union company started a factory making cars in say, Ferndale WA, they'd start somewhere around $11-$12 per hour, maybe even less, and certainly not much more. They'd top out around $16/hr.

BTW: Didn't read that somewhere, I LIVE IT! I got outta electronics because the pay was low. I made as much cleaning sh!tters as I did fixing telephone equipment. I hate to come off like a jackass, but how bad am I supposed to feel about what is a small percentage of wage earners in this country? How much bailout burden do real people get to shoulder? How much money does the government get to throw at companies who haven't shown good faith with their own funds? And how many high paying jobs does this save? Is there a real cost benefit analysis to this bailout? And is there any guarantee that these same companies won't move factories over-seas as soon as they get their money?

The majority of people living in this country make less than 'living wage'. And that includes all kinds of jobs and so-called careers, not just janitors and berry pickers.

I'm not just worried about the impact of thousands of UAW jobs disappearing, but also the impact that will have the communities around those jobs. Think of just about thing that those UAW folks spend money on. Discretionary and staple industries feel the pain. It's all going to be cut, some of it almost to zero, all of it significantly.

On just the retail side of things -dealerships feed feed local business. They hire mechanics, lawyers, architects, engineers, plumbers, landscapers, accountants, salespeople, painters, IT folks, admin staff, car washers, security, etc, The trucking/transport industry relies on auto heavily. All taxable income which is needed to pay off the bank-bailouts :)

I have no idea how many people work at car dealerships in the USA, but I know a few years ago it was well over a million. I know my grandfather's employed 50+ people. When that business went under a lot of those people struggled to find other work. There's over 6000 GM dealers alone, 20,000 or so dealerships across the country. A few hundred thousand jobs disappearing doesn't help anyone. Most of those jobs aren't exactly super high wages either, but they feed people.

A few million unemployed people is going to reduce national productivity, put downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on taxes for everyone.

[IBSTORMIN]

By the way, I'm not just speaking from a distance. My brother is an engineer for a major American manufacturing company (yes, they still exist), and his job is also on the line. Four members of his team (of 10) have already been fired. His wife lost her job in advertising six months ago. I've agreed to take a pay-cut to keep my job, and my wife was told that by this Summer her whole department will be eliminated (35 people out of work). My father was forced into early retirement, and my sister and her husband had to move to the Far East to keep working. This is a major correction, all right.

I was feeling good about my job. The company's financial position was shown to be good in a meeting on Tuesday. 2008 sucked due to things beyond our control but 2009 is looking good so far. Our CEO has positioned us over the last two years to make us strong financially, better than most in our industry. Today it was anounced that our CEO of 8 years is being replaced by someone else in the company. In the anouncement it praised the former CEO for the job he did in the last 8 years. There was no explaination of why or where he is going. Now I'm worried.

[Feanor]

I'm not just worried about the impact of thousands of UAW jobs disappearing, but also the impact that will have the communities around those jobs. Think of just about thing that those UAW folks spend money on. Discretionary and staple industries feel the pain. It's all going to be cut, some of it almost to zero, all of it significantly.

On just the retail side of things -dealerships feed feed local business. They hire mechanics, lawyers, architects, engineers, plumbers, landscapers, accountants, salespeople, painters, IT folks, admin staff, car washers, security, etc, The trucking/transport industry relies on auto heavily. All taxable income which is needed to pay off the bank-bailouts :)

I have no idea how many people work at car dealerships in the USA, but I know a few years ago it was well over a million. I know my grandfather's employed 50+ people. When that business went under a lot of those people struggled to find other work. There's over 6000 GM dealers alone, 20,000 or so dealerships across the country. A few hundred thousand jobs disappearing doesn't help anyone. Most of those jobs aren't exactly super high wages either, but they feed people.

A few million unemployed people is going to reduce national productivity, put downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on taxes for everyone.

All true and I agree, Kex. But we, (US & Canadian taxpayers), should not be expected hand over money to NA automakers so they can repeat the mistakes of the past. Nor should we be expected to protect the wealth of their shareholders and UAW members. We need solutions that are detached from the self-interests of these groups: they made their mistakes and deserve the consequences.

The NA industry needs to be recreated with a strategic focus on reducing reliance on foreign energy and other resources, protecting the environment, and acknowledging the realities of global labor market.

[topspeed]

There have been a lot of great viewpoints voiced here without drawing political lines, and I applaud all of you for your restraint because I know from threads past how easy a flame war can burst out.

It's ironic that Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama has been one of the most vocal opponents for the domestic bailout, yet he didn't seem to mind as his state glad-handed over $2 billion in incentives to Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai in recent years. Support the foreign makes and then complain about domestic's "failed business model" and how we aren't making competitive vehicles. How 'bout leveling the playing field and then we'll talk about "competitive" models, eh Dick?

[Kevio]

The average wage in the US is ...$31.00/hr?

Say what?!?! :yikes: exsqueez me? baking powder?This shows you the distinction between average and median. In the average, one white guy making $30 million provides statistical cover for for thousands making $6 an hour.

In the median, he's just one guy that makes more than most anyone else.

[kexodusc]

All true and I agree, Kex. But we, (US & Canadian taxpayers), should not be expected hand over money to NA automakers so they can repeat the mistakes of the past. Nor should we be expected to protect the wealth of their shareholders and UAW members. We need solutions that are detached from the self-interests of these groups: they made their mistakes and deserve the consequences.

The NA industry needs to be recreated with a strategic focus on reducing reliance on foreign energy and other resources, protecting the environment, and acknowledging the realities of global labor market.

Points I won't argue. To be fair, the US auto co's will tell you that's exactly what they're trying to do. I'm just not as optimistic as them. We'll see.

Who knows. Maybe this time they get it right.

Speedy's right though...there's been a lot of double speak from the politicians, all stripes.

I like your last point - acknowledging the realities of global labor market. I don't think we fully understand exactly what those realities are.

[kexodusc]

This shows you the distinction between average and median. In the average, one white guy making $30 million provides statistical cover for for thousands making $6 an hour.

In the median, he's just one guy that makes more than most anyone else.
Sadly, the $6/hr is probably closer to the mode...:nonod:

[3-LockBox]

In the average, one white guy making $30 million provides statistical cover for for thousands making $6 an hour.

My point exactly. Heaven forbid a bunch spoiled rotten UAW workers (who share at least 1/3 the blame) should be forced to live...like regular folk.

[Feanor]

....

I like your last point - acknowledging the realities of global labor market. I don't think we fully understand exactly what those realities are.

$0.10 - $0.15 on the dollar is the global reality.

I'm currently working with a couple of systems analysts from India. I'm not management so I don't know the number but I'm told we pay these guys, (who are doing a decent job), "substantially less than local contractors". The self-employed local contractors here in London, ON, get $70-$90 an hour, so maybe the Indian guys get $50/hr at most.

More specifically, the Indian company that contracts them gets $50/hr. Their Indian company flies them from India, pays their room & board while they're here, pays them a bonus India salary and whatever benefits, and still pockets profit. You've gotta figure ... :shocked:

[3-LockBox]

More specifically, the Indian company that contracts them gets $50/hr. Their Indian company flies them from India, pays their room & board while they're here, pays them a bonus India salary and whatever benefits, and still pockets profit. You've gotta figure ... :shocked:

Yeah, about 15 years ago I used to repair photocopier machines, faxes, telephones, you know...office equipment, and the place I worked for charged $40-$50 an hour - I was paid $7.50 per hour by the company.

[ForeverAutumn]

Yeah, about 15 years ago I used to repair photocopier machines, faxes, telephones, you know...office equipment, and the place I worked for charged $40-$50 an hour - I was paid $7.50 per hour by the company.

It sounds like you could have benefitted from a union.

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAA! :ihih:

[Feanor]

It sounds like you could have benefitted from a union.

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAA! :ihih:

But I'm in an industry that never had any "threat" of unionization. That is to say, the private, white-collar financial industry. How come? Well, virtually all workers are salaried, not hourly wage earners -- and historically a very high proportion of workers have been women.

As we can observe, unionized industries sometimes enjoy a fairer split of the profits between shareholders and workers, but they usually aren't any better than the rest in terms of efficiency or overall impact on economic system. We need look no farther than the NA auto industry to figure that out.

[ForeverAutumn]

An interesting editorial from the Financial Post. For my American friends, the Financial Post is one of Canada's daily national business newspapers.

Bailouts have time and place
Nations were built with them, now some must help others out

Diane Francis, Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Automakers have upped their bailout request to Ottawa and Queen's Park, and these governments have no choice but to pony up.

Tough talk from ideologues, rivals or other provincial governments is irrelevant and unhelpful. Canada's auto and auto-parts sector is an essential and important high-tech industry, employer and exporter.

Governments will recoup much of their investment in the form of taxes, fees and interest payments. This is nothing new. In some cases, such as Syncrude or Hibernia years ago, governments took pieces of the action and benefited by doing so.

It is unfair to characterize this as a bailout of high-wage workers or poor managements. It is a needed infusion to shore up the country's current-accounts balance and tax base, as well as help to save suppliers such as transport companies, parts manufacturers and steel companies.

It is not needed because auto-makers are lousy and make poor products. They have operated for decades and have been, like the rest of us, mugged by a combination of former U. S. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policies and the gang on Wall Street.

By the way, bailouts have helped build Canada. Some efforts have failed, but successes include the oil-sands industry, offshore Hibernia and industries such as Canadian National Railway and the railway that built the country, Canadian Pacific.

Other subsidies, such as homesteading, government contracts and tax breaks, have also built Canada. The same mixed-economy approach has taken place in countries like ours that have been too small, too foreign-dominated, too remote or too inefficient to compete globally.

The Americans are learning that the proper role of government is often as the lender or investor of last resort. Public-sector bashing is a favourite sport among Americans, but most should realize that everything from vaccines to aviation and the Internet were financed by government.

My guess is this mess will take a few years to turn around and get worse before it gets better.

The world's financial system, its blood supply, is still frozen and will, at the end of the day, be largely nationalized. Even if Canada escapes this fate, due to its slightly stronger banks, Ottawa will likely and shortly find itself asked to help bail out banks elsewhere.

Indications are that sovereign nations such as Greece, Belgium and even Switzerland are simply too small to take over and fix their banking systems. New York economist Noriel Roubini even speculated that Britain may need a bailout for its banks.

This could mean multilateral bailouts, which Canada will have to help mount.

All of this is very worrisome, but hardly surprising: governments becoming soft receivers in this Mother of Bankruptcies.

In the end, a fix will be found because, quite simply, it must be. No amount of debate about the role of government from an ideological viewpoint, or blame-laying against governments, will change the reality that the financial players totally blew it with their recklessness and, in some cases, their criminality.

dfrancis@nationalpost.com - Blog: financialpost.com/dianefrancis

[kexodusc]

Interesting viewpoint.

[topspeed]

I just read that the auto bailout approved by Bush before he left office included a stipulation that the union's bring their labor costs in-line with right-to-work factories.

Whether or not it remains part of the package with the Obama administration will be interesting to watch. If Obama is going to help the Big 3 return to the black, one of the first things he should consider is pushing the new CAFE standard of 35mpg back a few years. To reach an average of 35mpg is going to require a huge investment, a sum of money that auto manufacturers simply do not have. As of this date, only Honda is scheduled to post an operating profit for 2008, and even then they are still pulling out of F1 racing and have cancelled numerous projects including the NSX sports car. Every other manufacturer is expected to post a loss. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more economical and earth friendly vehicles. The timing is just wrong.

[nightflier]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have more economical and earth friendly vehicles. The timing is just wrong.

I guess someone forgot to watch The Inconvenient Truth. As much as I don't like listening to Gore and thought the politics every five minutes were a bit over the top, the fact is that there is a tipping point with the environment that we can't postpone. Even if we continue to act completely selfishly like we've done for the past 8 years, and care nothing for the environment, what we do to the rest of the world in the process is going to hurt us more than we realize. The changes we need to make are going to be economically painful for everyone, but this is a pin-prick compared to the devastation we'll suffer if we continue as before. The simple fact is that the American auto industry depended on continued growth in this sector and this is simply not sustainable.

We Americans need to change our individualistic thinking about transportation and start thinking in a cooperative way about sharing the resource. We need to start thinking like the Europeans and Japanese: only one car per family, public transportation that is free for the disabled/military/youth/elderly, more incentives for bicycles, better work-at-home options (incl. upgrading the Internet), and living closer to where we work. I know this will be dismissed as socialist and impossible, but it's going to happen whether we like it of not. The alternative would be far worse. Retracting our consumption to one car maker is only the beginning, we might even loose all three because of our oafish ways in the past.

Time to spin up Red Barchetta, and pay attention to the lyrics because that may very well be our future.

[ForeverAutumn]

I guess someone forgot to watch The Inconvenient Truth. As much as I don't like listening to Gore and thought the politics every five minutes were a bit over the top, the fact is that there is a tipping point with the environment that we can't postpone. Even if we continue to act completely selfishly like we've done for the past 8 years, and care nothing for the environment, what we do to the rest of the world in the process is going to hurt us more than we realize.

In my uneducated (on this topic) opinion...HOGWASH!

What the rest of the world is (or as the case may be isn't) doing is hurting us far more that we're hurting them. We have much stricter polution guidelines in North America than in, probably, anywhere else in the world.

[JSE]

I guess someone forgot to watch The Inconvenient Truth. As much as I don't like listening to Gore and thought the politics every five minutes were a bit over the top, the fact is that there is a tipping point with the environment that we can't postpone. Even if we continue to act completely selfishly like we've done for the past 8 years, and care nothing for the environment, what we do to the rest of the world in the process is going to hurt us more than we realize. The changes we need to make are going to be economically painful for everyone, but this is a pin-prick compared to the devastation we'll suffer if we continue as before. The simple fact is that the American auto industry depended on continued growth in this sector and this is simply not sustainable.

I'll second FA on this one. Yes we need more energy efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles but it has to be done over time. It's simply not an instant fix. If we just "flip the switch" we will have many other problems to deal with.


We Americans need to change our individualistic thinking about transportation and start thinking in a cooperative way about sharing the resource. We need to start thinking like the Europeans and Japanese: only one car per family, public transportation that is free for the disabled/military/youth/elderly, more incentives for bicycles, better work-at-home options (incl. upgrading the Internet), and living closer to where we work. I know this will be dismissed as socialist and impossible, but it's going to happen whether we like it of not. The alternative would be far worse. Retracting our consumption to one car maker is only the beginning, we might even loose all three because of our oafish ways in the past.

Nice thought but it's just not feasable. Public transporation can only do so much. I can't use public transporation to get to work. I could get about 6 miles from my office but I really don't want to walk 12 miles per day in the Texas heat. Riding a bike? In Houston? I guess that would lower my carbon footprint because I would be killed within a week or so. One car? Wife and I work in completely different directions and Public Transportation will not work for her either. Living Closer to work? The wife's or my work? Any reduction in distance by one of us will be offset by the other's increased distance. Work from home? Maybe but my company does not offer it right now.

In regard to both of quoted paragraphs above, it's nice to think big and have grand thoughts but unfortunately reality has to set in at some point. Things take time and have to be done in a way that limits the negative impact on the lives and financial wellfare of people.

[nightflier]

JSE, it's encouraging you're thinking about all the options, I hope more people do. No, it's not going to be a flip of the switch, but the party is certainly over. Public transportation has to be improved considerably, your company needs to be given incentives to encourage you to work from home, and bicycle riding may not be convenient in Houston in the summer, but on a nice Spring day, I'm sure it's feasible. And one day, you will live closer to your work, it's only a matter of time.

Here's some encouraging suggestions/thoughts:

- Why can't our car manufacturers gradually change from making SUVs and sports cars to making more buses, trains, and trams as well as energy efficient vehicles?

- If a bicycle is out of the question, how about a motorized low-carbon-footprint bike, maybe even an electric one you can charge at work? It's only 12 miles. Then there's Segways, some even come with a cover for the rain. Maybe Ford and GM should make these too?

- Free public transportation for younger people (students, mostly) is a great way to create a culture in the next generation that won't mind riding the bus. Free public transportation for the elderly, disabled, and veterans should be included from a moral/ethical standpoint - besides, it will help them get to work less expensively, too.

- With more demand for public transportation, more bicycles, scooters, buses, trains, and trams will appear. The reason we don't have it now is because we've allowed the demand to diminish.

- Maybe once we take a seat next to the people who clean our homes and tend to our yards, we'll gain some respect for their choices or lack thereof.

But the one thing we can't do is allow our current depression about our economy and our industry to paralyze us and keep us from doing anything. Just because these changes seem so great doesn't mean we shouldn't start making them a little at a time. Unfortunately, the American auto industry will suffer major changes very fast, no matter what we do. It's already happening and will continue to happen until supply once again is in line with demand.

We've just been ignoring these facts so much that the rest of the world has passed us by. That doesn't mean we can't catch up, but we better start doing it right away. The head-in-the-sand mentality we witnessed in the last 8 years just won't save us. We have to start somewhere. And since this is an audio forum, maybe the one place we can all start is by choosing a less expensive amp the next time around, or barring that, postponing that "next time" a little while. Every little bit counts if enough people participate.

FA,

The movie isn't considered hogwash by most folks around the globe. Actually, the evidence presented isn't really being questioned by the scientific community. The carbon footprint of the average American, and to a lesser extent the average Canadian, is so ridiculously overwhelming that the European and Asian countries are pretty much letting us simmer in our own stupidity and moving forward with research, incentives, and industrial progress. There may be some predictions that could be up for debate (after all, no one knows the future), but the statistics are pretty spot on. Actually, many green NGOs consider the movie very conservative on some of these predictions. It is Al Gore, after all.

I think that if I lived in Florida right now, I'd probably be making plans to move to a safer state. Ironically Canada will likely get increasingly dryer as these trends continue, and that should concern every Canadian. I doubt most of them consider the movie hogwash, but I only know a few so maybe you can correct me. But to suggest that the rest of the world should carry the lion's share of the blame is completely out of line with the evidence. I doubt there's anyone who would support such a position.

Well, there's always Pix, of course....

[JSE]

JSE, it's encouraging you're thinking about all the options, I hope more people do. No, it's not going to be a flip of the switch, but the party is certainly over. Public transportation has to be improved considerably, your company needs to be given incentives to encourage you to work from home, and bicycle riding may not be convenient in Houston in the summer, but on a nice Spring day, I'm sure it's feasible. And one day, you will live closer to your work, it's only a matter of time.

Here's some encouraging suggestions/thoughts:

- Why can't our car manufacturers gradually change from making SUVs and sports cars to making more buses, trains, and trams as well as energy efficient vehicles?

- If a bicycle is out of the question, how about a motorized low-carbon-footprint bike, maybe even an electric one you can charge at work? It's only 12 miles. Then there's Segways, some even come with a cover for the rain. Maybe Ford and GM should make these too?

- Free public transportation for younger people (students, mostly) is a great way to create a culture in the next generation that won't mind riding the bus. Free public transportation for the elderly, disabled, and veterans should be included from a moral/ethical standpoint - besides, it will help them get to work less expensively, too.

- With more demand for public transportation, more bicycles, scooters, buses, trains, and trams will appear. The reason we don't have it now is because we've allowed the demand to diminish.

- Maybe once we take a seat next to the people who clean our homes and tend to our yards, we'll gain some respect for their choices or lack thereof.

But the one thing we can't do is allow our current depression about our economy and our industry to paralyze us and keep us from doing anything. Just because these changes seem so great doesn't mean we shouldn't start making them a little at a time. Unfortunately, the American auto industry will suffer major changes very fast, no matter what we do. It's already happening and will continue to happen until supply once again is in line with demand.

We've just been ignoring these facts so much that the rest of the world has passed us by. That doesn't mean we can't catch up, but we better start doing it right away. The head-in-the-sand mentality we witnessed in the last 8 years just won't save us. We have to start somewhere. And since this is an audio forum, maybe the one place we can all start is by choosing a less expensive amp the next time around, or barring that, postponing that "next time" a little while. Every little bit counts if enough people participate.

Public Transportation is just not feasable everywhere. Take my city Houston for example. Houston is a huge sprawling city. There is just no way it could be serviced properly or effectively by Public Transportation for a majority of residents. There are only 24 hours in a day and I don't want to spend 12 of them riding on a bus or train trying to get from one part of the city to the other. In more compact cities like Chicago and New York Pucblic transportaion works great. Not so much in places like LA, Houston, Dallas, etc.

Plus increasing the number of buses and trains will also cause greater pollution. There are environmental costs to using more energy. Electic trains and busses may not pollute directly, but they sure as hell do indirectly. The Toyota Pruis Hybrid is a excellent example. Sure, it has lower emissions and has greater MPG but the environmental costs associated with the production of this car far outweigh it's benefit. True environmentalists should be boycotting this vehicle!

[kexodusc]

I agree with Nightflier on this one - better, modern, integrated public transportation is doable, saves the taxpayer money over time and is part of the solution going forward. I'm not talking the crappy bus systems a lot of North American cities have. It's not going to happen over night though and a radical move any direction is likely to fail.

As for the green track record of North America, we're not nearly as great as we make ourselves out to be. Last year Yale published a "100 Greenest Countries Report" and Canada finished a modest 12th, while the US finished 39th. A bit dirtier than Georgia and Argentina, but not quite as dirty as Taiwan and Cuba. Definitely considerable room for improvement. I would think any nation with the wealth of those two countries could at least be top 10.

Auto companies would be smart looking for public transportation opportunities. Building and maintaining tram style systems can be a lucrative business as well. Car sales are eventually going to plateau if they haven't already, and growth is going to require new business ideas. Gonna be hard to do when you're fighting off bankruptcy though. One thing at a time.

[JSE]

FA,

The movie isn't considered hogwash by most folks around the globe. Actually, the evidence presented isn't really being questioned by the scientific community. The carbon footprint of the average American, and to a lesser extent the average Canadian, is so ridiculously overwhelming that the European and Asian countries are pretty much letting us simmer in our own stupidity and moving forward with research, incentives, and industrial progress. There may be some predictions that could be up for debate (after all, no one knows the future), but the statistics are pretty spot on. Actually, many green NGOs consider the movie very conservative on some of these predictions. It is Al Gore, after all.

I think that if I lived in Florida right now, I'd probably be making plans to move to a safer state. Ironically Canada will likely get increasingly dryer as these trends continue, and that should concern every Canadian. I doubt most of them consider the movie hogwash, but I only know a few so maybe you can correct me. But to suggest that the rest of the world should carry the lion's share of the blame is completely out of line with the evidence.


You really need to expand your reading. There are many scientists who disagree and question the evidence put forth in the movie. Whether you choose to read about the scientist or give their arguments any credibility is up to you.

Also, the rest of world does need to step up and take their share of the blame. China is probably one of the worst polliters in our world's lifetime. Might want to look at this "evidence" you keep referring to again.


I doubt there's anyone who would support such a position.

Anyone? You and the people who have authored the articles you are reading are not "everyone". Many common people and scientist do support such a position.

[nightflier]

Maybe my own LA, as well Houston, Dallas and other Western sprawling cities are also in need of some serious reduction. I'm not saying that there will be a big government program to do this, it's just that the economy will do it on it's own. The invisible hand, if you will. And some futurists have actually suggested that this will happen and that large sprawling metropolises will develop dead-zones and eventually divide into smaller sub-cities as populations seek to live closer together out of need.

As far as buses, if other countries can make them fuel efficient, then there's no reason to think we can't either. It's a matter of willpower and the inevitability of the economy. While I'm sure that electric buses aren't complete carbon-footprint solutions, the fact that they take many people more where they need to go, makes them far more efficient than the same number of individual automobiles. That's just simple math.

Regarding the Prius, it has some production issues, but absolutely nothing compared to an Escalade or even a Mustang. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are some issues with it, doesn't mean it should be completely abandoned. That's the kind of paralysis I was talking about. It saps the will out of our desire to change for the better. The Prius is leagues better than any non-hybrid. That's just fact. Ideally, Toyota should be using the technology to make public transportation, but I doubt that will happen any time soon. Actually, I'm pretty sure they are in other countries like Japan, right?

In any case, we don't need to stop Toyota from making Priuses, or to stop Ford and GM from making equally competitive hybrids, just because there are issues. What we need to do is perfect the technology. The US has the capacity, the educational foundation (at least partly), and the manpower to make better hybrids. Let's learn from the mistakes of Toyota and make a better one. We've turned our economy around before, so there's no reason to think we can't do it again.

[nightflier]

You really need to expand your reading. There are many scientists who disagree and question the evidence put forth in the movie.

Name a few. No actually, just name one.


Also, the rest of world does need to step up and take their share of the blame. China is probably one of the worst polliters in our world's lifetime.

So you did not see the movie, then? China's footprint is something like 1/2 to 1/3 of ours. I suggest you get in your gas-guzzler, run down to Blockbuster, and check out this movie. It will open your eyes.


Anyone? You and the people who have authored the articles you are reading are not "everyone." Many common people and scientist do support such a position.

Again, go see the movie. They're pretty clear about who all these "scientists" are. Actually there aren't any. Funny how that works, no?

Go see the movie, already. It won't kill you. If I can listen to Rush Limbaugh without puking, I'm sure you could sit through 2 hours of some reality.

[ForeverAutumn]

Name a few. No actually, just name one.

Read this (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html).

And before you knock this off as being from guy who just wrote books, check out his autobiography and the rest of his essays and speeches.

Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT. Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. He predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C. (His conclusions have been widely misstated.)

[ForeverAutumn]

FA,

The movie isn't considered hogwash by most folks around the globe.

So what? Most people think that Britney Spears' music is good too. That doesn't make it true.

[nightflier]

FA, Crichton is widely discredited, especially internationally, and is not even respected in the academic community. He also isn't knowledgeable or educated in key issues dealing with climate change and cannot back his findings up with scientific research. But we can debate that ad infinitum, list links of things that might support one postition of the other, and we'll never be done.

So leave that out of this. Let's just take the his prediction of "future warming at 0.8 degrees C." Well do you realize what that would do to the environment? And let's not forget that the last time this was heralded, was in 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, the temperature has increased another .3 degrees alone. This shows a dramatic exponential growth in the last two years. This is an aggregated figure based on surface temperature that takes the small variations into account.

And as for the movie, it has solid scientific backing and is respected by most scientific authorities. Whether these scientists are 60% or 99% is completely inconsequential, they are the vast majority and this has nothing to do with how many people listen to Britney Spears? That's the kind of redirection I expect to hear from Anne Coulter.

So how much climate change do you need to see around you before it starts to hit home? You can't tell me that things in Canada are the same now as they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Can you honestly claim that average temperatures in Canada aren't up just a smidgen since you were a child?

[JSE]

Name a few. No actually, just name one.

Here are a few form about a 10 second search on Google. They are many things that are disputed with the movie. The cause of recent temp increases, the severity, how long with it continue, has it stopped, etc. etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming




So you did not see the movie, then? China's footprint is something like 1/2 to 1/3 of ours. I suggest you get in your gas-guzzler, run down to Blockbuster, and check out this movie. It will open your eyes.

Yes, I have seen the movie. Again, don't I take the movie as fact but merely an opinion. China has a long way to go in terms of pollution control. China's ecomony has grown ten fold over the last few years, I'm guessing their "footprint" has as well.


Again, go see the movie. They're pretty clear about who all these "scientists" are. Actually there aren't any. Funny how that works, no?

Again, saw it. I'm sure the scientist mentioned in the movie would have no reason to discredit opposing views would they? Multiple side to every story.


Go see the movie, already. It won't kill you. If I can listen to Rush Limbaugh without puking, I'm sure you could sit through 2 hours of some reality.

Since I have seen the movie why don't you do me a favor and read some opposing views about Global Warming. It won't kill, you. You might even learn something. Try forming opinions on your own and don't just soak up what it spoonfed to you. Try thinking on your own.

The Inconvenient Halftruth has done some great things for our country and the world. It has opened people eyes up to the health of our environment. It also kindof lumped our environment's health and global warming into the same basket. I think there is more to it. Our environmental health and global warming are two different things. They are related yet very different issues. I think we can probably all agree we need to get off oil, clean up our environment and makes changes to limited our impact on our planet. I doubt many would disagree with that. However, many still disagree with what has caused global warming and whether is has any significant effect on our environment. Is global waming something that was caused by humans or is it just part of the earth natural cycle? I think that is still up for debate. I for one am not ready to to say it's purely caused by humans. I know you Nightflier have already made your mind up based on a movie but many others have taken to time to look a little deeper.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a long argument about this. You have your opinions and I have mine. For pretty much every scientist you can show me that thinks global warming is man made, I can show you a scientist who differs. I guess we will have to wait and see.

And for the record, I bet I'm a bigger environmentalists than you think. You would be suprised. I have volunteered a lot of my time locally and even some around the country helping where I can. Just because I have issues with the Global Warming frenzy, it does not mean I am not very concerned about the health of our planet. Again, two different things.

[topspeed]

- Why can't our car manufacturers gradually change from making SUVs and sports cars to making more buses, trains, and trams as well as energy efficient vehicles? They can. GRADUALLY. The Fusion Hybrid sports the highest mpg of any midsize sedan in NA, but that's just one car. You can't legislate innovation. It takes 4 to 5 years to engineer one new car. One. And yet Washington believes we can makeover an entire industry to average 35mpg in the equivalent of 2 model cycles. That won't just require money, it will require an act of God.


- If a bicycle is out of the question, how about a motorized low-carbon-footprint bike, maybe even an electric one you can charge at work? It's only 12 miles. Then there's Segways, some even come with a cover for the rain. Maybe Ford and GM should make these too? Have you ever been to Tucson? Have you priced a Segway? Dude, you live in Newport! How many of your cronies commute to LA, Long Beach, or Riverside? Now imagine doing that on a bicycle with the lunatic drivers of SoCal. The average lifespan of a motorcyclist in SoCal is 18 months. Lord knows what it wouldl be for a bicyclist. Unlike Europe or Japan, our country and cities are spread out over quite a bit more surface area.


- With more demand for public transportation, more bicycles, scooters, buses, trains, and trams will appear. The reason we don't have it now is because we've allowed the demand to diminish. See above.


- Maybe once we take a seat next to the people who clean our homes and tend to our yards, we'll gain some respect for their choices or lack thereof. Are you saying people that drive cars instead of take public transportation are elitists? Seriously?


But the one thing we can't do is allow our current depression about our economy and our industry to paralyze us and keep us from doing anything. Just because these changes seem so great doesn't mean we shouldn't start making them a little at a time. Unfortunately, the American auto industry will suffer major changes very fast, no matter what we do. It's already happening and will continue to happen until supply once again is in line with demand. Agreed. From a purely idealogical point of view, there isn't a person on the planet that doesn't want more efficient, economical, and ecological transportation. Do you really think the car manufacturers intentionally produce cars that produce excessive carbon emissions or get poor mileage?

The reality is that the Big 3, along with everyone else, is facing the worst economic environment since the Depression. BMW has stated they have at most 2 years of working capital and then they are done. You can't blame the previous administration for BMW's, Mercedes', Nissan's, or anybody else's problems. To state domestic manufacturer's have intentionally ignored innovation is patently unfair. In the last decade alone we've seen hybrid and fuel cell cars (well, sorta) released on public roads and in 2011 Chevy will introduce the first mass production plug-in hybrid in the Volt. Unlike Honda or Toyota's hybrids which use an electric motor to assists a gas engine, the Volt is an electric car that uses a gas engine to charge the battery for longer range. It's a different philosophy altogether and America is building it first. Not Japan. Not Europe.


We've just been ignoring these facts so much that the rest of the world has passed us by. That doesn't mean we can't catch up, but we better start doing it right away. The head-in-the-sand mentality we witnessed in the last 8 years just won't save us. We have to start somewhere. And since this is an audio forum, maybe the one place we can all start is by choosing a less expensive amp the next time around, or barring that, postponing that "next time" a little while. Every little bit counts if enough people participate. Hey, just dig out your HCA2 (among the other 36 amps you have lying around) and you can rest easy knowing it wastes considerably less energy than a Class A or A/B amp. :D

[Feanor]

...
Agreed. From a purely idealogical point of view, there isn't a person on the planet that doesn't want more efficient, economical, and ecological transportation. Do you really think the car manufacturers intentionally produce cars that produce excessive carbon emissions or get poor mileage?
...
This is exactly what I have said. First minivans, then SUVs and pickup trucks, all gas guzzlers. Without them the NA makers would have tanked long since. Sure, in times of cheap gas these are what the public wanted, more fool them. And the automakers went for the quick buck even though it was evident that cheap gas wouln't last forever; nor did they plan for that inevidability except too little too late.

And let me ask. How come gas was so cheap in NA? In Europe for example gas has always been heavily taxed. This is the main reason that cars are smaller and more efficient there, not the narrow streets. And why they have far, far better public transit. Gee gosh, I wonder who lobbied for cheap gas, not just the oil industry.

Come to think of it, maybe the biggest problem with capitialism is that self-interest in anything but the shortest term doesn't actually work reliably. The fast buck trumps the ten-year strategy every time. Greenspan recently admitted that he was mistake in his believe the self-interest was sufficient to control the financial industry.


...
Hey, just dig out your HCA2 (among the other 36 amps you have lying around) and you can rest easy knowing it wastes considerably less energy than a Class A or A/B amp. :D
Good call. :wink5:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Agreed. From a purely idealogical point of view, there isn't a person on the planet that doesn't want more efficient, economical, and ecological transportation. Do you really think the car manufacturers intentionally produce cars that produce excessive carbon emissions or get poor mileage?
Well yeah, I want a more efficient, economical and ecologically sound 350 RWHP all aluminium ('cept for the guts) V8 in my next Pontiac. However, that doesn't mean I agree with... whatsisname? Bore? (BTW, he invented the internet ya know) :crazy:

[Feanor]

FA, Crichton is widely discredited, especially internationally, and is not even respected in the academic community. He also isn't knowledgeable or educated in key issues dealing with climate change and cannot back his findings up with scientific research. But we can debate that ad infinitum, list links of things that might support one postition of the other, and we'll never be done.
...

So how much climate change do you need to see around you before it starts to hit home? You can't tell me that things in Canada are the same now as they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Can you honestly claim that average temperatures in Canada aren't up just a smidgen since you were a child?

Despite seemingly good credentials, Michael Criction, is quitely regarded as an a$$hole by climatologists, (though they are too polite to so name him publically).

The most sensible thing I've heard him say is that climate change is happening and the some portion of the resources targeted a preventing change would be better spend adapting to the change.

Climatic changes are very noticable, especially in northern Canada and the Canadian Arctic.

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, Crichton is widely discredited, especially internationally, and is not even respected in the academic community. He also isn't knowledgeable or educated in key issues dealing with climate change and cannot back his findings up with scientific research. But we can debate that ad infinitum, list links of things that might support one postition of the other, and we'll never be done.

So leave that out of this. Let's just take the his prediction of "future warming at 0.8 degrees C." Well do you realize what that would do to the environment? And let's not forget that the last time this was heralded, was in 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, the temperature has increased another .3 degrees alone. This shows a dramatic exponential growth in the last two years. This is an aggregated figure based on surface temperature that takes the small variations into account.

And as for the movie, it has solid scientific backing and is respected by most scientific authorities. Whether these scientists are 60% or 99% is completely inconsequential, they are the vast majority and this has nothing to do with how many people listen to Britney Spears? That's the kind of redirection I expect to hear from Anne Coulter.

So how much climate change do you need to see around you before it starts to hit home? You can't tell me that things in Canada are the same now as they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Can you honestly claim that average temperatures in Canada aren't up just a smidgen since you were a child?

Fair enough. I admitted from the start that I am uneducated on this topic. Crichton's speech is a "case for skeptism", not a case to prove right or wrong. My favourite part of the speech isn't the science or the technical aspects which were, for the most part, over my head. It was the logic and the conclusion that I agree with.

I've also heard people dismiss Al Gore's conclusions as well. So who's right? We'll probably never know in our lifetime.

As for the Britney Spears comment, it wasn't meant to be a redirection. I was simply trying to point out that majority doesn't always rule. Lots of people like and believe Micheal Moore's movies too. Which I think are biased and full of rubbish.

And, for what it's worth, the last two years' winters here have set records for snow fall and cold temperatures...but that's just the small picture, I know.

[Auricauricle]

FA: I agree with your description of the Crichton piece, which can be read more as a treatise on "skepticism" than on Global Warming. One thing that years of statistics courses and literature review reading has taught me is that while science has made great strides in developing machinery, the fundamental measures of data (statistics) have pretty much remained the same. Statistics is the language of science, and it deals with probability and certainty, just our best educated hunches. I think it is laudable that we realise that we are fallible, but sometimes we forget that even our most accurate instruments are capable only as far as the designers make them. The science of global warming may or may not be exact or certain; worst case scenarios and the data that is used to refute them are all based on this imperfect certainty. All of this makes everybody right and everybody wrong. Most important, for scientists and everyone else to remember is to never take anything, no matter how plausible or politically correct, without a good dose of skepticism.

[Rich-n-Texas]

FA: I agree with your description of the Crichton piece, which can be read more as a treatise on "skepticism" than on Global Warming. One thing that years of statistics courses and literature review reading has taught me is that while science has made great strides in developing machinery, the fundamental measures of data (statistics) have pretty much remained the same. Statistics is the language of science, and it deals with probability and certainty, just our best educated hunches. I think it is laudable that we realise that we are fallible, but sometimes we forget that even our most accurate instruments are capable only as far as the designers make them. The science of global warming may or may not be exact or certain; worst case scenarios and the data that is used to refute them are all based on this imperfect certainty. All of this makes everybody right and everybody wrong. Most important, for scientists and everyone else to remember is to never take anything, no matter how plausible or politically correct, without a good dose of skepticism.
Well put The Dude.

However, one on here's mind will be changed, just like with politics. :nonod:

[JSE]

FA: I agree with your description of the Crichton piece, which can be read more as a treatise on "skepticism" than on Global Warming. One thing that years of statistics courses and literature review reading has taught me is that while science has made great strides in developing machinery, the fundamental measures of data (statistics) have pretty much remained the same. Statistics is the language of science, and it deals with probability and certainty, just our best educated hunches. I think it is laudable that we realise that we are fallible, but sometimes we forget that even our most accurate instruments are capable only as far as the designers make them. The science of global warming may or may not be exact or certain; worst case scenarios and the data that is used to refute them are all based on this imperfect certainty. All of this makes everybody right and everybody wrong. Most important, for scientists and everyone else to remember is to never take anything, no matter how plausible or politically correct, without a good dose of skepticism.

Like Money Bags said, well put, Dude!

I could not and have not been able to say it any better.

[ForeverAutumn]

Sorry, I'm just rereading this and want to make a couple more comments. I am, by nature, a skeptic and I question everything and accept almost nothing at face value just because someone says it is so. I want it proven to me.


Let's just take the his prediction of "future warming at 0.8 degrees C." Well do you realize what that would do to the environment?

Prediction. Exactly. And if the prediction is wrong and we've wasted billions of dollars on this and ignored larger more pressing issues, then what?


And let's not forget that the last time this was heralded, was in 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, the temperature has increased another .3 degrees alone. This shows a dramatic exponential growth in the last two years. This is an aggregated figure based on surface temperature that takes the small variations into account.


It was -14 Celcius yesterday. It is +4 today. That's a swing of 18 degrees in one day and you want me to be concerned about .3 degrees over two years? Not that this isn't concerning if exponentially multiplied, but two years is really not a substantial enough sample to convince me that this is a real scientific pattern. What will your argument be if the temperature drops .3 degrees in the next two years?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned about this and that we shouldn't be doing what we can to make the world a healthier place to live in. I'm just suggesting that it's not the world's biggest problem right now and until scientists can agree, I think that the world's resources are better applied elsewhere. My own personal opinion, of course.

[Rich-n-Texas]

The world needs to focus its resources on ME, and MY needs! :yesnod:

[Auricauricle]

Bloody narcissist! ;)

[Feanor]

...
The science of global warming may or may not be exact or certain; worst case scenarios and the data that is used to refute them are all based on this imperfect certainty. All of this makes everybody right and everybody wrong. Most important, for scientists and everyone else to remember is to never take anything, no matter how plausible or politically correct, without a good dose of skepticism.

The naysayers could turn out to totally right about global warming, or global warming and its consequences could turn out to be worse than even the most dire predictions.

But take a lesson from game theory:

What if we try to slow down non-existent global warming? We p!ss away a few hundreds of billions of $$ and end up with nothing to show except less polution, decades more of oil & natural gas, and maybe, e.g., get better public transit.
What if we ignore actual global warming? We temporarily save a few hundred billion dollars, but then have to, (among other things), relocated the extimated 600 million people who now live in costal regions that will be flooded.It would be foolhardy to take no action 'till global warming is proven. Of course, whenever there is big change, somebody's ox gets gored, (no pun intended). And ox owners will tend to resist change that's why their called "conservatives".

[kexodusc]

The naysayers could turn out to totally right about global warming, or global warming and its consequences could turn out to be worse than even the most dire predictions.

But take a lesson from game theory:

What if we try to slow down non-existent global warming? We p!ss away a few hundreds of billions of $$ and end up with nothing to show except less polution, decades more of oil & natural gas, and maybe, e.g., get better public transit.
What if we ignore actual global warming? We temporarily save a few hundred billion dollars, but then have to, (among other things), relocated the extimated 600 million people who now live in costal regions that will be flooded.It would be foolhardy to take no action 'till global warming is proven. Of course, whenever there is big change, somebody's ox gets gored, (no pun intended). And ox owners will tend to resist change that's why their called "conservatives".

I just wrote a rather long-winded post that said the exact same thing, in way more words.

Well done.

From a risk management perspective, working now to prevent global warming is the only logical conclusion. Even if it turns out to be a myth. It's because we don't know, and because there's reasonable evidence and cause to worry, that we should commit some resources now, not 100% of efforts, but something meaningul to try and keep on top of things.

The consequence of error is catastrophe.

I'd rather give posterity the benefit of hindsight to ignore the global warming myth, than to burden them with floods and fires, and droughts and dirty air, and all the bad stuff global warming is predicting.

For me the question is do I take responsibility and accept a tolerable, affordable, small share of the cost now, or do I ignore it for whatever reason and place all the risk on future generations to benefit me today?

But I'm only 1 vote.

[Auricauricle]

Sounds a bit like Blaise Pascal's Wager concerning the belief in God: You're left with two choices, believing in God or not and, consequently four possible outcomes. If you choose to believe and God exists, you've probably made a good decision. If God does not exist, what does it matter? If you choose not to believe and God exists, then you might be screwed. If God does not exist, again, what does it matter? Parallel that to taking up matters if Global Warming is an actuality or not. Seems the prudent thing would be to do something about it....Either way, seems that taking better care of the planet is not a bad idea, no matter how you look at it.

[JSE]

The naysayers could turn out to totally right about global warming, or global warming and its consequences could turn out to be worse than even the most dire predictions.

But take a lesson from game theory:

What if we try to slow down non-existent global warming? We p!ss away a few hundreds of billions of $$ and end up with nothing to show except less polution, decades more of oil & natural gas, and maybe, e.g., get better public transit.
What if we ignore actual global warming? We temporarily save a few hundred billion dollars, but then have to, (among other things), relocated the extimated 600 million people who now live in costal regions that will be flooded.It would be foolhardy to take no action 'till global warming is proven. Of course, whenever there is big change, somebody's ox gets gored, (no pun intended). And ox owners will tend to resist change that's why their called "conservatives".


Well said but,

Like I said in previous post, Global Warming and our world's environmental health are two different things. They "may" be related but they are two completely different issues.

I love the fact the world (well some of the world) now has a sense of urgency about our environment and I love the fact people are more concerned than ever. I hope it continues. We clearly need to make some drastic changes before it's too late.

However, I do have a problem with the insistence that "Global Warming" is something that is here to stay and that it's caused by mankind. Like it or not, there is increasing evidence it may not be on both accounts. We just don't know.

I don't think Gore or the scientist promoting GW thought the "theory" (yes, nightflier it's only a theory) would catch on and become the huge issue it is today in our world. I think they have no choice now but to uphold their beliefs. Some however, have changed their minds and have spoken out about the effects, extent and causes of GW. Of course they have been attacked relentlessly. Wonder why?

[Auricauricle]

I think things like GW come and go like the wind....Call 'em paradigm shifts or how about paradigm streams of consciousness....What is hot and bothersome today will matter not a whit tomorrow.

[JSE]

For me the question is do I take responsibility and accept a tolerable, affordable, small share of the cost now, or do I ignore it for whatever reason and place all the risk on future generations to benefit me today?

But I'm only 1 vote.

My thoughts exactly. I think we all need to take responsibility to do what's best for the health of our planet. But let's not get carried away with spending billions and trillions on solutions to problems that may or may not exists. Spend the money and time wisely on things that will have a direct positive impact. Fuel efficiency, cleaner fuels, less polution, etc are all things we can do now.

But again, doing the above things are independent on whether GW is real or not.

[Auricauricle]

Ah, huh...Whether they may or may not exist, that is a question....But what is possible and what is probable, that's another....Whatchougonnado?

[nightflier]

A few of points that have been brought up:

- An Inconvenient Truth addresses many of these questions head on. Of primary importance is the idea that there is some kind of balance between the naysayers and the supporters. This is not at all the case, and the movie explains this quite well - that is the "Inconvenient Truth."

- I did a little research and Canada is indeed seeing a small temperature drop that's been going on for a couple of years now. That said, it has also seen a severe reduction of the permanent ice it once had, as much as 30%, and this has been going on for about 50 years now. This will have tremendous ramifications for access to fresh water for Canadians and is having a considerable effect on Canadian wildlife and plant life.

- Since warming at the poles is even more acute than at the equator (as much as 3-4 times as acute), the reduction of the ice shelves there is more severe. From the Times: "Whilst snow-covered ice reflects more than 80% of the sun's heat, the darker ocean absorbs up to 95% of solar radiation. Once sea ice begins to melt, the process becomes self-reinforcing. More ocean surface is revealed, absorbing solar heat, raising temperatures and making it unlikelier that ice will re-form next winter. The disappearance of 720,000 square kilometres of supposedly permanent ice in a single year testifies to the rapidity of planetary change." (The article was referring to 2006.)

- .8 degrees + a shift of another .3 degrees = +1 degree of average temperature increase. When this last happened, thousands of years ago, most of the area that is now the Midwest was desert. Imagine a 1930's style dust bowl that covers an area from Mexico to Nebraska (maybe even parts of Canada). And this is just what will happen here in the US, nothing compared to what would happen in India and China (where many of our vital goods come from).

- And where is that water then? In the ocean, where water levels will rise, thus affecting coastlines.

- While this water will dilute the salt water of the ocean, this effect will be minor. More importantly, the ocean is still salt water. This will affect whole ecosystems both on the coast and in the water.

- The problem with climate change is that it builds on itself and grows exponentially. Seemingly unrelated factors come into play that exacerbate the problem and make it grow even faster. The idea that we can just study the effects of, let's say, mercury pollution, without any regard of what else mercury affects or what else affects it, isn't even scientific.

Here's a sensible 2-page article that explains these topics and their relationships quite well: http://www.cutcarbonnow.com/Images/Climate%20change_%20%27Onedegreedone%20for.pdf

Now I'm an optimist. I think if we let ourselves be overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem before us, we risk doing nothing. That is the greatest danger. Likewise, if we don't tackle the American car culture at the same time that we rejoin Kyoto, reduce unnecessary warfare, curb industrial pollution, repair endangered ecosystems, plant a tree, and participate in as many initiatives as possible, then we won't be doing enough. One point Gore makes very well in the movie is that a combination of initiatives is the only sensible approach to reversing the growth in these trends.

But the one thing we can't do is assume that there is nothing going on - most of the people who say this are either scared or have an interest in convincing others of this falsehood. There aren't any credible scientists who claim that global warming is not influenced by human activity. The ones that do are either paid to say so or not qualified to make the claim. The rest of the folks who claim so aren't even scientists. There is something very alarming going on all around us and by some stroke of luck many of us here in the US feel it less than the rest of the world. But it's starting to hit home, yes, even in Canada.

But if you haven't seen the movie, then there really is little to talk about. It is that important. I avoided the movie for years because I disliked Gore that much. I listened to the right-wing nonsense that discredited the movie before it was even released. That was a big mistake. Yes Gore just as boring as before; yes, it's full of political innuendos; and yes it's extremely simplistic from a scientific standpoint. But the message and the evidence behind it is quite astounding.

So if you haven't seen the movie, then you can't discredit it wholesale. Go see it, take from it what you will, and then come back and tell us what you think. Many of the arguments above are addressed in the movie, including the naysayers, the smaller opposite temperature fluctuations, the automobile industry, the carbon footprint of the US compared to China, the meaning of a 1 degree temperature increase, the need for a comprehensive approach, the human psychology about it, and a whole lot more. Yes, it has a lot of info, so rent it & watch it. Then trash it if you still want to, but I doubt you will.

[Auricauricle]

The real inconvenient truth is the fact that there are some things that we can do to make the world a better place for everyone today and increase the odds for tomorrow being a good place for our decendants. Addressing pollution is one of them, for sure, but getting everyone onboard is key if any dent is going to made in the matter. I praise Gore and the film-makers for taking the time and making the effort to state their case the way they did, but what is important for one person or one country doesn't necessarily resonate with everybody else.

Cultural mores and values aside, it may be convenient for us to scale back on hydrocarbon based tech and embrace wind, etc., but other countries may not have that luxury. Either ignorance or necessity colors a people's perception of things; and if those in power are content with their people suffering under smog-filled skies because they would like to horde the money for their selfish purposes, we're gonna have a hard time convincing them otherwise.

We can try enticing some of these regimes that embracing alternate sources of energy would be fiscally advantageous. We can set up shop and use our own resources to force the issue. Whatever we do, folks have to be convinced that addressing things like climate change is the right thing to do. Try telling that to Idi Amin or some spoiled-psychotic despot...

In the meantime, we start here. With little things. Telling our kids that we are stewards of the earth, not mere inhabitants. We pay attention to ourselves. We become mindful. If you ask me, we folks have become rather less self-conscious: always paying attention to the other guy. We need to reflect on things a bit and take a little look inside ourselves now and then and remember that in one way or another our lives mean something.

I'm not sure if it's Existential Malaise or just plain sleepwalking, but we gotta get our heads out of our collective asp and look around. We matter: each one of us, and we have to remind each other of that fact, daily.

Okay, enough o'this. I didn't mean to get carried away....I just....Shoosh.

[nightflier]

Try telling that to Idi Amin or some spoiled-psychotic despot.

With few exceptions, most of these despots are there because we allow them to be there. Amin liked to brag about his independence, but in the end we were the ones who arranged for him to retire in luxury in Saudi Arabia. Same thing for the Shah, Mobutu's family, the Duvaliers, and a host of other ne'er-do-wells. With a little more emphasis on diplomacy (i.e. the carrot) instead of coups (the stick), we should be able to influence many of them to do our bidding. I'm not saying this should be the model, but it does seem to be what it is now. Aside from your occasional Chavez and Ahmadinnerjacket (:D ), that's pretty much the norm.

[Auricauricle]

We allow them to be in place because they suit interests that outweigh the human toll....

I'm gettin' ill....G'night all...

[nightflier]

By the way, Global Warming is not a theory. There's no debate about the fact that the earth's surface temperature has been rising for the past 100 years and there's also no debate that it's been rising at an increasing rate in the last 30 years.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Let it go flyboy, let it go. Go pour yourself a glass of wine. :rolleyes:

[Luvin Da Blues]

By the way, Global Warming is not a theory. There's no debate about the fact that the earth's surface temperature has been rising for the past 100 years and there's also no debate that it's been rising at an increasing rate in the last 30 years.

The debate is how much is caused by human activity. The earth temp. has been rising since the last ice age and will cool again, this cycle has been going on for millions of years. The only thing different this time is the rate of rise is accelerated slightly and only over a very short time span.

I personally think it's naive to to assume that the earths temp. will stay constant. The Dark ages (circa 1100 AD) saw the nothern hemishere temp. decrease greatly and this lasted for close to 100 years.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yeah, what LDB said. Afterall, he was there during the last ice age. :yesnod:

[Luvin Da Blues]

Yeah, what LDB said. Afterall, he was there during the last ice age. :yesnod:


...and like a Timex...I'm still tickin'. Sure coulda used a stereo back then.

[Rich-n-Texas]

And I would've help ya crank the generator too! :thumbsup:

[Luvin Da Blues]

Rich, between you, me and a dog named Bo we have enuff smarts to hook up an hydroelectric turbine.

[JSE]

By the way, Global Warming is not a theory. There's no debate about the fact that the earth's surface temperature has been rising for the past 100 years and there's also no debate that it's been rising at an increasing rate in the last 30 years.

No one is disputing the slight temp increase. Like LDB said, it's the cause. I guess I was not clear on that.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Whatchya drinkin there Cartman? When's the home brewing start? :biggrin5:

LDB, I thought the dog's name was Blue?

[Auricauricle]

Y'know, if mah beer is still frosty in the fifteen or so I drink it, it ain't warmin' up that fast....

[Luvin Da Blues]

Y'know, if mah beer is still frosty in the fifteen or so I drink it, it ain't warmin' up that fast....

I think we have a new paradigm. Give da man a greenie! :thumbsup:

Damn, my shooters stuck.

[Rich-n-Texas]

So's mine. Too bad for you psych_nurse. :shrug:

[nightflier]

No one is disputing the slight temp increase. Like LDB said, it's the cause. I guess I was not clear on that.

Let's dispense with the semantics. The cause is human influence on the environment.

And as I pointed out, this isn't a "slight" increase. differences of 1 or 2 degrees will have devastating effects on our way of life. And yes, Tex, especially down in the Southern states.

[Auricauricle]

Thank you, thank you...Try the veal! I'll be here all week....

[JSE]

Let's dispense with the semantics. The cause is human influence on the environment.

And as I pointed out, this isn't a "slight" increase. differences of 1 or 2 degrees will have devastating effects on our way of life. And yes, Tex, especially down in the Southern states.

That's the "Theory".

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'll be dead and buried long before GW has any effect on my life, so what do I care?

:biggrin5:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Thank you, thank you...Try the veal! I'll be here all week....
Chopped liver? :confused:

[Luvin Da Blues]

That's the "Theory".

I know I'm steppin in a Huge Pile but........Just gotta say,

What these Chicken Littlests don't understand is that they can have load of proof supporting their "theory" but it only takes one solid concrete piece of evidence to destroy it. They conveniently ignore ice core evidence (and not just from the past 100 years), the fact that the solar activity is increasing, increased thermal venting, historic temperature cycles, changing ocean currents, etc.

Life will adapt, the atmosphere has been a lot more toxic in the past, life adapted and carried on. Will it affect our "way of life"? Sure, but this is a very self serving statement. Our society, we call civilization, is but a small blip on the evolutionary scale and the earth will flourish with or without us. I have all the confidence that human kind will adapt. The world will not end people.

OK, I feel better now.

[Rich-n-Texas]

:eek6:

Wait'll left wing liberal gets a read of this one!

[Luvin Da Blues]

:eek6:

Wait'll left wing liberal gets a read of this one!

LOL, I guess I'll have to spend the rest of my life lookin' over my shoulder. When it comes to GW I tend to look at the big picture, historically speaking, and not just since the industrial revolution. I'm not disputing that we are contributing to GW but the fact is that we are at the peak of a warming cycle that started 150,000 years ago and the earth still hasn't reached the temp. level of the last warming event.

Rich, let me know when it's safe to come outta hiding. :thumbsup:

[Auricauricle]

I think that you are right in saying that in some way or another, the world will find a way of going on with or without us, Luvin', but I hope that we humans don't hasten the process so much that Mother Nature can barely keep up. Even so, worse cataclysms have come and gone, and we're still here, so maybe we're looking through a scanner darkly, here, right?

Well, maybe....Maybe not. Seems to me a lot of this pontification about GW is predicated on the assumption that as bad as things are today, tomorrow's coming and we should plan accordingly. Whether we're talking about the gloom and doom scenarios or of blue skies ahead, much of this conversation seem to be future oriented, which I think is inherently flawed and futile. Instead, let's put the horse before the cart for once and look at what we're working with today: a big planet that has turned into a giant dempsy dumpster.

The future looks bad, but it isn't here yet. Let's stop planning for tomorrow, quit ruing over yesterday and start doing something just for today. If tomorrow comes along, mebbe we'll have the opportunity to pat ourselves on the back. Otherwise, all this "Future Speak" will just keep us stuck in the inertia of "Could Be's" and "Might've Beens" which get us nowhere.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I couldn't agree more. We humans have a duty and obligation to lessen our ecological footprint, after all, we are not the only living things occupying this earth. We have no right destroying any habitat. Is the sky is falling, I think not, but my point is that change is gunna come regardless.

[Auricauricle]

It is, yet I think that it is silly to think that the earth, human behavior, and everything else in nature thrives in a state of homeostasis. Entropy is the natural order of things. Still as you say, we're pretty slovenly creatures nevertheless. At least we know better; let's just do better...

[JSE]

I know I'm steppin in a Huge Pile but........Just gotta say,

What these Chicken Littlests don't understand is that they can have load of proof supporting their "theory" but it only takes one solid concrete piece of evidence to destroy it. They conveniently ignore ice core evidence (and not just from the past 100 years), the fact that the solar activity is increasing, increased thermal venting, historic temperature cycles, changing ocean currents, etc.

Life will adapt, the atmosphere has been a lot more toxic in the past, life adapted and carried on. Will it affect our "way of life"? Sure, but this is a very self serving statement. Our society, we call civilization, is but a small blip on the evolutionary scale and the earth will flourish with or without us. I have all the confidence that human kind will adapt. The world will not end people.

OK, I feel better now.

I got yer back! Well said.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I think that you are right in saying that in some way or another, the world will find a way of going on with or without us, Luvin', but I hope that we humans don't hasten the process so much that Mother Nature can barely keep up. Even so, worse cataclysms have come and gone, and we're still here, so maybe we're looking through a scanner darkly, here, right?
"Scanner darkly"... Niiiiice play on words there sparky. :yesnod:

[Auricauricle]

Thanks Rich, but it ain't my phrase. I been readin' a bit o' Philip K. Dick, lately. I guess the phrase popped out and into print before I could stop it.

[nightflier]

I'll be dead and buried long before GW has any effect on my life, so what do I care? :biggrin5:

Well, even putting aside any altruistic sentiments about how this kind of indifference will affect the rest of the world, we should care because current climate measurements are changing exponentially. That is, what was measured 10 or even 5 years ago, is not at all what is being measured today (i.e. the present). Climate change happens in short spurts, we know this from previous climate changes that we've studied in ice cores. It resulted in the dying out of whole ecosystems and species. Nature isn't kind, warm or fuzzy. That's why we need to stop mucking with it.

If we look at evolution (another "theory" right JSE?) it didn't come about slowly over time as Darwin initially hypothesized. Gould & Eldridge and many other scientists, describe the process as occurring in short, very fast changes, spurred on by a punctuated equilibrium in the environment. These changes can be devastating to any one species that doesn't have the capacity to adapt quickly enough. Let's remember that evolution involves a lot of "dying off" too. What makes us think that we will be the species best able to adapt to rapid change? Maybe we're not.

The idea that there will be no effect in our lifetimes is misguided. It is now quite well documented that the past decade has been highly unusual in temperature shifts, natural disasters, and ecosystem disruptions. This indicates that the changes are happening and that we are actually in the throws of a punctuated equilibrium. I believe that this is exacerbated by human activity, JSE does not, but there's no denying that something major is happening all around us. In a way, we had better hope that it is human activity, because then we can do something about it.

Just this past weekend we had record temperatures here in SoCal, and we're headed for what looks to be a fairly serious drought. Tex, in your neck of the woods, I think you're also headed into a "fun" year with greater expected fluctuations in temperature and precipitation than you've likely seen yet - that's a nice way of saying that you're going to have one heck of a hurricane season. Canada is expected to have a record number of forest fires and drought conditions as well. While this evidence isn't exactly scientific, it bears mentioning that what we're experiencing is just minor compared to what is about to happen in India, Greenland, Indonesia, East Africa and other places around the globe this year. Now this is not in 100 years, or even decades from now, so we had better start caring.

One other point: I just don't see how this is liberal thinking. Why is worrying about the environment a liberal thing? It affects our health, our homes, our jobs, our access to water, energy, food, and air. What is liberal about caring about those things? Why not think of this as caring about your own rear end? That's pretty conservative & libertarian, if you ask me. Not convinced? Well it affects our access to audio gear too. Now does it matter?

[Rich-n-Texas]

No. I use a remote to access my audio gear.

[nightflier]

Funny. Well not really.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Hey, you're the one who felt the need to expound on my simple little attempt at humor. All I did was re-simplify it.

[nightflier]

OK.

(I was going to leave it at that, but apparently a one-word message is too short. I guess this forum frowns on brevity.)

[Auricauricle]

Wanna tell me what this "punctuated equilibrium" is? Sounds like mumbo jumbo t'me, Hoss!

[nightflier]

Sorry, I misspelled Eldredge's name. Here's the full story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Basically the theory that in evolution things change fast and in spurts, rather than slowly over long periods of time. Recent environmental data suggests the same is happening now in the ecological sphere. Ironically, the theory has been applied to other fields as well such as politics and psychology, rather than just be localized to biology. There are a number of articles that suggest that punctuated equilibrium has much broader applications and that climate change may very well be one of those. Actually, we are talking about a field that involves a lot of life forms, including humans, so it certainly isn't inconceivable.

[Auricauricle]

Thanks....Here's a video I found on Youtube.....Remember this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGB9HJaVXA&feature=related

You realise that Gould was a biologist and that he wasn't referring to geological or planetary things, eh? Still, it's a nice theory to play with....I kinda like the idea of having thriteen eyes and three belly buttons.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Uhhh... The Dude, what're ya gonna do with three belly buttons? :crazy:

[Luvin Da Blues]

7.1 ears might be kinda fun.

[Auricauricle]

Good one, Luvin'! Rich....thinka the possibilities, man! A place fer more lint, a place for more stash, a place for....Oh, crap.

[nightflier]

In the filed of evolutionary biology Punctuated Equilibrium has been accepted as a lot more accurate than Darwin-era evolutionary theory. Gould wrote the paper in 1972, but since then a lot has been added to the data. And it's a theory that has been applied to a lot of other fields with considerable success in fitting the model. Application to climate change isn't a stretch.

And while having three belly buttons may be funny (born-again Christians notwithstanding), there is the very real possibility that climate change will change us biologically. For example people with fairer skin may very well die off if their skin does not protect them against skin cancer from increases in UV exposure. My point being that climate change is not something to ignore, take lightly, or to expect affecting us in the distant future. It could very well affect us very soon, or maybe it is already affecting us, as in the case of skin cancer, which is rising to alarming rates, especially in the Southern states, I hear.

Increased CFC in the atmosphere -> depletion of the ozone layer -> increased surface exposure to UV radiation from the sun -> increase in skin cancer

The fact that depletion of the ozone layer additionally increases surface temperature doesn't even need to enter in the equation, even though it does as well.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I'm with NF on the Gould & Eldredge theory. I believe that the evolutionary process is hasten by geological and climatic changes. If there was 'stability' there would be no reason for change. I look at this as more support that sudden (by geological time standards) climatic changes have appeared in the past.

[Auricauricle]

As a refutation to traditionally adhered to notions of phyletic gradualism. cladogenetic alterations of our morphology is an interesting theory, but it shouldn’t be overlooked that Gould’s assertions concern isolated populations outside of the “homogenizing influence” of larger, more stable populations (Gould, 1977). Still, I think the notion, while compelling is not enough to endorse ideas that such changes occur suddenly but within the constraints of a terrestrially relevant time frame. I know that with all the precautions I take, I am going to have to apply sun block when I go out and hope to goshamighty that my skin will protect me from the cruel rays of Apollo. Already, half of my body has been carved up by dermatologists intent on removing pesky carcinomas and suspicious moles. In the meantime, I just do what I can because it’s simply the right thing to do. Period.

Sorta reminds me o’ that line from Bladerunner: “It’s too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does?”

[Feanor]

Well, even putting aside any altruistic sentiments about how this kind of indifference will affect the rest of the world, we should care because current climate measurements are changing exponentially. ...
Global warming and its effects, such melting of glacial ice caps, is happening faster than even the most pessemistic models. This is because "positive" feedback is not sufficiently accounted for in current models.

The oceans have so far absorbed 1/3 of the increase human production, but as the seas warm, their CO2 absorption capacity reduces.
Ice caps and snow cover in general reflects the heat of the sun, but as these reduce, more of the sun's heat is absorbed.
As temperatures increase and snow cover decreases, global permafrost melts. The permafrost retains huge quantities of CO2; according to a statistic I heard, as much CO2 as is currently in the atmosphere. Plus the permafrost retains huge quantities of methane -- 20 times more greenhouse effect than CO2 per molecule -- and this will be released too.
In the depths of the cold oceans, methane is also retained in huge quantities in chemical compounds. A rise in sea temperatures will release this methane and much of it could be release over a relatively short timeframe.From what I've heard, any or all of these positive feedbacks could kick in big time with a temperature range of between 1 to 4 degrees Celsius.

Global warmng will cause rises in sea level and also extensive droughts in many locations. E.g.

Sea level rise in Bangledish. India is building a 3 meter wall the whole 4000 km length of its border with that country.
Drough in Mexico and Central American. The US is building a wall across its border with Mexico -- timely I should say.
Droughts also in sub-Saharan Africa. Boat loads of refugees arrive daily across the Mediterrean; Eurpean countries are steping up naval patrols to intercept and turn back these refugees.Happy scenarios, eh? And they are happening already.


...
One other point: I just don't see how this is liberal thinking. Why is worrying about the environment a liberal thing? It affects our health, our homes, our jobs, our access to water, energy, food, and air. What is liberal about caring about those things?
Apparently so. Denial of unpleasant facts seems to be an important marker of Conservative ideology.

[Auricauricle]

Don't the words denial and conservative seem strangely akin?

Oooh, I didn't say that!

[nightflier]

Auric, Gould looked at isolated populations, but isn't it true that the climate changes scientists are most worried about and studying most intently are also isolated geographically? The hole in the ozone layer, the depletion of ice in Greenland, the population growth of tree-borers in Alaska are not global in scale, but rather outlying events/populations.

Likewise, the dying off of pale people won't happen everywhere, but in some places faster than others. Out of these isolated events/populations, new populations with tougher skin will rise, and some of these will perhaps develop 3rd belly buttons if this somehow helps them survive the climatic changes. This would be a dramatic and rapid change. Now let's extrapolate that model to climatic change. The entire disappearance of the North Pole has been suggested. The elimination of fresh water in extensive areas like the US Midwest is also a very real possibility. Massive storms such as we've never seen in human history. What if Katrina had been twice as large? Look out Houston!

Then there is the issue of those areas/populations that will not be immediately changed because they are not isolated events/populations. They will not have the benefit of forced mutation and could very well simply die off. That is, the changes we are witnessing in isolated cases could just as well signal a mass dying off of life in places not experiencing them because of peripheral effects. Considering how plagues and pollution have been such efficacious killers, one could also argue that humans aren't as resilient as we may think. Climate change could very well be disastrous, not because we won't be able to take a 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature, but because of all the other events and mutations that could be put into motion as a result.

So yes, direct exposure to UV radiation will force mutations and kill off some populations (frogs are particularly susceptible, it seems). But what will that do to our food chain, our fresh water supply, and the air we breathe, never mind our sources of energy? Take those frogs, for example, the tadpoles are a primary source of food for fish, some of which we eat. It doesn't take much for all this to come back to bite us in the collective a$$. And all this because a few of us what to be richer? What is that wealth really worth if the majority of us are going to die from it?

[Auricauricle]

Interesting and thoughtful arguments, nightflier et al., and thank you for the stimulating repartee! Still (to play the DA, here) in spite of these very possible scenarios, is there any possibility that they may be cyclical or that the various extant species are more hardy than we suppose? Is all of this as precipitous as the popular pundits sayi it is, or are we reaching a million-year tipping point that has been edging towards its zenith and is now ready to tumble? Are we so proud that such a die-off spells disaster for the species or would such an occurrence actually help facilitate the introduction of a sturdier gene pool? I ask these questions not to be a butt-head, but as one who has not seen the movie (it's in the queue) and who needs to know lot more about this stuff. Do I need to start being nicer to my pet cockroach?

[nightflier]

DA = District Attorney?

Definitely be nicer to your pet cockroach. The roach is a much maligned insect that is actually responsible for some major cleanup duties we humans tend to forget about. But I digress.

The most troubling part about global warming is what has been happening in just the last few years. There are still people who would like to believe that this is cyclical, but it varies too much from the straight-line that average temperature has been charting (also up, BTW). The other data that is so troubling is how the temperature chart mirrors the pollution chart. Al Gore doesn't do a very good job of explaining it, but it's actually quite striking. If you then also correlate this data with other environmental charts such as average sea temperature, the strength of ocean currents, the rate of ice reduction, the increase in pollutants in the atmosphere, the rate of growth of organisms that would normally be checked by falling temperatures (jelly fish, borer beetles, algae), and also the increasing resistance of bacteria and viruses against natural and man-made responses, and you then superimpose all these charts over each other, you see a strikingly similar trend emerging. They all point to:

- significant temperature fluctuation (highs as well as lows)
- significant animal population changes
- significant increase in sea water levels
- significant drought conditions
- significant increase in diseases
- significant changes to our food supply

And many other factors, I'll leave out for now. These are all occurring right now. What is of concern to scientists is the fact that they are all closely linked to each other and if one of these does reach a tipping point, it could send the other ones into extremely dangerous levels as well, and perhaps a few of these would send the whole thing into a spiral.

On the positive front, if this is a product of our own doing, then we can actually do something about it. But this isn't going to be where we can do one thing and everything will be all right. We actually need to do a number of things from conservation to alternatives to a shift in culture. These need to be coordinated to do enough to reverse the trends the scientists are now recording. This is why it is so difficult, because all the things we can do need to be done, and more than that has to be done too, just to reverse the trends. It's going to have to be a global undertaking of massive proportions.

This is why we can't keep driving SUVs, altering and falsifying research, increasing oil dependency, continuing wars indefinitely, and continuing to grow economies of scale in some selfish attempt to get rich at the expense of so many others who won't. The Bush & McCain policies just aren't sustainable, it's as simple as that. The American dream, not the one about owning a basic home and a basic car, but the one about that fantasy that everyone can and should strive to own 3+ cars, two houses, a trophy wife, 3+ kids, a purebred pair of hounds, three acres of land, a ride-on lawnmower, a stock portfolio, a yacht, and yes, even a dedicated home theater room, is absolute lunacy.

Our economy and our very way of life is predicated on continued economic growth. The American auto industry is a perfect example of that: unless it can show a reasonable level of growth, measured by continually increasing production, increasing jobs, increasing product lines, increasing factories, and increasing sales, it is considered insolvent. I mean think about this for a minute. If our economy is not continually growing, then it is considered flat or failing. Our economic system has no way of coping effectively with retraction. Sure it can weather corrections, because the expectation is that after every bear there is a bull. But if the economy does not have a sure way of reversing a negative trend, then all bets are off. Hence the current state.

The thought that the American auto industry has to retract by combining product lines, firing thousands of employees, closing factories, and losing sales, is abhorrent to everything we have come to define ourselves as. Nonetheless, this industry is the pariah of the investor because there is no hope for growth and so the investor looks elsewhere. The same with insurance, banking and real estate. How many of these have to reach a tipping point before we all throw in the towel and start jumping off buildings? What Americans can't accept or deal with is that this economy and consequently their wealth and lifestyle was a bubble, an inflated price, an unrealistic and unsustainable artifice.

For the environment, Americans have increasingly treated nature as an economic commodity. Water, energy, flora, food, animal life, even human life all have been monetized. If pollution continues unabated, then one day we may even have to pay for clean air to breathe. And all this because a few people, a very few people, want to be obscenely rich. And while it's easy to point fingers and maybe even have an off-with-their-heads fantasy about it, they don't maintain the system, the rest of us mid-level schmucks do. We aspire to that same wealth and we covet the crumbs that fall off that table. We are so focused on that lofty state of being, that we forget to look at who's neck we are stepping on to be there. It's really a sickly perpetuating cycle that somehow sustains appalling injustice.

Ghandi said, if you want to measure the civilization of a society, see how they treat their animals. And extension of that is if you want to see how civilized we are, take a look at how we treat those who can't fend for themselves, such as the disabled, the elderly, our veterans, the homeless, orphans, the terminally ill, the incarcerated, etc. By that measure we're pretty friggin' uncivilized. If you also consider how we treat our animals and plants, we're friggin' cro-magnons. And the worst of it is that it's affecting us directly and we still won't do anything about it. That's the persistence of a system that cannot continue to sustain itself. Sooner or later it will reach a tipping point.

Having said all that, I'm still hopeful. I still have a stock portfolio, I still have a job, I still own my home, my family is still healthy, and I'm still expecting things to recover. However, my stocks are now focused on green industries, I am downsizing my own job, I am cutting costs everywhere I can, I am installing a whole-house fan, dual zone climate controls, and if I can swing it, solar panels on my home. We are eating out far less often, reducing and combining trips, we also buy more vegetables and fruit, organic when we can, recycling everything, downsizing electronics and possessions, and we are generally living healthier lives. In short, we are retracting our own lifestyle as much as possible and encouraging others to do the same. The hope is that if enough people participate in every way they can, not just one or two, it might actually make a difference.

[Feanor]

..
For the environment, Americans have increasingly treated nature as an economic commodity. Water, energy, flora, food, animal life, even human life all have been monetized....

Perhaps the opposite is the actual truth. We haven't ascribed a monetary value to water, energy, flora, food, animal life, human life. In the sense that if we knew their monetary value, we'd know what their loss would cost us.

[nightflier]

Perhaps, but considering what Aquafina costs for what it is, it sure makes you wonder.

[Auricauricle]

You go ahead and drink yer Aquafina....I'm gettin' a tall 'n frosty! Bartender! Another round fer me an' my sparrin' buddies....What'll it be, blokes?

[Luvin Da Blues]

WOW NF, that's one bad MutherF... post. I couldn't read it all at werk, after all, they do expect me to work once and awhile.

I think we've found common ground. The human society should limit it's ecological impact for future generations of all living things, regardless of the cause of GW or any other natural phenomena. We certainly don't need to add to the circumstances, man made or otherwise.

[nightflier]

Well I also hope we find some common ground on that DAC, LOL. Mine should be here in a few days (hopefully before the weekend).

Wait a minute, tubes aren't very green, now....

Oh the horror, the horror!

[Rich-n-Texas]

It's not an Outlaw DAC is it? :rolleyes:

[Luvin Da Blues]

Well I also hope we find some common ground on that DAC, LOL. Mine should be here in a few days (hopefully before the weekend).

Wait a minute, tubes aren't very green, now....

Oh the horror, the horror!

I just talked to UPS and mine will be "hear" tomorrow. And it's only one tiny little tube, ya could turn off a light to compensate.

[Auricauricle]

Now I'm getting green.

[nightflier]

Tex, ya bet stop makin' funo da Outlaws. Dey's from yer nick-o-da desrit, ya know. I'm shor dey's funna putin' tegedr a possy ta hunt ya down.

[Rich-n-Texas]

:biggrin5:

[markw]

You do realize that it's been almost three years to the day since this thread died under it's own weight, don't you?

[Feanor]

You do realize that it's been almost three years to the day since this thread died under it's own weight, don't you?
The above poster, yeshaN, has suddenly appear out of nowhere and is posting randomly. Perhaps we ought to just ignore him.