-
A little bit of politics for the holidays: Obama in Copenhagen
I just read how Obama just pulled a GW on the climate talks in Copenhagen and pretty much shut down any possible mediation or progress there. So I guess for someone who is becoming increasingly disillusioned with the man, I have to ask, why put all this on the Chinese? Last I heard, they were holding our purse-strings. Something doesn't add up.
-
I guess I could google Copenhagen/Obama and figure out what yer talking about (is this another global warming/carbon footprint thing?)
but I'm lazy...ecological summit? economic summit? pat summit?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
I just read how Obama just pulled a GW on the climate talks in Copenhagen and pretty much shut down any possible mediation or progress there. So I guess for someone who is becoming increasingly disillusioned with the man, I have to ask, why put all this on the Chinese? Last I heard, they were holding our purse-strings. Something doesn't add up.
I don't have that impression at all. Where did you get this? Fox?
The unspoken fear of the Chinese rulers is that the economic success of that country should stumble. They understand the environment issues but also want to play a close-to-chest balancing game with climate control for fear of domestic ramifications.
In the question of lending to the US, this has been something they have chosen to do to grow their economy, (not out of any alturistic motivation). Basically to grow their exports they have to keep their currency value low; to do this they buy foreign currencies, principally the US dollars in the form of Treasuries.
But to get back to the global warming issue, there is an appauling amount of denial out there. A recent pole reported on CNN found that a majority of American respondents would not be willing to pay $38/month to avert warming. WTF?!? That sounds like a hell of a bargain as a matter of fact, when you consider even the most moderate consequences.
http://www.ody.ca/~wbailey/StupidWorld.jpg
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
I don't have that impression at all. Where did you get this? Fox?
The unspoken fear of the Chinese rulers is that the economic success of that country should stumble. They understand the environment issues but also want to play a close-to-chest balancing game with climate control for fear of domestic ramifications.
In the question of lending to the US, this has been something they have chosen to do to grow their economy, (not out of any alturistic motivation). Basically to grow their exports they have to keep their currency value low; to do this they buy foreign currencies, principally the US dollars in the form of Treasuries.
But to get back to the global warming issue, there is an appauling amount of denial out there. A recent pole reported on CNN found that a majority of American respondents would not be willing to pay $38/month to avert warming. WTF?!? That sounds like a hell of a bargain as a matter of fact, when you consider even the most moderate consequences.
http://www.ody.ca/~wbailey/StupidWorld.jpg
Getting some extra milage out of that pic?
I'm still in the wait and see side. He's done a few things that make me scratch my head, but they all do that. I'm still hopeful.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
But to get back to the global warming issue, there is an appauling amount of denial out there. A recent pole reported on CNN found that a majority of American respondents would not be willing to pay $38/month to avert warming. WTF?!? That sounds like a hell of a bargain as a matter of fact, when you consider even the most moderate consequences.
I don't know about "appauling (sic) amount of denial"...scientists generally believe through peer review and consensus that the mean temperature of the Earth has increased 1.8 degrees in the last 100 years...but that assumes that there were accurate methods of meaurement for environmental changes. Weren't people still peeing in a hole in the ground in 1909?
Further, late 2008 saw the end of a long period of solar dormancy, a period notably lacking flares, sunspots and radioactive emmisions. It is not a ceteris paribus equation.
I'm more than willing to admit some obvious truths like, y'know, pollution is bad and clean air is good but I'm not ready to declare the human race the AIDS of the Earth or blindly drink the Al Gore Green Koolaid...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
A recent pole reported on CNN found that a majority of American respondents would not be willing to pay $38/month to avert warming. WTF?!?
I'm still fuming over five cents for a freakin' shopping bag!!! :mad:
-
I don't know if global warming is real or not real or what the long-term effects will be if it is. I also don't know the background of Feanor's comment regarding this $38 a month. But what I do know is this...
I think that it is immoral to ask people to spend money on something that may or may not happen, and won't happen during our lifetime, when that money could be put to better use to make an immediate difference in people's lives today.
Spend your money building wells in Africa to bring clean water to those who are dying right now because they don't have access to it.
Spend your money building houses in regions (including the US) where people are homeless because of devastation due to earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters.
Spend your money on research to help people who are dying of illnesses today, right now.
Spend your money on breakfast clubs to feed children whose parents can't afford to feed them. Maybe one of those children will grow up and discover the cure to global warming or to a deadly disease.
There are so many places to direct money that can save a life today. Why spend it on an unknown in the far off future?
-
I don't think rational people can debate global warming only the source of it. I also think rational people with any knowledge of biology can not deny that an organism's population affects its environment and the only debate there is at what point an organism's population affects its environment to the point of extinction.
If science and scientists could exist in a world free of politics and economics I am sure we could come up with a few facts and solutions that everyone could agree on. Since they do not we end up with gatherings such as Copenhagen where facts and spin enjoy equal footing.
In the mean time there are steps that could be taken to address known problems that IMO could have a side benefit for the environemt. Most Americans and many people in the developed countries suffer from diseases brought on by overeating such as obesity. Reducing the amount of meat we eat (no I am not a vegan or whatever they are called now days...) would reduce the amount of livestock (a sigficant source of CO2 and other greenhouse gases) as well as the water and grain needed to feed them. Land not used for grain production could be reforested. Tax and business incentives to increase public transportation and reduce people's dependence on cars could lead to better health (increased walking-if only to a bus stop) greater national security (no oil dependency on the mid-east) and of course a reduction in greenhouse gases.
These are only two ideas but I am sure there are more. These would have some pain attached to them but these are not tree-hugger ideas per se but the way we actually lived only a couple of generations ago. If a people or a government could not-will not make these types of changes why would anyone think that what ideas they discuss in places like Copenhagen even have a chance?
-
Well I hadn't considered that this would become an environmental discussion (I'm not saying it shouldn't, just noting that I hadn't considered it), but my point was more on the state of our presidency. Obama came to collect a Peace prize, that increasingly more people are asking him to return, then went home, and came back for the end of a very heated (some would say deadlocked) summit on global pollution and its effects. Then he proceeded in laying out a set of demands without offering the Chinese, the Russians, the Europeans, and much of the Third World any latitude for mediation. Not only was that a slap in the face to all the people who had already worked so hard in this conference, but to boot, he deadlocked the negotiations and in so doing he in effect insulted the Chinese, who had come to the conference fully intent on offering considerable concessions. What is surprising is that our relationship with China, and Obama's discussions with Jintao, have been conciliatory and cordial up to now. But this snub is sure to change that dynamic. Considering how much we are indebted to China, that's a rather odd change.
What puzzles me is that Obama is talking such an undiplomatic approach - a kind of 800-lb gorilla approach more reminiscent of the Bush/Cheney unilateralism that has done us so much harm this past decade. This is not in keeping with his campaign promisses, especially with regard to real social change, the pollution problem, and a new conciliatory diplomatic approach, and it is also not consistent with his presidency of the past year.
Considering how tenuous our international position is, and how dependent we are on the rest of the world (not the least of which China), this is IMO, a considerable policy shift from where we started. More to the point I consider it a significant destabilizing move to take for our economic situation, our military security, and our diplomatic endeavors. Burning diplomatic bridges ultimately weakens our military position. Given how extended our military already is around the globe, the last thing we need to do right now is weaken the bonds that still hold it together. It's an unwarranted show of force that I am not convinced we can make or sustain.
Unless I'm missing something in this picture, this is all bad news. I suppose it also leads to some other tough questions:
1. Is Obama trying to win domestic right-wing support for unrelated moves, like the healthcare debate?
2. Is Obama, and consequently the presidency, so owned by corporate & military interests that any other position isn't possible?
3. Is Obama's confidence in the American economy that great that he can afford such a diplomatic shift?
4. Is Obama even more conservative than the American voters had expected?
If anything, what we have witnessed, is an unprecedented move by this Democratic president to the right and towards traditional Republican positions. Aside from a few small concessions on economically insignificant social issues, Obama has done more for his Republican and Blue Dog suporters who put him into office than the centrist voters who ultimately made up the majority of his constituents. So where is this going?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
I don't know if global warming is real or not real or what the long-term effects will be if it is. I also don't know the background of Feanor's comment regarding this $38 a month. But what I do know is this...
....
There are so many places to direct money that can save a life today. Why spend it on an unknown in the far off future?
FA, no doubt you are familiar with the concept of insurance. Seems to me we had a discussion a few months ago about "critical illness" insurance. Do you know something your insurance company doesn't?
We know that the earth is warming at the moment. We know that things human beings are doing aren't helping in this regard, whether or not they are the only cause. We do know that if the Greenland icecap melts, sea levels will rise 20' in which case 700 million people will be displaced from seaboards worldwide. We also know that if the Antarctic icecap melts sea leve will rise 300' which will be the end of the world as we know it. We do know that vast quantities of methane are trapped in permafrost and the cold ocean depths, and that methane is far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
What we don't exactly know is how much warming it will take unfreeze the permafrost and release the methane, but we do know it's melting faster than models have predicted. Even less clear is how much ocean warming it will take to release the deep ocean methane, but we do know that ocean temperatures are rising.
Another thing we do know is that various small scale societies have in the past destroyed themselves on account of failure to respond to environmental changes, some of them directly caused by the inhabitants; (check out Jared Diamond's book, Collapse). It doesn't take huge imagination to see that this time we just might have the opportunity to do it on a world-wide scale.
I guess I'm saying that certain knowledge is not a prerequisite to preventive action.
And I regard it as a huge lie that moving to a green economy would necessarily be very detrimental to the economy. A properly funded and determined multi-national effort could be a great economic stimulous. And that might not be entirely a bad thing 'round about now.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
I don't know about "appauling (sic) amount of denial"...scientists generally believe through peer review and consensus that the mean temperature of the Earth has increased 1.8 degrees in the last 100 years...but that assumes that there were accurate methods of meaurement for environmental changes. Weren't people still peeing in a hole in the ground in 1909?
Further, late 2008 saw the end of a long period of solar dormancy, a period notably lacking flares, sunspots and radioactive emmisions. It is not a ceteris paribus equation.
I'm more than willing to admit some obvious truths like, y'know, pollution is bad and clean air is good but I'm not ready to declare the human race the AIDS of the Earth or blindly drink the Al Gore Green Koolaid...
Valid points about warming measurements, 'Sticks. But I remind you that pointing out simple spelling mistakes is in the nature of an ad hominem attack, is therefore not germane to the argument, and reflects badly on the attacker.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Getting some extra milage out of that pic?
...
Yes, GM, I expect to get good milage out of that diagram. After all, it explains why people reject so much good evidence while accepting so much bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
...
I'm still in the wait and see side. He's done a few things that make me scratch my head, but they all do that. I'm still hopeful.
What would convince you?
That reminds me: studies say the optimists live happier, more successful lives but pessimists are more often right.
-
Well Feanor, I don't exactly agree with the severity of your message (300' if the Arctic icecap melts away?), but I do agree with the basic premise that the observed change is exponential. Therefore I have a serious issue with the type of Bush-like right-wing stance that Obama took in Copenhagen. It does nothing to further understanding, cooperation, and the search for a solution.
Regarding climate change, I can say that in my own lifetime I have seen this. Places that I knew when I was young that then still had snow, haven't seen any in years. Likewise I used to go fishing in places that are now completely polluted and/or dried up. I'm sure we can all find examples of this phenomenon. Now if climate change is indeed exponential, that ought to be an alarming realization for us all. What we don't need is politicians acting like this is another Cuban missile crisis, because unlike the Russians, mother nature doesn't back down - she doesn't even care that we aren't quite ready to give up our comfortable way of life.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Regarding climate change, I can say that in my own lifetime I have seen this. Places that I knew when I was young that then still had snow, haven't seen any in years. Likewise I used to go fishing in places that are now completely polluted and/or dried up. I'm sure we can all find examples of this phenomenon.
Although it's clear that the climate is warming, I think what you're observing anecdotally may be cyclical and vary from place to place.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
But to get back to the global warming issue, there is an appauling amount of denial out there. A recent pole reported on CNN found that a majority of American respondents would not be willing to pay $38/month to avert warming. WTF?!? That sounds like a hell of a bargain as a matter of fact, when you consider even the most moderate consequences.
Those damn stupid Americans! When be we gonna get smurt like dat them thar Feanor dude? :idea:
Based on our government's spending lately, I'm guess the unwillingness to pay $38/month is because many american's are highly doubtful the money would go to anything remotely associated with helping the environment. Too many american's are sick and tired of seeing their hard earned and paid tax dollars being thrown up in the air right now in an effort to "make it rain". :out:
"Global Warming" aside, I am sure more "americans" would be willing to spend some money on our earth if it actually meant something and did some actual good.
Until then, my $38 is staying in my pocket.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Well Feanor, I don't exactly agree with the severity of your message (300' if the Arctic icecap melts away?), but I do agree with the basic premise that the observed change is exponential. Therefore I have a serious issue with the type of Bush-like right-wing stance that Obama took in Copenhagen. It does nothing to further understanding, cooperation, and the search for a solution.
...
Edward Miliband, the UK minister for the environment, immediately after the conference was much more forceful in condeming the Chinese for torpedoing the affair. And today the Indian government acknowledged that it conspired with China and other developing nations to ensure that no binding agreement was reached. I construe that it was largely Obama's efforts that produced the modest, non-binding agreement that resulted whereas otherwise there would have been nothing.
Obama differs from George W. in that he is willing to listening to people at least, and not just attempt to dictate. It is interesting that the world's two largest countries, both eventually destined to be leading world powers, are already throwing their weight around to forward their own, (if misguided), agendas. At worst, Obama called them on this.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Those damn stupid Americans! When be we gonna get smurt like dat them thar Feanor dude? :idea:
Based on our government's spending lately, I'm guess the unwillingness to pay $38/month is because many american's are highly doubtful the money would go to anything remotely associated with helping the environment. Too many american's are sick and tired of seeing their hard earned and paid tax dollars being thrown up in the air right now in an effort to "make it rain". :out:
"Global Warming" aside, I am sure more "americans" would be willing to spend some money on our earth if it actually meant something and did some actual good.
Until then, my $38 is staying in my pocket.
At least Americans aren't the only stupid ones. It emerged today the governments of India and China conspired at the conference with other developing countris to prevent any binding agreement.
By the way, JSE, do you smoke? For decades tobacco companies surpress the knowledge that they had of the harm of smoking; fossil fuel companies foment the same sort of doubt today for the same selfish reasons.
-
I just don't understand people and countries who don't want to protect the environment. People are entitled to believe what they want. But even if there was the slightest chance that we are causing global warming or cooling wouldn't you want to do something about it? As it is, air pollution is costing the world hundreds of millions of health care dollars for people with Respiratory problems. And why cant people believe that dumping millions of tons of pollutants in the air each year will affect the environment?
The problem is that it will cost money to do something about it and that people take the opinion that it will not affect me in my life time so let the future generations deal with it.
-
Well you could believe that....
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02audionoob
Although it's clear that the climate is warming, I think what you're observing anecdotally may be cyclical and vary from place to place.
...but you'd be in a very small minority of people who agre with that point of view. There is far more evidence to point to warming all over the globe. The scientific evidence just doesn't agree with you on this one, sorry.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
...but you'd be in a very small minority of people who agre with that point of view. There is far more evidence to point to warming all over the globe. The scientific evidence just doesn't agree with you on this one, sorry.
You're missing my point. What's happening all over the globe can't be assessed in only the one place you go fishing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
At least Americans aren't the only stupid ones. It emerged today the governments of India and China conspired at the conference with other developing countris to prevent any binding agreement.
By the way, JSE, do you smoke? For decades tobacco companies surpress the knowledge that they had of the harm of smoking; fossil fuel companies foment the same sort of doubt today for the same selfish reasons.
Do I smoke? Unfortunately, being an American, I am too stupid to figure out how to light one up. So no, I don't smoke.
Feanor, your level of Jack-ass-ed-ness never ceases to amaze me. STFU!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackraven
I just don't understand people and countries who don't want to protect the environment. People are entitled to believe what they want. But even if there was the slightest chance that we are causing global warming or cooling wouldn't you want to do something about it? As it is, air pollution is costing the world hundreds of millions of health care dollars for people with Respiratory problems. And why cant people believe that dumping millions of tons of pollutants in the air each year will affect the environment?
The problem is that it will cost money to do something about it and that people take the opinion that it will not affect me in my life time so let the future generations deal with it.
I personally have no problem at all with helping our environment and I don't mind spending my personal money to do so. In fact, I do. But, I am not willing to blindly throw that money away at a problem when we don't fully understand the ramifications, cause or solutions. I also refuse the give that money to a goverment that would likely blow it on something completely unrelated in order to fund some Senator or Congressman's "pet project" that gets included in some bill's fine print. The government would probably waste 80 to 90 cents out of every dollar collected for some environemental project or cause.
"Global Warming" is one element possibly related to the health of our planet. The cause and effect are still up for debate in my mind. A "clean environment" is a completely different issue but it might be related in some aspects. Again, still up for debate. I would rather spend money on cleaning up the problems we have already caused in terms of pollution, forest destruction, animal species, fossil fuels, etc.
-
I agree entirely that we should be far more sensitive to the harm we do to the planet. We must try to reduce pollution and waste and minimize our impact on Earth’s other inhabitants.
However, the concept of global warming has taken on a “political correctness” in our society. Those who favor the concept of blaming it on human activity are the loudest and most persistent in the argument. In my opinion, regardless of what might seem like minority status in this forum or in the circles traveled by those here, there has not been definitive proof that:
<O:p</O:p(a) an increase in the planet’s temperature was caused by human activity,
(b) the increase can be mitigated or reversed by human activity,
(c) the planet’s temperature was somehow luckily at its exact optimum in the year humans began documenting the world’s temperature.<O:p</O:p
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02audionoob
In my opinion, regardless of what might seem like minority status in this forum or in the circles traveled by those here, there has not been definitive proof that:
<O:p</O:p(a) an increase in the planet’s temperature was caused by human activity,
(b) the increase can be mitigated or reversed by human activity,
(c) the planet’s temperature was somehow luckily at its exact optimum in the year humans began documenting the world’s temperature.<O:p</O:p
These are good points. And just playing Devil's Advocate here...what if the warming of the planet is just Earth's natural evolution? Afterall, wasn't there once an ice age? It seems to me that the globe has been warming for tens of thousands of years.
Even if human activity is speeding things up how do we know that the end result (whatever that may be) won't eventually be the same?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
I personally have no problem at all with helping our environment and I don't mind spending my personal money to do so. In fact, I do. But, I am not willing to blindly throw that money away at a problem when we don't fully understand the ramifications, cause or solutions. I also refuse the give that money to a goverment that would likely blow it on something completely unrelated in order to fund some Senator or Congressman's "pet project" that gets included in some bill's fine print. The government would probably waste 80 to 90 cents out of every dollar collected for some environemental project or cause.
"Global Warming" is one element possibly related to the health of our planet. The cause and effect are still up for debate in my mind. A "clean environment" is a completely different issue but it might be related in some aspects. Again, still up for debate. I would rather spend money on cleaning up the problems we have already caused in terms of pollution, forest destruction, animal species, fossil fuels, etc.
Well said. This is my sentiment also.
|