G8 climate agenda goes up in smoke 21 June 05

Climate change is not caused by humans. It’s caused by monsters.

Ralph Nader called Bush a corporation in disguise of a human being. Corporations, by the way, have more rights in the U.S. than human citizens (or at least equal rights), and they can always dissolve & reconstitute under a different name if they are found in the wrong or with a huge liability.

In a futuristic scenario, where robots run corporations & control the world, they could vote to do away with food, etc., & just focus on oil & coal. I understand machines actually run better when heated up somewhat, so global warming might be ideal for them.

Nah, I think it will just be a very very silent scorching & eternal summer.

A Whitehouse spokesman said, the U.S. G8 negotiators “want to make sure there is a consensus to move forward in a practical way to address the long-term challenges [of GW].” Of course there will never be a consensus, as long as Bush disagrees about GW. “Long-term challenge,” means “we’re not doing a thing about GW in our life-time.”

The sad thing is that even if Gore had been elected in 2000 & 2004, and committed the U.S. to abate GW, we’d still have a huge uphill battle, even if Exxon were as amenable to doing something as BP. The logistics are enormously complicated. It would be something on a grander scale than WWII to solve GW. It would be a headache & a nightmare of the highest magnitude, but at least we’d be on the right track going slowly. It is so heart-breaking that a supposedly “pro-life” president could be so horribly genocidal. How could any good person have voted for such a terrible pro-death person.

I voted for Kerry.

And I believe that the truth will win in the end. It is hard to deny the truth. We are all in this together and nobody wants to live in a over-heated planet.

Mark and the people who contribute to this board are helping us all, even those who currently disagree.

The Vikings were keeping sheep in Greenland, well inside the Arctic Circle.The Romans enjoyed a nice warm period. The last two of thousands. CO2 ??—or the SUN !!.

What? Since climate always has been variable, as climate history shows, it then follows that no amount of greenhouse gas emisson can drive climate to warm? Time to take physics #1 in highschool over again if that is your point. We all know of natural climate variability but co2 and other greenhouse gases are being ADDED on top of the natural variations. Not hard to get a grip on it if one thinks about it.

The Vikings were keeping sheep in Greenland, well inside the Arctic Circle.The Romans enjoyed a nice warm period. The last two of thousands. CO2 ??—or the SUN !!

Do you have an argument, or only a cut-paste function on your keyboard?

D

Bush has little control over the warming taking place as climate experts have predicted steady warming for the next century if NO MORE GHG’s are produced from here forward. Bush has little to do with that and has no control over it.

Your upset because he refuses to tank the US economy and throw money down a (GHG) hole?

What does Bush have to do with Exxon Mobil? The 2 aren’t related. Why don’t you attack the evil gas producing nations who tout their wares on unsuspecting innocents!

Next you’ll be blaming Bush for the deforestation of the rain forests!

There is a natural greenhouse effect, with CO2 & other GHGs in the atmosphere that keeps our Earth warm enough for life. Otherwise we’d be very cold, like Mars. Scientists have known about this natural greenhouse effect for over 100 years. They also know that many factors contribute to climate & climate change, such as changes in solar output & the Earth’s wobble. All the harms and good that have come out of these natural conditions & changes can be attributed to nature (or blame it on God, or praise Him for it).

Now we humans are adding GHGs to the atmosphere at an historically unprecedented rate (mainly CO2, but also methane, nitrous oxides, CFCs, and others). The physics of the natural greenhouse effect are well accepted, and virtually all climate scientists agree that more GHGs means a warming climate, & one that is warming faster than any warming period in the life of planet Earth. Since 1995 there has been good evidence that our human GHGs are largely responsible for the current, unprecedented rapid warming. So now the ball is in our court; it is us humans that are causing the harms.

There are also some dangerous possibilities. There are some positive feedbacks that are occuring, and some that may occur (& have in the past under natural warming). That means the warming itself can release greenhouse gases, and it could spiral out of control to a much warming climate (& much greater harm), if we don’t seriously reduce our emissions. Though this is not as certain as the current warming trend, we should not risk putting our children & their children in such a harmful situation (even if the risk is less than 50% certain at this point). I hope you read Mark’s book, HIGH TIDE (most on this site have done so).

Now for the GOOD NEWS: There are many great solutions that save money & strengthen the economy that we’d be fools not to implement them. I myself have been slowly reducing my GHGs since 1990, & reduced them by 1/3 to 1/2 cost-effectively, and am now on 100% windpower from Greenmountain Energy in Texas, and saving $1 a month over conventional electricity. These things should be done, even without GW, since they save money & solve a lot of other problems as well.

If you are interested, I could share some of the cost-effective, money-saving measures we are following.

Bush could do a lot to help solve GW. He could get on TV & use the bully pulpit to inform Americans about the serious problem of GW, and encourage us to go for energy/resource efficiency & conservation & alternative energy in ways that do not reduce their living standards or harm the overall economy. Gore as VP did a wonderful job of making the government energy efficient to a tune of saving us taxpayers $1 billion a year.

Bush could restructure our energy system by slowly taking subsidies away from fossil fuels & putting them into energy/resources efficiency, conservation & renewables, in such a way people do not have to pay a cent more (esp the poor & middle class), but would even reap the savings & improve their lot.

For instance, subsidies could be partly withdrawn for gasoline and other fossil fuels (that power electricity) or a somewhat higher tax could be levied on them, with the money from that either given to the people directly as tax refund bonuses or as rebates on energy efficient/alternative energy measures. Then people would buy such, and go on to save money each month – like a dividend that keeps coming in. The net effect would be that people would be economically better off, have more money, & we’d be solving GW, other environmental problems, resource depletion, perhaps reducing Middle East tensions, etc.

We Americans are paying to cause GW (& a host of other problems), whether at the pump, on our electric bill, or on April 15th in subsidies to fossil fuels (plus for huge military expenses to protect oil shipments). I shoud, in fact, be upset that my tax dollars are going to pay for other people’s GHG emissions (since I have already become energy/resource efficient/conservative & am on alternative energy – which doesn’t get near the subsidies given to fossil fuels).

Let’s hope & pray that our president does the right & wise thing for us Americans & for the world.

Jimbo,

Are you 100% sure that Exxon dont contribute a single penny to the republican party funds. Cos’ I think you will find they do.

So that may be a link. They may be related. Your chum Bush and Exxon. How much do they spend each year on lobbying his administration. There are a lot of lunches there. They are related.

The rain forrest. I am not even going to mention a hamburger store popular in Ammerica and who are frendly with George and co who chop down the rain forest. Its too obvious.

The US government is the most powerfull government in the world in charge of the largest ecconomy in the world. You give out $10 billion dolars a year in aid (the same amount as you spend each year on pornography).

Do you think that your administration is incapable of saying stop. Hum, they are quite happy to interfear else where in the world. Ever heared of tied aid and the impact that has on Africa. You would be so proud if you knew.

Love, Ian.

The top two contributors to Bush was retired people and lawyers.

The top two contributors to Kerry was lawyers and retired people.

Bush had 2.5 million contributed by Oil and Gas compared with 33 million by his top two contributors. Of his top contributors most were in finance and no Oil and Gas companies were listed.

Kerry’s list did not have an Oil and Gas category listing but had a “misc finances” category and 2.5 million in that. Alot of Kerry’s top contributors were universities and one state (CA).

Exxon isn’t stupid. Most of these big businesses give to both sides so I wouldn’t say there is a link between Bush and Exxon. If there were then Exxon is not doing him any favors currently by helping Oil stay so high in the US! The favor bank is also not in service for any Bush-Saudi ties either.

source: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp

Jimbo,

In your first post you said there was no relation to Exxon and the Bush administration. In your second post you admit that there is.

We are all very aware that exxon as a company is very involved with governments. They would not be doing there job properly if they were not. They have to protect there profits and do this by buying liegislitve change that benefits them.

There are arguments for why this is good and for why this is bad. Jimbo, I have thought this through long and hard and I have to be honest I am on the side that says this is bad.

I noticed that you didnt comment on Bush being responcible for deforestation.

Ian.

Top Contributors were…

George W. Bush

1 Morgan Stanley $600,480

2 Merrill Lynch $580,004

3 PricewaterhouseCoopers $512,500

4 UBS Americas $468,075

5 Goldman Sachs $388,600

John Kerry

1 University of California $627,225

2 Harvard University $360,059

3 Time Warner $312,775

4 Goldman Sachs $296,750

5 Citigroup Inc $284,631

I didn’t see Exxon on the list. Did you? Also the list said Oil and Gas as an industry contributor for Bush NOT Exxon… Bush’s 20th top donor was Microsoft at $197K so I guess Exxon fell below that amount… I wouldn’t call that putting Bush in Exxon’s back pocket would you?

Kerry had the Univ of California as the top contributor at $627K and the state of California as the 20th contributor at $155K. I’d say he would have been more obliging to California had he won the election… wouldn’t you? over $750,000 to Kerry by California… hmmm.

As far as deforestation. You don’t seriously belive Bush is responsible for South America’s actions do you?

I think in the US we need some better land managment and better use of the national timber forests. Because they have NOT been cut we have had several huge fires which wasted LOTS of good wood and also polluted I might add… Had the forests been harvested at proper intervals the fires may not have been so severe…

cheers :)

Jimbo,

I agree with all you have said about land management. Fire breaks are essential part of the management of wood lands. Better land management will prevent some of the big fires you guys have experienced. We have the same problem over hear in the UK.

The article I posted was from the newspaper “The Independent” as it’s name implies it does it’s best to remain Independent and it is my most trusted source of information. I find that most publications have a political bias. As you yourself said there are two sides to every story and we can chose wichever side we wish too. I fear that you and I are likely to chose oposing sides on some things. However, I believe you only learn through trying to understand why people see things in a diferent way to the way that you do.

On the subject of America (Bush administration) and it’s role in deforistation in South America.

I simply feel that as America is the single biggest ecconomy in the world and possibly the greatist millatry power in the world it does become quite uniquely the dominent super power. It is my view that America is prepered to flex it’s muscles. For one example, we in the UK are about to be given ID cards. Something most of us (the Crowns loyal citizens) do not want. It is going to cost our ecconomy about £18 billion. (Money I would rather see being spent on fighting global poverty)

America has demanded that we use the same technology that you use at the airports and that we should share all of our data with you. That would give America full information on all British citizens. I feel very uncompfortable about this, but it will hapen, it will become the law and if I try to fight it they will sent me to prison.

So if America is prepared to do this to me, I dont see how hard it is for Mr Bush and co to kindly ask South America to consider how it looks after the rain forrest’s they are after all a global benefit and should be protected.

I dont for one second think you guys should do an Iraq style invasion. However, some persuasive dialouge could go quite a long way.

Seeing as America is the only global super power, your adminstration will be questioned about global issues, you cant be the worlds police force for some things and then not for others. You are or you are not.

Cheers Ian.