The Trashing Of The Kyoto Treaty

[Biggles]

The battle lines on environmental issues are well worn.

I think it would be fair to say that the world is a richer place the greater the bio-diversity that we can sustain. Man has seriously impacted on that bio-diversity in the last 500 years. Who knows what life saving plants may have already being eradicated in the amazonian rain forest.

With regards greenhouse gases we can only approximate the models at the moment but it is clear that the world is getting warmer. This may not be primarily our doing - but then again it may be.

The world's natural cycle covers a broad span of hot and cold and we have thrived in one of its intermediate phases. Geologically these tend to be short (although I think I am ok with regards my mortgage). What is most probable is that natural cycles will kick in as we contribute to accelerated warming and we will all end up wearing snow shoes and talking like Canadians or at least those of subsequent generations will (so be warned US ).

If the worst predictions are correct then we will also have to re-think our attitudes to immigration as there will, through necessity, be rather a lot of it going on and we may get a first hand experience of the boot being on the other foot (to mix metaphors) - or is that another thread?

[Sparkle1984]

What's wrong with Oneworld? At least they are not funded by corporations:

Quote from their website:

An independent, non-profit organisation, the mission of the Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) is to act as a catalyst for the production and distribution of films on environment, development, health and human rights issues. Based in the UK but with very much a global focus, TVE uses broadcast television and other audio-visual resources - including the internet and radio - as its key platforms. It works above all to promote informed debate, new policies and practical solutions to the growing challenges of human development in the twenty-first century

Also, don't forget that George Bush's presidential campaign was partly funded by oil companies and other multi-nationals, and this may have influenced his decision to pull out of the Kyoto treaty.

I do believe that every life in the world is important, and must be saved at all costs. I would say that a stable ecological environment is a necessity for a stable economy.

The poorest people of the world will be the first to suffer if global warming gets worse - they may live in unstable homes which would be severely affected by flooding and storms.

The planet must be preserved for the future generations.

[Rat Faced]

J2k4,

I dont now their agenda...I just did a google search and clicked on 1st thing that came up. I admit it

I however, wouldnt try and say i know more about a subject than American Scientists. Professors in US universities... If you have scientific opinion refuting the clips i posted, then please feel free.

Im sure there is just as much, if not more, out there.


Its the final part of my post i wanted to get at... I think that the Insurance Companies will force the issue; irrespective of politics, environmentalists and industry.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Sparkle1984@3 December 2003 - 19:39
What's wrong with Oneworld?  At least they are not funded by corporations:

Quote from their website:

An independent, non-profit organisation, the mission of the Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) is to act as a catalyst for the production and distribution of films on environment, development, health and human rights issues. Based in the UK but with very much a global focus, TVE uses broadcast television and other audio-visual resources - including the internet and radio - as its key platforms. It works above all to promote informed debate, new policies and practical solutions to the growing challenges of human development in the twenty-first century

Sparkle-

Where do they get their money, then?

Their mission statement is very nice; it tells you exactly nothing.

It is precisely these sources you should question; those who present themselves as simple, disinterested, and altruistic are most often the exact opposite.

While a company with a vested interest may or may not make honest statements, they are still the best sources of information, if one knows how to sort the chaff.


Rat-

Honest insurance companies can be hard to come by, but, bound as they are by their actuarials, they are generally an accurate barometer of relative risk assessment.

If pushed to the wall in the name of environmental issues, they will react by refusing to underwrite shoddy activity, and yes, you're right; that will get some attention.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@3 December 2003 - 17:29
The battle lines on environmental issues are well worn.

I think it would be fair to say that the world is a richer place the greater the bio-diversity that we can sustain. Man has seriously impacted on that bio-diversity in the last 500 years. Who knows what life saving plants may have already being eradicated in the amazonian rain forest.

With regards greenhouse gases we can only approximate the models at the moment but it is clear that the world is getting warmer. This may not be primarily our doing - but then again it may be.

The world's natural cycle covers a broad span of hot and cold and we have thrived in one of its intermediate phases. Geologically these tend to be short (although I think I am ok with regards my mortgage). What is most probable is that natural cycles will kick in as we contribute to accelerated warming and we will all end up wearing snow shoes and talking like Canadians or at least those of subsequent generations will (so be warned US  ).

If the worst predictions are correct then we will also have to re-think our attitudes to immigration as there will, through necessity, be rather a lot of it going on and we may get a first hand experience of the boot being on the other foot (to mix metaphors) - or is that another thread?

Biggles-

We are largely in agreement, though we are at odds (I think) as to the weight to be given the various theories about man's activities and whether it would be preferable to err on the side of caution, or not to "err" at all.

I expect we'll end up with a little of both, although I'm not as pessimistic as others.

[ilw]

Originally posted by j2k4@4 December 2003 - 05:54
While a company with a vested interest may or may not make honest statements, they are still the best sources of information, if one knows how to sort the chaff.

I have to disagree, a company with vested interests will never give a balanced view and if what they say isn't honest as well....

a couple of graphs for your consideration



There were also graphs with temperatures, but the method of measuring temperatures is always disputed.

Starting in 1958 measurements were made of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere near the top of Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. Since that time the CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 315 to 355 parts per million by volume. The rise is not linear but exponential. Because no known natural mechanism can explain such a rapid increase in CO2, the inescapable conclusion is that anthropogenic (human-generated) burning of fossil fuels must be a primary reason for the observed increase in CO2.

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~engelder/geosc20/lect17.html

Thats a 13% increase in 40 years, some may come from volcanic activity, but

At Mount St Helens the maximum measured emission rate was 2.2x10^7 kg per day. The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1x10^8 kg . I do not have an estimate for the volume of CO2 released during the Plinian eruptions. As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69x10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

Personally i'm a believer in the whole CO2 -> warmer planet thing, and i kinda like the planet as it is now. I'm aware the changes go in cycles, but I get the impression we're seriously and dangerously advancing this particular cycle. I'd rather not have all of central london submarinated.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw+4 December 2003 - 06:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw &#064; 4 December 2003 - 06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@4 December 2003 - 05:54
While a company with a vested interest may or may not make honest statements, they are still the best sources of information, if one knows how to sort the chaff.

I have to disagree, a company with vested interests will never give a balanced view and if what they say isn&#39;t honest as well....

[/b][/quote]
Not what I said, ilw.

To plunge into the whole activity is to commit to an in-depth examination of the impetuses and motivations of business and industry.

I don&#39;t believe I&#39;ve ever read anything of that type that could be taken at face value-everything is best looked upon as part of the larger "whole".

Your graphs may paint a dire picture, but for the most part, those who compiled the data resulting in your chart are easily countered by others who have compiled materials which show a much different eventuality.

That this circumstance can even exist is informative

The truth, as always, lies somewhere betwixt and between.

[Billy_Dean]

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 December 2003 - 16:40

Now you&#39;re getting the picture, Billy.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@4 December 2003 - 05:54
Honest insurance companies can be hard to come by

Let me know if you ever find one, my current one sucks&#33;

A while ago Australia had a huge insurer (HIH) go bankrupt, so unfortunatnly they are failable too. It would be nice if they did think about the issues we&#39;ll face in a hundred years, rather than the issues we&#39;ll face next financial quater, but they don&#39;t so we come up with things like the Kyoto Treaty. But then some governments only think about the next financial quater too&#33;