The American Thinker Slaps Down Global Warming

[Big Don]

Most things aren't a big deal to do and are in fact fine ideas, however, when you get people, like Sheryl Crow talking about a maximum amount of toilet paper, and don't for one minute think she was joking, you run into the realm of the insanities.
Corn as a fuel crop is beset by huge obstacles and is almost criminally wasteful. Does that mean that the idea is bad? Of course not, just that it needs more work. Likewise the Kyoto agreement had a lot of good points, however, putting the lion's share of cost on the nations that are actually trying to behave in a more environmentally sound manner and exempting nations such as China whose billion man population is over three times that of the US and thus, has three times the power generation and fuel needs and would be capable of wreaking three times the environmental pollution as the US, that isn't fair, it isn't just and it isn't sane. You cannot exempt the poorer nations from taking responsibility for their actions. Sure, the wealthier nations are more able to foot the bill, but, many of the poorer nations have loads of natural resources that, with modern (western) technologies can be safely and profitably exploited to everyone's best interest. Look at the Arab oil states. How many of them actually do the hands on work on their fields? Answer: NONE, why, because the eeevil oil companies (yes, those bastards) have the tools, the skills and the abilities to do it cleaner, and more efficiently then the Arab nations, and so they farm the work out to Shell and BP.
Industries are, at the heart, businesses and as businesses they have a vested interest to do things with an absolute minimum amount of waste and loss and most pollution has been wasted product that, had it been more efficiently handled could have gone much further.

 

[Flying Crane]

Likewise the Kyoto agreement had a lot of good points, however, putting the lion's share of cost on the nations that are actually trying to behave in a more environmentally sound manner and exempting nations such as China whose billion man population is over three times that of the US and thus, has three times the power generation and fuel needs and would be capable of wreaking three times the environmental pollution as the US, that isn't fair, it isn't just and it isn't sane. You cannot exempt the poorer nations from taking responsibility for their actions.

Every nation has a responsibility in this, including the up and coming industrial nations such as China and India.

However, the United States consumes something like 80% of all fuel resource consumption on the globe. But our population is about 6% of the globe. That's pretty heavily out of balance. We have set a standard of living that everyone else strives to match, but if the rest of the world matched our per capital consumption of resources and the waste that goes with it, it would be absolutely catastrophic for the globe. We cannot sit back and refuse to give up some portion of our own wasteful lifestyles, while telling all the poorer nations on the globe that they cannot have what we have, and they need to reduce their own pollution while we do not have to reduce ours. If anything, I think the US has a far far greater responsibility to reduce pollution than anyone else.

Yes, as nations like China develop and increase their own need for energy, their capabilities should be managed in such a way as to be as efficient and clean as possible. But the US is the biggest culprit in energy use and waste and pollution.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Most things aren't a big deal to do and are in fact fine ideas, however, when you get people, like Sheryl Crow talking about a maximum amount of toilet paper, and don't for one minute think she was joking, you run into the realm of the insanities.
Corn as a fuel crop is beset by huge obstacles and is almost criminally wasteful. Does that mean that the idea is bad? Of course not, just that it needs more work. Likewise the Kyoto agreement had a lot of good points, however, putting the lion's share of cost on the nations that are actually trying to behave in a more environmentally sound manner and exempting nations such as China whose billion man population is over three times that of the US and thus, has three times the power generation and fuel needs and would be capable of wreaking three times the environmental pollution as the US, that isn't fair, it isn't just and it isn't sane. You cannot exempt the poorer nations from taking responsibility for their actions. Sure, the wealthier nations are more able to foot the bill, but, many of the poorer nations have loads of natural resources that, with modern (western) technologies can be safely and profitably exploited to everyone's best interest. Look at the Arab oil states. How many of them actually do the hands on work on their fields? Answer: NONE, why, because the eeevil oil companies (yes, those bastards) have the tools, the skills and the abilities to do it cleaner, and more efficiently then the Arab nations, and so they farm the work out to Shell and BP.
Industries are, at the heart, businesses and as businesses they have a vested interest to do things with an absolute minimum amount of waste and loss and most pollution has been wasted product that, had it been more efficiently handled could have gone much further.

OK then how do we (everybody not just the US) make it better?

How do we find out what is causing global warming?

How do we figure out IF we can fix it?

How do we fix it if we can?

Saying it is expensive and not our burden to bear alone is just another version of it is not all our fault so why should we fix it.

It solves nothing.

And you are right, China is a big polluter and so is India and they have more people that we do but the majority by comparison to the US are quite poor. Lichtenstein has fewer people than we do by far but they are all (for the most part) quite wealthy so I imagine they should contribute next to nothing. European countries are all smaller than we are, and even though the euro is stronger right now, then they should also do less work on this than the US. And of course there is Russia and vast nation with very few by comparison to the US per square mile BUT they too are a big polluter but again they tend to be rather poor compared to us.

So how do we divvy up the work?

 

[Flying Crane]

However, the United States consumes something like 80% of all fuel resource consumption on the globe. But our population is about 6% of the globe.

OK, these numbers are off, I was writing from a faulty memory.

However, some good info is at this site: http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=294

It seems that the collective 15% of the world's population that makes up the industrialized nations, which includes the US, use up about 68% of the worlds energy consumption. That's still heavily out of balance, in my opinion.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

For those of you who use compact flouresent lightbulbs, watch out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

Be careful not to break them, because the mercury levels inside of them could cause significant financial/health risks.

What people seem to want to not understand, is that everything is a trade-off. There is no perfect answer.

 

[Cruentus]

It seems to me that one who uses language such as

"self-hating the human race'​

and

"conversation ... is totally unproductive"​

might be painting a self-portrait.

I wonder how the word 'hate', and all the adjectives it receives, gained such prominence. It seems to me that is an especially unhelpful word in gaining understanding. It appears to have become a shorthand antonym for patriot; either you are a patriot, or you hate. You follow official doctrine, or you hate. You are a believer or you hate.

Personally, I think there is a hell of a lot less hate in the world than we hear about every day.

I am not at all sure what you are trying to say here, Micheal. But, (and I am guessing here) if you are being criticial of language that puts an issue up on 2 polarizing extremes ('hate' and 'patriot'), then we are in agreement, actually. That is what I am saying; that in the political arena, issues are discussed from on 2 opposite sides of an extreme, and it is often very unproductive. Especially in this case. So instead of scientests and politicians discussing in a reasonable manner what we can do and what the effects may be, they are instead arguing from polar oppisite sides of the question of "who's fault" it is.

And, that leaves us with very unproductive discussions over the global warming.

 

[michaeledward]

I am just getting tired of arguments against persons, rather than ideas or facts. When one describes a position as being held by 'self-hating' anthing ... the adjective outweighs the noun.

Can we get a survey ... Those here who hate yourself, please raise your hand?

I don't think anyone would step up and accept that charge; being a self-hater. Not from the first person point of view. If we use that language to describe the position held by a person or group, we are participating in the pushing the discussion to the extremes.

 

[Big Don]

For those of you who use compact flouresent lightbulbs, watch out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

Be careful not to break them, because the mercury levels inside of them could cause significant financial/health risks.

What people seem to want to not understand, is that everything is a trade-off. There is no perfect answer.

As the vast majority of the CFL's are made in China, they are probably loaded with lead too...
I watched a show on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel, I don't remember which, about Ecison. They showed his house, now a museum, which is lit a minimum of 14 hours per day with lightbulbs handmade by Edison and his assistants. Perhaps a more environmentally friendly light bulb would just last for years. My dad has bought some CFLs, the light is dimmer, and they last about the same length of time, here, as regular incandescent bulbs do.http://www.roadsideamerica.com/set/lightbulbs.htmlWhile not about Edison's bulbs, 102 years and still functional beats the hell out of what I usually get out of the bulbs I buy. Making fewer bulbs would use both, fewer resources and less energy, why then are the lightbulb manufacturers allowed to engineer bulbs to wear out? Isn't planned obsolescence inherently dishonest? Lets tackle things that are EASY to change rather than trying to force changes on the masses with disputed and often dubious science.

 

[Andrew Green]

Forgive me if I don't take fox news for granted, here's another source that addresses the concern:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#better-environment

"The average mercury content in a CFL is about 3 milligrams – roughly the amount it would take to cover the tip of a ball-point pen. By comparison, older thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury – the equivalent of more than 100 CFLs. A common wristwatch battery contains five times more mercury than a CFL."

For those of you who use compact flouresent lightbulbs, watch out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

Be careful not to break them, because the mercury levels inside of them could cause significant financial/health risks.

What people seem to want to not understand, is that everything is a trade-off. There is no perfect answer.

 

[Big Don]

Forgive me if I don't take fox news for granted, here's another source that addresses the concern:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#better-environment

"The average mercury content in a CFL is about 3 milligrams – roughly the amount it would take to cover the tip of a ball-point pen. By comparison, older thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury – the equivalent of more than 100 CFLs. A common wristwatch battery contains five times more mercury than a CFL."

None of which changes the fact that any mercury spill is a hazardous materials spill.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]A little mercury can cause a world of problems. Breaking or improperly disposing of mercury-containing devices can release toxic fumes into the environment for years. While such releases might be quite small, any release adds to mercury’s build-up. To stop such emissions, many organizations are sweeping their facilities for mercury, properly disposing of it and seeking to make their buildings virtually mercury free.

Since beginning its mercury-elimination program in 2001, the staff at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Oregon, Ohio, has uncovered mercury throughout its facilities, including maintenance areas, clinical rooms, pathology labs, and housekeeping, kitchen and storage areas.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]“For example, if a thermometer is broken it is considered hazardous waste and must be handled by a vendor who is licensed to pick up and dispose of hazardous waste.” The EPA would rather pick-up mercury-containing devices that are intact than respond to spills or the improper disposal of these devices, he says.

[/FONT]http://www.facilitiesnet.com/ms/article.asp?id=2397&keywords=mercury, hospital
Hating the source(Fox News) doesn't change the fact that mercury is poisonous and, therefore hazardous.

 

[Andrew Green]

You're ignoring something though:

"by decreasing the demand for electricity from coal-fired generation plants – one of the largest sources of mercury emissions in Canada – CFLs can actually reduce mercury levels in the environment"

and the US is more dependent on coal then Canada.

Burning coal releases mercury into the air, and the difference in energy saved would have released more mercury then is in the CFL. So making a argument against CFL's due to mercury is just not going to fly, using them decreases the amount of mercury being pumped into our atmosphere.

 

[michaeledward]

I wonder if there are effects in generating electricity at a factor five times greater for those incandescent bulbs.

Coal burning power plants
Mountain top removal

hmm?

 

[Big Don]

I wonder if there are effects in generating electricity at a factor five times greater for those incandescent bulbs.

Coal burning power plants
Mountain top removal

hmm?

Like I said, why not force companies to manufacture and bring to market incandescent bulbs that don't die as fast, reverse engineer the planned obselescense out of them? Wouldn't that save money for millions of people, save tons of materials, and save megawatts of power used in making them and, by the way, not put hazardous chemicals in the bedrooms of children?
Why not ask Gore? He had a zinc mine...

Al Gore has profited from zinc mining that has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances near his farmstead

Massive white mountains of leftover rock waste are evidence of three decades of mining that earned Gore $570,000 in royalty payments for the mineral rights to his property.

New owners plan to start mining again later this year, after nearly four years of inactivity. In addition to bringing 250 much-needed jobs to rural middle Tennessee, mine owners will resume paying royalties to some residents who, like Gore, own land adjacent to the mine and leased access to the zinc under their property.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-18-goremine_n.htm
Oh, and he made a load of money from his investments in Occidental Petroleum too... (Another EVIL OIL COMPANY), but don't take my word for it:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein



Yes, I will bring the dreaded name of Gore back into this, because he is a sterling example of the hypocritical environmentalist movement. They claim we should all change, yet they continue to fly hither and yon on private jets, they couldn't bear to ride coach with the peasants. They ***** and moan about mass transit and hybrids while being chauffeured in limousines. I am still waiting to see if their hypocrisy knows any bounds, but, from their excesses and self-righteous pronouncements, I doubt it does.

 

[Andrew Green]

So is it still Ad Hominem if you are attacking someone that is not involved, or even relevant?

Al Gore has nothing to do with this, he is a political activist. If attacking politicians because they support a idea they don't live up to then we can just forget anything else because there will always be one.

You are looking for a perfect solution, there isn't one. So you are attacking what really amounts to a minor detail in the proposed "better" option, when in fact the other option is a worse offender on the grounds you are attacking the better one. Less effecient incandescent bulbs will, in the end, put more mercury into the atmosphere then CFL's. The amount of mercury in a bulb is too small to be a health risk to humans on its own.

Yes, there is mercury. Yes, mercury is bad. But there is less mercury involved when you go CFL because they use less power, and generating power means releasing mercury when it is done by burning coal, which is still one of the primary sources of electricity.

If you want to attack CFL there is better ways to do it then on the basis of mercury.

 

[Big Don]

So is it still Ad Hominem if you are attacking someone that is not involved, or even relevant?

Al Gore has nothing to do with this, he is a political activist. If attacking politicians because they support a idea they don't live up to then we can just forget anything else because there will always be one.

If Gore were the only hypocrite in the environmental movement you would have a valid point, but, when the majority of the high profile environmentalists are wealthy people who choose to preach one thing and practice another, then he is nothing more than a very visible example.

You are looking for a perfect solution, there isn't one. So you are attacking what really amounts to a minor detail in the proposed "better" option, when in fact the other option is a worse offender on the grounds you are attacking the better one. Less effecient incandescent bulbs will, in the end, put more mercury into the atmosphere then CFL's. The amount of mercury in a bulb is too small to be a health risk to humans on its own.

Reading from the back of the package of CFL's from my cupboard:WARNING:Contains Mercury. Dispose of in accordance with local, state and federal laws
Gee, there is enough to warn me about and enough to encourage legal disposal, however it can't hurt me?

Yes, there is mercury. Yes, mercury is bad. But there is less mercury involved when you go CFL because they use less power, and generating power means releasing mercury when it is done by burning coal, which is still one of the primary sources of electricity.

Then by all means use nuclear power, hydroelectric power or wind power (If you can get those environmentalist Kennedy's to allow a wind farm...)

If you want to attack CFL there is better ways to do it then on the basis of mercury.

How about enriching the Communist Chinese government? I've yet to see a CFL not made in China. This is a country whose human rights abuses make South Africa's Apartheid era look like nursery school. Is that a "good enough" reason to oppose CFL's or how about quality? Is the fact that the light of a CFL doesn't come close to that of an incandescent important? Or the fact that they still cost significantly more? Or how about the fact that they, like incandescents are engineered for planned obsolescence?

 

[Andrew Green]

If Gore were the only hypocrite in the environmental movement you would have a valid point, but, when the majority of the high profile environmentalists are wealthy people who choose to preach one thing and practice another, then he is nothing more than a very visible example.

Maybe it has to do with power and politics, and not environmentalism. Or is it only environmental issues that rich folks are hypocritical about?

Gee, there is enough to warn me about and enough to encourage legal disposal, however it can't hurt me?

Read some more warning labels, there are lots of nasty things around your house, providing you are not stupid with them, they are really not a problem. Got a CRT tv or computer monitor around? The insides of those are certainly not good for you, yet no one ever complains about them.

This is a country whose human rights abuses

People who live in glass houses...

 

[Cruentus]

I am just getting tired of arguments against persons, rather than ideas or facts. When one describes a position as being held by 'self-hating' anthing ... the adjective outweighs the noun.

Can we get a survey ... Those here who hate yourself, please raise your hand?

I don't think anyone would step up and accept that charge; being a self-hater. Not from the first person point of view. If we use that language to describe the position held by a person or group, we are participating in the pushing the discussion to the extremes.

An argument can be hateful or loathing towards anything, self or not.

But perhaps my wording isn't right.

I am not arguing against any person, I am simply saying that with global warming, the prevailing dialog tends to follow one extreme or another on where the blame lies, rather then heads coming together to come up with solutions.

 

[michaeledward]

I would suggest, Paul, that you are not arguing against any identifiable person. But, when you use the world 'self', you most definately arguing about a person, rather than an idea.



As for supposed 'hypocritical behavior' among environmentalists. To make the argument more meaningful, there really needs to be two equally available choices for any given situation; one of which is environmentally sound, and one of whish isn't. If there is a choice between a decision that creates less pollution and one that creates more pollution, and the environmentalist chooses the latter, then the argument becomes valid.

To simply say that Enviro-wacko A flies on private jets; therefore he is a hypocrit, abandons the alternative viable choice. I would suggest that if were to examine the alternative, it would be found insufficient in some critical manner.


As for the idea of 'forcing corporations' to do anything, there is an interesting idea. First question is "how"? Are you suggesting that government create regulations and force a company to do something. Well,that's and interesting thought, isn't it.

A corporation is an entity that has an obligation first to its shareholders. If an improved design was viable, and would generate capital, the obligation to the shareholders would cause that to design to exist. In a free and open market place, if a superior design (a bulb which didn't die in 2000 hours) could be effectively and competitively manufactured, competition in the market place would cause it to exist.

Maybe, the free and open market place has decided the 'better' light bulb is the compact flourescent. In my house, approximately 80% of the lamps are CFL's. The Remaining 20% are older fixtures, into which I can not place a CFL. It is a better design; the better mousetrap. And, I have a utility drawer full of replacement CFL's. So when these die, I've got my next batch ready to go. (Our change over from incandescent to flourescent came about directly because of Al Gore's Movie).

 

[Big Don]

A little something from today's Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811
MichaelEdward, if environmentalists aren't trying to force corporations to modify behavior and business practices, what exactly are they doing?

 

[Xue Sheng]

It is so nice to see this thread go back to finger pointing, politics, nationalism and the “it’s not my fault so why should I do anything about it” game and yet get absolutely nothing accomplished in post after post after post.

Hey if it makes everybody happy it’s the Chinese fault because they were paid by the democrat hating republicans to pollute the earth to make Al Gore look bad

Now isn’t that better, it sure as hell solved the problem now didn’t it.

Global warming has stopped and the ice caps started growing again the penguins are dancing in Antarctica.

Oh… wait… I’m sorry it accomplished absolutely nothing…. Please carry on.