I like how nobody understood a word of Achebe's post (myself included), yet it 'sounded' so cool that you get the obligatory "brilliant post, Achebe". Wake me up when Bush gets impeached.
I do agree that the planet will survive long after we do, but not in any kind of beautiful state. It will take hundreds of millions of years for the earth to return to the natural beauty that has existed. I feel it is important to preserve the beauty that exists today. ------------------ Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.
Hydra, why invent a cure to take care of new diseases when we can prevent them from occurring ? ------------------ "norm, would you like to buy an indian scalp ? This deal isn't gonna make or break me Norm, so don't jerk me around." Harry Carey "Norm, if I had a mohawk scalp, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."
Hydra: You should probably stop talking about solar power until you know what you are talking about. Solar power cells can hold a charge for WEEKS, not hours. They can charge in sunny skies and cloudy one's, rain or shine. Only a few panels (fewer than 6) on a roof can hold a charge to power a house for 2 weeks without any sun, which I view as rather unlikely. Before you go throwing things around, try doing some research. Besides, the world of business is always demanding that people be more flexible. They want workers to work more hourse, be on call all the time, work through lunch. They want us to pay higher prices for things because their costs have gone up. They want us to support their profit margins. When are we going to decide that THEY need to be flexible for once. In the early 90's, the oil boom went bust in Houston. Did the energy companies blow up with them? Hell no! They adapted and got stronger and more diversified. IMO, no one here is suggesting we dump the entire oil and natural gas industry (or nuclear power) tomorrow. We are saying that it is time to find alternatives to help us avoid more problems. Why is that so shocking and terrible? ------------------ AAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!
This from the Friday Chronicle. Seems as if other countries are considering punishing America (can you say trade restrictions?) for our president's stance on the environment. I particularly like how Bush says he doesn't really care what Congress thinks. Last time I checked, they were more representative of the entire country than he is. March 29, 2001, 10:30PM Bush eases arctic refuge energy stand But he says more oil, gas must be found somewhere By PATTY REINERT Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- President Bush, facing defeat on his plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, said Thursday he is willing to look elsewhere for supplies to combat the nation's energy problems. During his second White House news conference, he defended his recent environmental decisions and insisted it would be a mistake for Congress to discount tapping the refuge for oil and natural gas. But Bush said he also would look to Canada, Mexico and unprotected U.S. federal lands for new energy sources. He also sought to calm the furor among European leaders over his abandonment earlier this week of the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, saying he would work with U.S. allies to reduce carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases." The treaty, signed but never ratified by the United States, specifies that industrial nations must reduce emissions by 2012 to below 1990 levels. As a presidential candidate, Bush touted opening 1.5 million acres of the 19 million-acre arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska to drilling as one of his top priorities to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The plan sparked an intense lobbying war between the oil industry and environmentalists, who fear exploration would destroy pristine habitat in the wildest place left in America. Congressional Republican leaders, seeking to avoid the fight, responded by leaving potential drilling revenues from the refuge out of their 2002 budget resolutions. Still, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, are planning to travel to the refuge this weekend, along with other lawmakers interested in its coastal plain as a drilling site. And Bush shrugged off suggestions that his own party is rejecting his plan. "I think it's important for us to open up ANWR. Whether or not the Congress sees it that way is another matter," he said. "But that's not going to deter me from having, for example, the interior secretary look at all lands that are not to be fully protected for exploration." Bush said he has talked to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about importing Canadian natural gas and promoting energy exploration in northern Canada. He also has approached Mexican President Vicente Fox about energy cooperation. The issue is on the front burner because of a surge in gasoline, natural gas and electricity prices throughout the country as well as rolling blackouts in California. "There's going to be a lot of areas where we can find natural gas in America other than ANWR. It would be helpful if we opened up ANWR. I think it's a mistake not to," Bush said. " ... We've got a shortage of energy in America. And it doesn't matter to me where the gas comes from in the long run, just so long as we get gas moving into the country." Adam Kolton, arctic campaign director for the Alaska Wilderness League, said he hopes that Bush will present Congress with an energy policy that excludes drilling in the refuge, "but we're not optimistic." He noted that despite the president's appearance of backing away from his plan, he hasn't given it up completely. Nor has Norton called off her trip. "But maybe the president is realizing that the vast majority of Americans oppose drilling there, even if they support his other initiatives," Kolton said. "And as any good Texas oil man knows, prices are determined by global supply and demand factors, not by an individual field in Alaska. We're not going to drill our way to energy independence or lower prices. " But Roger Herrera, Washington organizer of Arctic Power, a nonprofit citizens' group that supports Bush's drilling plan, said the fight is far from over. He predicts that lawmakers will be forced to consider the refuge drilling plan once summer hits and more states experience blackouts. "We do have some energy problems in the short term in this country, and Congress tends to react when crisis is at hand," he said. Bush also defended his recent reversal on a campaign pledge to compel power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the main greenhouse gas implicated in global warming, and his suspension of regulations to reduce arsenic in drinking water. He said his decision on carbon dioxide emissions was necessary because the country cannot convert quickly from coal and oil to cleaner-burning natural gas, and has no infrastructure in place to move natural gas. "Circumstances have changed since the campaign," he said. "We are now in an energy crisis." He also said he was looking forward to explaining to other world leaders his decision on the Kyoto treaty. "We'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases, but I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers," he said. "We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America. That's my priority." He added that he is open to discussing "realistic, common-sense environmental policy." "And I'm going to explain that to our friends," he said. European officials warned Bush on Thursday that U.S. relations with the rest of the world could suffer if he refuses to honor the treaty. Some threatened to picket Exxon Mobil, Texaco or Chevron gas stations, and others suggested that the European Union could hold up resolution of trans-Atlantic trade disputes. The Greens group in the European Parliament called for a consumer boycott of U.S. oil companies. "This isn't some marginal environmental issue that can be ignored or played down," EU Environment Commissioner Margo Wallstroem said at a news conference in Brussels, Belgium. "It has to do with trade and economics." Wallstroem said it is too early to discuss "tactics to punish the United States," but she said she will travel to Washington next week with an EU delegation to seek clarification of Bush's position. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder met with the president for more than two hours Thursday afternoon. In a joint statement, the two leaders admitted: "We openly note that we differ on the best way to protect the Earth's climate." ------------------ AAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!
I want a recount. ------------------ Founder and President of the Houston Homers Club(HHC) - Are you a homer? Join now! The Rockets will be NBA champions. Believe.
A typical responce from a likely insecure person whose views are under attack. Do not defend the arguments, but rather attack the bringer of those arguments. If my post makes me illiterate, than so be it. my children will be better typists than I, however your children will have to stay inside on hot July days due to ozone alerts/poor air conditions. The only roblem I have with that is that mine will too. As for your "counter arguments", do I think that replacing windows with solar panels would power the US as well as its industry? well a solar panel in space measuring a mere 100KM X 100KM would more than power the entire earth. If your average house has 10sqM of glass with Southern exposure and you multiply this by 119,628,000, the number of SINGLE family homes estimated to be in the US acording to the 2000 census. That is 12% of the worlds power use that could be easily off set by AMERICAS South-facing windows. this does not include MULTI family homes, windows on Eastern, and Western sides off houses, those big shiney office buildings, any businesses at all, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY. not to mention roof space, or that solar can be placed in car windows, and on their roofs. So to answer your question, YES, but that is not the point. Solar power dosnt have to be the entire solution. if this solar power only could make a 10% difference, is that not a 10% improvement in the enviroment?? 10% better chances for the future of the planet?? you are now gonna cry about the oil workers.. well the oil workers will be bust drilling for oil which is used for plastic production. the ones who will be losing jobs can build the solar panels, or install them. retooling factories to make electric engines. things like this do not put people out of work for good, it creates jobs, and spurs the econemy. the plague had everything to do with rats/fleas, and un healthe practices of the time. the plague isnt an issue anymore because as a people we cleaned up our acts. we built sewers, we began to wash, we burned all our clothes and bedding, and handled our foods differently. all of these practices led to humans surviving the plague. these were RADICAL solutions. These radical solutions are why we are a healthy species today. Driving cleaner cars, using solar power, and letting a few trees live are nothing compared to changing how an entire species lives, or vaccinating the ENTIRE PLANET from small pox. honestly how much of a bother is it to change these minor things so our childrens lung capacity is of an adequit level? besides Asthema is not a disease, it is a condition. conditions are caused, not spread like small pox. as to your intrest is saving the enviroment, here is what I have to say. making radical moves forward is one thing(kinda risky), but taking ANY steps back is just plain CRAZY. Its not like the world is asking America to shut down its industry while the rest of the world charges on. What this is all about is America accepting its role, and the responsibility that comes with world leader. We are a part of a community, but you wouldnt know it. Especially with a jackass like bush running it. this is the main Juxt of the treaty "Under the 1997 treaty, the major powers agreed to cut the emissions, which result mainly from burning coal and oil, by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012." that sounds like your .5%/year plan anyway, so what are you complaining about. Im done again. this is just rediculous. suckered in again. all I am after is steps forward, not steps back. peace ------------------ Hanta-Force Paintball www.hanta-force.com
And guys, even if the Kyoto treaty went through, it may have been too late. Don't get me wrong, things are better now than in the 70's, but the damage has been done. The Kyoto treaty wasn't gonna save the world, just a step in the right direction. Now, we may have taken a step back. I hope Bush can devise another plan to help the environment. Also, I heard Bush say that drilling in Alaska will help us find ways to reduce emmissions. Is that possible ? ------------------ "norm, would you like to buy an indian scalp ? This deal isn't gonna make or break me Norm, so don't jerk me around." Harry Carey "Norm, if I had a mohawk scalp, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."
Thank god, it doesn't look like Prez Butch is going to be able to get the support to drill into the last great American Wilderness. ------------------ Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.
This is a response to some of yall, none of yall and all of yall: 1) For those attacking G-dub (if you call him that he almost sounds cool), he really didn't have much of a choice here. The last thing MOST people in this country want is to pay even more for energy right now. If he didn't back away from it, Republicans in Congress would be forced to support it and it would be ratified. Industry would have to implement it and prices would get ugly. When Clinton supported it he didn't put anything on the line. He knew he wouldn't have to deal with the immediate consequences since Congress wouldn't support it and he'd be out of office. It was a great PR move with no real downside - he played it like any other pol would. 2) We're not going to destroy the Earth. If we continue on, we'll change it and we will most likely EVENTUALLY make human life unsustainable. How long that will take is debatable, but we're probably not looking at the next few generations (note: that does not make it right). But the Earth is bigger and better than us. Maybe next time around anteaters will evolve into the dominant species. Our loss. But, chances are something natural will eventually happen that will get rid of humans anyway. 3) The US is probably better than most countries in environmental standards. For those that have traveled to developing countries, you know that they produce all sorts of crap and put it in the air, water and wherever else. Walking through Dehli is probably as bad as walking through Pittsburgh used to be. Do we have any right to force this treaty on them? If they are in fact the most guilty, these standards would have the most positive environmental impact in LDCs. On the other hand, is it fair to stunt a developing economy by enforcing regs that we didn't have? 3) I don't know anything about the science behind alternate energy sources, so I'll defer to others here. But I assume we can all agree that devolpment will be slow until it becomes profitable. How do we make it profitable? We can all go buy a Toyota Echo, but I'd prefer to buy a TL. Some wnat to buy an ugly a$$ Miller High Life Station Wagon. Cars in America are just as much for fun as for utility. That's not big oil's fault. That's ours. All of us are to blame for these gas guzzlers. Someone else mentioned how companies learn to adapt. If we make a shift in demand patterns, they'll be forced to adapt. The onus is on us more than it is on them. Turn off your computers, turn off the lights, turn down the air, take the bus, become an example and spend the $10-15K on solar cells yourself. Take responsibility. (that's directed at me too). Until you make a change in your own usage patterns, don't blame a government for not forcing industry to adapt. At least start it yourself. Before I start singing "Man in the Mirror", I'll move on. 4) Re-training people is not easy. It will take at least a generation to do that. You're not going to be able to retrain a 40 year old oil worker. Ideally, it happens quickly and realtively painlessly. In the real world, people get stuck in their patterns. They aren't willing to work their a$$ off to start over. Companies aren't going to spend millions to retrain older workers. That's a real issue that needs to be thought through. On that note imagine what happens to our economy if we make a dramatic (rather than gradual) shift in environmental regs. Costs go up, prices go up, supply goes down, jobs are lost, GDP goes down, welfare expenditures go up...potential economc chaos. Stricter environmental regs need to be implemented, but they need to be done slowly and carefully. I apologize for the ramble. Hopefully it makes some sense. ------------------ **
Hydra, I love your analysis in the rockets forum but I seriously think you're watching Nova shows from the mid to early 90s. btw, Jeff's post nailed all of this... I'm just piling on. You're arguing for arguing's sake... and you just don't have the correct data. Also, what VOR said deserves more emphasis (b/c it jumped out to me too when I was reading your post): Heck, that's less aggressive than your solution, so I think you'd be all for Bush honoring the Kyoto agreement. -------- On the jobs note, I can only rehash S.C.'s experience when NAFTA killed S.C.'s textile industry. You retrain people. Obviously, our knowledge of fossil fuel stores will grow as technology improves. One thing is for certain though: this is essentially a non renewable resource. The plants that died to create oil today died 6 X 10<sup>6</sup> (sorry, I like playing w/ the tags) years ago. Once we run out, do you have 65 million years to wait for a bit more? Nothing is lost in switching over to the alternative of environmentally sustainable resources. Talk about scare tactics! People will still have their jobs and still in the natural resources/resource appropriation industry (I could talk about retraining a 50 year old textile worker to do productivity apps e.g. excel, but I'd digress). To make a long story short, this is of course about value assessment. Bush approved of NAFTA (or I should say that Cheney taught him that NAFTA was a good thing)... so he approved of retraining 50 year old textile workers in S.C. In his view, the benefits were worth the costs. This is no different, you and Bush just have to be taught the benefits. You just have to educate yourself on this subject (and quit watching old arse NOVA shows that tell you that you can't store Solar energy, lol). If you have the correct information, you'll totally agree with the rest of us. <font size="-10">In fact, the more information you get on many of these subjects, the more of a democrat you'll become. Oh wait, different topic.</font> ------------------ (===)
I gotta add some little tidbits. first of all have any of you seen those solar poweres street lamps. they have them on the StonyBrook college campus. i imagine other schools have them as well. charge in the day, light all night. I know the SUNY system is adding them to all the campuses, I hope other state university systems do the same. Also, This is a bill you will never see a bush support. Bush JR. was an oil man. he has friends in the industry. not workers mind you, but execs. who do you think bought his election?? Oil barons are sleeping in the whitehouse already. it is simple re-election politics. and yes as president he has already begun his bid for re-election. all politicians are always running these days peace ------------------ Hanta-Force Paintball www.hanta-force.com
TL, On your #3... Because of NAFTA and the like, US companies now go to those developing countries and pollute like crazy. Most developing countries have not had thier own MNC's, so they do not have the policy framework developed to control them, thus the lack of environmental regulation. NAFTA never had anything to do with free trade. Other points: Sure, the Earth wll last lobger than us, it will repair itself, and something natural (like the next glacial) could wipe out humanity...however, why spur on your own doom? It goes against nature to bring about self-destruction. Too bad the US is the only country involved with the Kyoto treaty that has an energy infastructure. Those European countries don't have to worry about jobs and the like. I, for one, will be in vocal support of global boycotts of anything US -- stone 'em! We all know it has to get worse before it gets better...maybe that could be a catalyst of some sort. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
Gotta disagree with ya here Rimmy. Man, by his very nature, is destructive. What's that law of thermodynamics? Everything goes from order to disorder? ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
I suppose you were talking about my first #3. Pesky number system. Yes, MNC's do go to developing countries and contribute to the problem. I can't believe that the lack of "domestic" based MNC's in those countries is responsible for the lack of env regs, though. Maslow's hierarchy of needs explains it better. People will only worry about high-end needs like clean air for later generations after they have secured their own survival with food and shelter. Why would I concern myself with my descendants' survival if I'm not sure of my own? And don't be mistaken that US MNC's in developing countries only serve to make the fat man in the corporate office fatter. It also provides much needed jobs for people in those countries. The developing country's governments love it, too. On the NAFTA issue, labor is a commodity, so it is part of trade. NAFTA was designed to allow nations to use their competitive advantages and spread the wealth. Overall, it is has been pretty successful. No, the US isnt the only country with an energy infrastructure. The US however is the country that I live in. Therefore, I am concerned with how WE plan to achieve the goals of this treaty without doing severe damage to our economy. I don't understand the European energy infrastructure at all. Given the fact that European economies are less market-based than US, I imagine the government could provide greater protection for them. And who says that just because they make a mistake we have to do the same? I certainly don't want their labor laws (look at how that affects their economy). Why do I want their environmental regs? I'm not saying we "spur on our own doom". I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to bow to political pressure without a strong understanding of the consequences. As I said, the regs need to be implemented, but they need to be done with care. I don't think the Kyoto treaty satisifies that condition. ------------------ **
TL, Lol! I didn't even notice the dual 3's...doesn't speak highly for me! 3rd world nations US companies like to soil generally do not have strong governments and are puppets for different interests...that contributes to this lack of regulation as well. I do not want to get into a NAFTA debate...suffice it to say it has done its purpose, but I am not in favor of such a purpose. Its relative, the MAI, luckily was not snuck through. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
Not only did the Senate not ratify Kyoto, the Byrd-Hagel resolution was passed by a vote of 95-0 back in '97. The resolution stated that the Senate would not ratify any treaty that significantly harms the US economy and excludes developing nations. This is hardly George Bush alone against the world. ------------------ [This message has been edited by grummett (edited March 30, 2001).]
Four things: 1) Those of you who have nothing to add save for sycophantic "GREAT POST, BOB!"-- please, shut the **** up. That gets really, really tiresome. 2) Jeff, where do you see Bush saying he "doesn't really care what Congress thinks"...? Perhaps you should read more carefully. I see him saying that Congress may or may not see things his way; that is hardly the same thing. He's not saying he doesn't care, he's saying that he expects that Congress may disagree with him. Sheesh. I know you don't like him, but let's lay off the bull****. 3) The Kyoto Treaty was signed by the US in 1997. Why didn't Clinton and Gore ever push for its ratification...? Could it be that they saw it as nothing more than an infeasible and largely symbolic act, one that they could sign and then stick in a desk drawer to be forgotten? I mean, Clinton didn't exactly put a lot of effort into making this treaty law. 4) Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? If we listened to what the rest of the world thought, we'd be... well, we'd be Al Gore's America. America is wholly unique. The input of people who don't live in America and don't understand the way our country works is of no value to me. ------------------ Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are! [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited March 30, 2001).]
Are you serious? ------------------ "I don't want to join a club that accepts people like me as members."
