Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Thank god the President listened to those who told him that treaty was based on junk science.  The entire environmental movement is based on junk science, and trillions of dollars have been wasted by the entire world because of it.

These weren't the same people who gave him such sage economic advice was it? 

Quoting Rander:

Quote:
Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Want to save money & help free us from foreign oil try.

1. Slow down. Don't exceed the speed limit.
2. Check your tires, monthly
3. Get a yearly tune up
4. Combine trips
5. Purchase more fuel efficient autos
6. etc etc.

No, I'm not american, but I can tell you the best way by far to cut down on your oil-consumption (short of selling the car):

Forget about automatic transmission! If just 90% of the cars in america had a manual transmission instead of automatic, you would save roughly the amount of oil in the alaska pipeline every year!

So why do almost all americans have a car with automatic transmission? Well, I guess it (once again) comes down to laziness. The manual transmission also makes it a whole lot easier to control the car in snowy and icy conditions - by watching the videos with americans driving in such weather, it is more than clear that they have absolutely no clue what they're doing! And yes, I know that this probably applies mostly yo people in New York or such places, that doesn't get snow every year...

But, if you do have to keep your automatic transmission, you can still do your part in saving fuel: Switch it to neutral when you're stopped at a red light or such. The engine will then just idle, using less gas than it does when it is actually trying to move the car, but can't, since you're still pushing the brake...

Actually, that isn't the case.  The average modern computer controlled 4 or 5 speed auto transmission is far more efficient than the average stick driver.  Couple that with computer controlled fuel injection and cruise control and no manual shift setup can even come close.  I like a stick, but the reasons why have nothing to do with fuel economy.

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting whispering:

Quote:

I think you missed my point, China is not a big polluter by capita not even by a long shot. My point was that since you already have you're living standrad, and the chinese are building it. You are currently denying the right of the luxuries you yourself enjoy. If a chinese man produces 4 times less pollution then you do (by statistics) then imagine what you would have to do to get to the same level? You cant ask more then you yourself are giving, in my opinion.

I understood your point perfectly the problem is, you missed mine.  The 'per capita' spin is just that, spin...and extremely short sighted.

Because China is 'less developed', China is allowed to pursue a more flexible model for rapid economic development.  Some estimates claim that China's per capita emissions of carbon dioxide will remain below US levels until at least 2025.  As it sits right now, China won't tighten environmental regulations or reduce emissions until then.

Previous estimates, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say the region that includes China will see a 2.5 to 5 percent annual increase in CO2 emissions between 2004 and 2010. A new UC analysis puts that annual growth rate for China to at least 11 percent for the same time period.

From this article:
The researchers' most conservative forecast predicts that by 2010, there will be an increase of 600 million metric tons of carbon emissions in China over the country's levels in 2000. This growth from China alone would dramatically overshadow the 116 million metric tons of carbon emissions reductions pledged by all the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol.

Do you see my point now?  What good is the Kyoto Protocol if it allows this?  Allowing them to negate the reduction pledged by all the developed countries is one thing, but to allow them to completely tip the scales in the opposite direction is beyond idiotic.

As I said, if the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, there is a better way.  The technology exists.  Allowing China to hide behind 'per capita' statistics is short sighted and only serves to make the situation worse.  But that isn't a very 'PC' point of view, now is it?

you still seem to be missing the point. China sees no reason to go back into 19th century economy so that they deprive their citizens of all the luxuries that we have built up and now enjoy over the past 100 years.

And telling them to do it slowly over a 100 years seems for some strange reason to be unacceptable to them.

And why should ANY nation try and meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol when the worlds richest nation won't sign off on the Treaty. And instead wants to ignore all environemental issues (so they keep the US oil companies happy)

You don't know what you're talking about.  We aren't going to sign off on junk science just because it makes everybody "feel good" about themselves.  First, there is no hard scientific evidence that mankind can affect climate, one way or the other.  None.  Second, even is we could, global climate cycles are measured in hundreds and thousands of years at a minimum, and we've only been keeping records for about 120 years or so.  We don't have enough information to make a reliable decision in either direction.  Third, global climate change theory can't explain that the earth is not only not getting warmer but is currently in a cooling phase.  Nor does it take into account the effect of the sun on global temperature and weather conditions.

So, you want to run around like Chicken Little screaming about how the sky is falling, be my guest.  But don't expect me (or the US) to pay for the privilege.

Author, Author!!!!

Skip

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
By the way, perhaps you saw the news a few days ago saying that over 31,000 climate scientists and professionals have come out against humans being the cause of global warming and all this envirmental mumbo jumbo propogated by Al Gore and the rest of the fanatics.

From the petition's own website:

Quote:
The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

They don't sound to me like people who have done specific research into climate change and global warming.
I'm happier listening to the few scientists who are willing to stand up and say "this is what's happening and these are the reasons why I believe this is happening" than 31,000 names on a list that provide no reasoning why they believe that.

Are you kidding me?

They ARE using the quote feature right. Sorry if it hurts you terribly to scroll down a little.

Quoting chibul:

Quote:

They ARE using the quote feature right. Sorry if it hurts you terribly to scroll down a little.

It is not only the scrolling.
1. It helps to understand what precisely your refer to. Sometimes comments to quotes belong to a statement which is for example in the middle of the text. If your read the comment you can get the impression that it belongs to a statement at the end of text and understand it wrong.
2. Waste of bandwidth. Not every person in the world have broadband internet access and even if you have it does not mean that it is really fast.

Does it really matter who's right, if "junk science" can free me from the kind of energy i have to use, i'm all for it. Finding and producing more domestic gas and oil is not the answer. I want to be free from corporate and government greed. The Sun is free to everyone. Governments can't tax it, corporations can't bottle it, yes i know, at the moment the solar cells available aren't very efficient, but that's about to change. Soon solar cells will be like a roll of wall paper, cheap and 10 times more efficient, rechargeable batteries are ready, they are not like the batteries of the 70's, just think how heavy your cell phone would be if that were so.

I hope the next car i buy will be off the grid, with solar cells for a roof, an electric engine about twice the size of a refrigerator, and battery power enough for 300 miles of travel if the sun isn't shining, and when my car is sitting in a parking lot while i'm at work i will be able to pluge into the grid and sell the energy it makes. It's a dream i have

I wish companies would stop trying to make a new fuel out of food, it takes to much energy just to make it, though we will need these fuels, our waste products, trash, garbage, and the like is where we should be finding these new fuels. I think that in the future we will be mining landfills, for the resources to be found there, some places are already sucking the methane out.

The cars that are being made now saddens me, hybrids have to be the stupidest of them, i don't care if they get 100 miles to the gallon, they still need a fuel to run them. Fuelcells cars is another one of these, hopefully the cost will stay high so we want make these things, natural gas cars are a little better but you still need to fill it up.