Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 03, 2007 06:17 PM

More than 100 US mayors are attending a summit in the western city of Seattle to share and develop policies aimed at tackling climate change.

The meeting's host is Seattle mayor Greg Nickels.


"Our federal government has ignored the problem," Greg Nickels said.



The report emphasises the non-partisan nature of the meeting.


Democratic and Republican mayors seem to have decided the need to act on global warming is urgent - or at least the need to show their voters they are taking an interest, our reporter adds.




In a linked article, Nickels comments that


If Seattle were doing this work alone, it would be a symbolic gesture. But the fact that 400 other cities are working together to reduce emissions means that we are making a real difference for the future of our planet.



Seattle just went to the top of my "American cities" list.

Tallboy66

Tallboy66

Chicago, IL
January 2005

NOV 03, 2007 09:54 PM

I just watched the Documentary/movie on the electric car and how it was "killed", unless these ideas make money or bring in businees most won't happen.

Anyway unless someone DOES something about it talking will do nothing, that is one of my beefs with the Democratic party is how they talk about what they should be doing.


SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 04, 2007 05:26 AM

Tallboy66 said:
I just watched the Documentary/movie on the electric car and how it was "killed", unless these ideas make money or bring in businees most won't happen.

Anyway unless someone DOES something about it talking will do nothing, that is one of my beefs with the Democratic party is how they talk about what they should be doing.



Looking back at it, I mistitled the thread. The title should have been
"American cities are acting on climate change, despite the government", or something of the sort.

So yes, they are doing something about it.

Illustrative quotes from the two articles:


Seattle says it has exceeded Kyoto goals itself, cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 8% below 1990 levels.




In Seattle, we are already seeing a growing green economy create jobs and economic opportunities in fields such as energy, construction and transportation.




Across the country, cities are trying new approaches to reducing emissions. They have focused on cleaner electricity production, reducing energy consumption in buildings and encouraging clean-burning cars and transportation.

If an idea works well, it can be quickly adopted by other cities. If it fails, others can avoid the mistake.



(IMHO, that's a really good sign; intelligent experimentation.)



If Seattle were doing this work alone, it would be a symbolic gesture. But the fact that 400 other cities are working together to reduce emissions means that we are making a real difference for the future of our planet.

Tallboy66

Tallboy66

Chicago, IL
January 2005

NOV 07, 2007 09:51 PM

It's a good start, but you know when you have a hole in your boat and have to scoop out water faster than it comes in, it's like that.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 08, 2007 04:28 PM

Tallboy66 said:
It's a good start, but you know when you have a hole in your boat and have to scoop out water faster than it comes in, it's like that.



Indeed. Complain to the captain.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

NOV 08, 2007 04:38 PM

Tallboy66 said:
It's a good start, but you know when you have a hole in your boat and have to scoop out water faster than it comes in, it's like that.



Yep. And the more people helping you scoop water, the more likely you are to get the water out faster than it's coming in (or at least, the more time you have to wait for someone to figure out a way to plug the hole).

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 09, 2007 05:33 PM

bean said:

Tallboy66 said:
It's a good start, but you know when you have a hole in your boat and have to scoop out water faster than it comes in, it's like that.



Yep. And the more people helping you scoop water, the more likely you are to get the water out faster than it's coming in (or at least, the more time you have to wait for someone to figure out a way to plug the hole).



Kudos for a much more constructive reply than I could manage at the time...

Tallboy66

Tallboy66

Chicago, IL
January 2005

NOV 09, 2007 10:39 PM

SockPuppet said:

bean said:

Tallboy66 said:
It's a good start, but you know when you have a hole in your boat and have to scoop out water faster than it comes in, it's like that.



Yep. And the more people helping you scoop water, the more likely you are to get the water out faster than it's coming in (or at least, the more time you have to wait for someone to figure out a way to plug the hole).



Kudos for a much more constructive reply than I could manage at the time...



I know I'm a little dour at times but our captain, Bushy boy really has other things on his mind than environmental issues.
Anyway I'm sure that the meeting will be productive overall, Chicago is a great example of how "green" a city can become even with it's industrial background, Hell even Detroit is re-developing and greening up the downtown riverfront area.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 10, 2007 03:05 PM

Tallboy66 said:

SockPuppet said:

bean said:

Tallboy66 said:
It's a good start, but you know when you have a hole in your boat and have to scoop out water faster than it comes in, it's like that.



Yep. And the more people helping you scoop water, the more likely you are to get the water out faster than it's coming in (or at least, the more time you have to wait for someone to figure out a way to plug the hole).



Kudos for a much more constructive reply than I could manage at the time...



I know I'm a little dour at times but our captain, Bushy boy really has other things on his mind than environmental issues.



That would be why he's put time and effort into stuffing the EPA with White House censors and industrial mouthpieces, then?

Priapos

priapos

San Angelo, TX
October 2005

NOV 11, 2007 09:26 AM

If we ignore the Federal Government, maybe they'll go away.

Tallboy66

Tallboy66

Chicago, IL
January 2005

NOV 12, 2007 11:58 PM

SockPuppet said:

Tallboy66 said:

SockPuppet said:

bean said:

Tallboy66 said:
It's a good start, but you know when you have a hole in your boat and have to scoop out water faster than it comes in, it's like that.



Yep. And the more people helping you scoop water, the more likely you are to get the water out faster than it's coming in (or at least, the more time you have to wait for someone to figure out a way to plug the hole).



Kudos for a much more constructive reply than I could manage at the time...


'
I know I'm a little dour at times but our captain, Bushy boy really has other things on his mind than environmental issues.



That would be why he's put time and effort into stuffing the EPA with White House censors and industrial mouthpieces, then?



He's a straight shootin' Texas boy.
His money is big oil and he (no racism intended) also has the Mexican support who tend to be conservative as well.

In another side topic, Rush Limbaugh was talking about how even if we are to have hybrids, electric,hydrogen or even solar powered cars that the big time executives,rich,upper class would still have there Hummers and power boats Etc... and I thought how is this different than driving a 10 year old car next to a 2008 Benz?
So if we go towards something better for the environment, less costly (in the long run) that we will do without the (qoute) "creature comforts" that the executives, upper class and wealthy will have.

Also according to the movie "Who killed the electric car" the thinking is being smart about energy use, using alternatives would lead America to live like Europeans eeek what with there small cars, cold apartments, high fuel costs.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

I'm bordering on a rant so I'm stopping now.

Volkov

Volkov

San Antonio, TX
OLD SKOOL

NOV 13, 2007 10:17 AM

there was a radio interview with the Austin mayor the other day about his visit to this. It sounded pretty interesting. There was a lot of the usual key note speaker(Bill Clinton and Gore)/polite applause/rubber chicken dinner type bullshit that normally goes along with these conventions. There were also some fairly animated and productive meeting sessions with mayors sharing various ideas. It sounded like transportation was a top topic; smart car rental stations, improved mass transit, switching government vehicles to hybrids and ethanol...that sort of thing. also water and power useage and access to green energy producers.

I suspend my cynicism for a bit and wonder how things might improve, especially in larger urban areas, if steps are taken by local government leadership without waiting for it to roll downhill from the federal politicians who have to find their way out of whomever's pocket they happen to be in.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

NOV 13, 2007 12:03 PM

Volkov said:
there was a radio interview with the Austin mayor the other day about his visit to this. It sounded pretty interesting. There was a lot of the usual key note speaker(Bill Clinton and Gore)/polite applause/rubber chicken dinner type bullshit that normally goes along with these conventions. There were also some fairly animated and productive meeting sessions with mayors sharing various ideas. It sounded like transportation was a top topic; smart car rental stations, improved mass transit, switching government vehicles to hybrids and ethanol...that sort of thing. also water and power useage and access to green energy producers.

I suspend my cynicism for a bit and wonder how things might improve, especially in larger urban areas, if steps are taken by local government leadership without waiting for it to roll downhill from the federal politicians who have to find their way out of whomever's pocket they happen to be in.


Almost 20 years ago Los Angeles started cleaning up it's own local ordinances and moving public transportation to clean fuels. The air here is still some of the dirtiest in the country, but it has improved immensely from back then. Anecdotally, I can remember when, as a child, summers meant daily smog alerts and bright red skies at sunset (and I mean, the entire sky would be red) because of all the particles in the air. This doesn't happen anymore. At all. Statistically, this has been measured and the observation is supported by looking at the data. In 1990 there were 42 stage 1 smog alerts. In 2000 there were none. There's still a long way to go, and right now the big threat is shipping and trucking, which is expected to quadruple from already high rates in the coming years, but this is proof that local ordinances can improve local health, and if you look at satellite photos of pollutant distribution, it's easy to see how local efforts in a few areas could cut down heavily on certain types of pollutants worldwide.

That said, we're not going to be able to have any meaningful impact on anything worldwide unless both China and the US are on board with reducing pollution. That doesn't mean we have to wait for the Federal Government to act, but the Feds have to negotiate clean air standards with China in order to make a real impact.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 13, 2007 02:41 PM

Tallboy66 said:

SockPuppet said:

Tallboy66 said:

SockPuppet said:

bean said:

Tallboy66 said:
It's a good start, but you know when you have a hole in your boat and have to scoop out water faster than it comes in, it's like that.



Yep. And the more people helping you scoop water, the more likely you are to get the water out faster than it's coming in (or at least, the more time you have to wait for someone to figure out a way to plug the hole).



Kudos for a much more constructive reply than I could manage at the time...


'
I know I'm a little dour at times but our captain, Bushy boy really has other things on his mind than environmental issues.



That would be why he's put time and effort into stuffing the EPA with White House censors and industrial mouthpieces, then?



He's a straight shootin' Texas boy.
His money is big oil and he (no racism intended) also has the Mexican support who tend to be conservative as well.



You say that as if it's excusable. What he's done is
a) actively dishonest ("straight shootin'", my arse);
b) stupid - he seems to think that ignoring bad news will make it go away;
c) bad for America and Americans.


In another side topic, Rush Limbaugh was talking about how even if we are to have hybrids, electric,hydrogen or even solar powered cars that the big time executives,rich,upper class would still have there Hummers and power boats Etc... and I thought how is this different than driving a 10 year old car next to a 2008 Benz?
So if we go towards something better for the environment, less costly (in the long run) that we will do without the (qoute) "creature comforts" that the executives, upper class and wealthy will have.

Also according to the movie "Who killed the electric car" the thinking is being smart about energy use, using alternatives would lead America to live like Europeans eeek what with there small cars, cold apartments, high fuel costs.



I'm glad to see Mr Limbaugh is beginning to catch on. The rich will no doubt continue to use energy at an astonishing rate. That's what being rich means; you can do stuff nobody else can afford. What has that to do with what's good for the population in general? Nothing.


SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 13, 2007 02:47 PM

bean said:

Volkov said:
there was a radio interview with the Austin mayor the other day about his visit to this. It sounded pretty interesting. There was a lot of the usual key note speaker(Bill Clinton and Gore)/polite applause/rubber chicken dinner type bullshit that normally goes along with these conventions. There were also some fairly animated and productive meeting sessions with mayors sharing various ideas. It sounded like transportation was a top topic; smart car rental stations, improved mass transit, switching government vehicles to hybrids and ethanol...that sort of thing. also water and power useage and access to green energy producers.

I suspend my cynicism for a bit and wonder how things might improve, especially in larger urban areas, if steps are taken by local government leadership without waiting for it to roll downhill from the federal politicians who have to find their way out of whomever's pocket they happen to be in.


Almost 20 years ago Los Angeles started cleaning up it's own local ordinances and moving public transportation to clean fuels. The air here is still some of the dirtiest in the country, but it has improved immensely from back then. Anecdotally, I can remember when, as a child, summers meant daily smog alerts and bright red skies at sunset (and I mean, the entire sky would be red) because of all the particles in the air. This doesn't happen anymore. At all. Statistically, this has been measured and the observation is supported by looking at the data. In 1990 there were 42 stage 1 smog alerts. In 2000 there were none. There's still a long way to go, and right now the big threat is shipping and trucking, which is expected to quadruple from already high rates in the coming years, but this is proof that local ordinances can improve local health, and if you look at satellite photos of pollutant distribution, it's easy to see how local efforts in a few areas could cut down heavily on certain types of pollutants worldwide.

That said, we're not going to be able to have any meaningful impact on anything worldwide unless both China and the US are on board with reducing pollution. That doesn't mean we have to wait for the Federal Government to act, but the Feds have to negotiate clean air standards with China in order to make a real impact.



Yes; which means that the Feds have to look as if they are taking it seriously; which means actually taking some real action, at the Federal level.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

NOV 13, 2007 03:34 PM

SockPuppet said:

bean said:
Almost 20 years ago Los Angeles started cleaning up it's own local ordinances and moving public transportation to clean fuels. The air here is still some of the dirtiest in the country, but it has improved immensely from back then. Anecdotally, I can remember when, as a child, summers meant daily smog alerts and bright red skies at sunset (and I mean, the entire sky would be red) because of all the particles in the air. This doesn't happen anymore. At all. Statistically, this has been measured and the observation is supported by looking at the data. In 1990 there were 42 stage 1 smog alerts. In 2000 there were none. There's still a long way to go, and right now the big threat is shipping and trucking, which is expected to quadruple from already high rates in the coming years, but this is proof that local ordinances can improve local health, and if you look at satellite photos of pollutant distribution, it's easy to see how local efforts in a few areas could cut down heavily on certain types of pollutants worldwide.

That said, we're not going to be able to have any meaningful impact on anything worldwide unless both China and the US are on board with reducing pollution. That doesn't mean we have to wait for the Federal Government to act, but the Feds have to negotiate clean air standards with China in order to make a real impact.



Yes; which means that the Feds have to look as if they are taking it seriously; which means actually taking some real action, at the Federal level.



I think that's a gross oversimplification of what I said. My point was that local action can produce meaningful, noticeable results. Those results are local results, however they should not be ignored simply because they don't provide a substantial worldwide improvement. I'll happily take a reduced incidence of bronchitis, asthma, and lung, skin, and eye infections even if it doesn't mean we're turning back the clock on global climate change.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 13, 2007 03:57 PM

bean said:

SockPuppet said:

bean said:
Almost 20 years ago Los Angeles started cleaning up it's own local ordinances and moving public transportation to clean fuels. The air here is still some of the dirtiest in the country, but it has improved immensely from back then. Anecdotally, I can remember when, as a child, summers meant daily smog alerts and bright red skies at sunset (and I mean, the entire sky would be red) because of all the particles in the air. This doesn't happen anymore. At all. Statistically, this has been measured and the observation is supported by looking at the data. In 1990 there were 42 stage 1 smog alerts. In 2000 there were none. There's still a long way to go, and right now the big threat is shipping and trucking, which is expected to quadruple from already high rates in the coming years, but this is proof that local ordinances can improve local health, and if you look at satellite photos of pollutant distribution, it's easy to see how local efforts in a few areas could cut down heavily on certain types of pollutants worldwide.

That said, we're not going to be able to have any meaningful impact on anything worldwide unless both China and the US are on board with reducing pollution. That doesn't mean we have to wait for the Federal Government to act, but the Feds have to negotiate clean air standards with China in order to make a real impact.



Yes; which means that the Feds have to look as if they are taking it seriously; which means actually taking some real action, at the Federal level.



I think that's a gross oversimplification of what I said. My point was that local action can produce meaningful, noticeable results. Those results are local results, however they should not be ignored simply because they don't provide a substantial worldwide improvement. I'll happily take a reduced incidence of bronchitis, asthma, and lung, skin, and eye infections even if it doesn't mean we're turning back the clock on global climate change.



I agree entirely, and I apologise for my poor quoting. Local results are worthwhile in their own right, absolutely.
However, getting the Chinese to pay attention will require Washington to do something concrete, as well.

Priapos

priapos

San Angelo, TX
October 2005

NOV 13, 2007 03:59 PM

Local research is needed to predict the effect of greenhouse gases..

Individual responsibility translates well to local responsibility, but less well as the collective entity gets larger.

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

NOV 13, 2007 07:00 PM

Priapos said:
Local research is needed to predict the effect of greenhouse gases..

Individual responsibility translates well to local responsibility, but less well as the collective entity gets larger.



I agree with the individual responsibility part. My biggest complaint is that the local government seems to find ways to repeatedly make money off individuals doing things to reduce emissions.

Cuyahoga county in Ohio has mandatory emissions testing, which i don't mind, i keep my truck in prime running condition, my emissions aren't null, but they're very satisfactory for a 14 year old truck, i've actually rolled up, passed my test, while cars 13 years newer than mine fail.

I don't mind the testing, i think it should be mandatory in all counties. What i mind is the way the testing is performed. It's a government agency and it's just run horribly bad. Organization and record keeping are just horrible. The last time i went i had to argue that my truck existed so that i could get the testing completed in order to renew my plates.

In the summertime, my truck gets parked for the most part, and i ride my motorcycle that gets close to 40 Mpg and puts out a helluva lot less emissions than my truck. It's the closest thing to green that i can afford.

Ohio tried to pass a law that said motorcycles should be tested for emissions, and the charge for the test would be the same as the test for vehicles. That's $20 bucks every year for my truck, and $20 bucks for my bike, for a test that is normally poorly executed.

I wouldn't mind having my motorcycle tested, but here comes my complaint. I do everything i can to keep my truck and my motorcycle in top running condition, and in the meantime i watch City Trucks, City equipment, City transportation, Power trucks and public transportation belch out black smoke, leak oil, have rags as gas caps and just be poorly maintained. They're exempt because they are city vehicles.

The individuals can make a difference, but the local government needs to step up and start making the same changes that the individuals are, or it's just going to plateau out.

Like i said, i don't mind putting forth the effort, but it would be really nice to see my local government step up to the plate and do what Seattle's is trying to do.

Tallboy66

Tallboy66

Chicago, IL
January 2005

NOV 14, 2007 12:03 AM

I certainly wasn't making excuses for Bush just saying to complain is pointless, action,education changing habits is better.

Rush was saying in a kind of "why bother" type tone and seeming to try to convince his listeners (which already love eating his drivel) that it's a futile effort to do this so just carry on, maintain the status quo.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 14, 2007 03:02 AM

Tallboy66 said:
I certainly wasn't making excuses for Bush just saying to complain is pointless, action,education changing habits is better.

Rush was saying in a kind of "why bother" type tone and seeming to try to convince his listeners (which already love eating his drivel) that it's a futile effort to do this so just carry on, maintain the status quo.



I take your point, but I do think complaining is a necessary first part of a useful cycle. Stoic silence only lets the Limbaughs ignore the problem altogether. Him putting effort into decrying the problem is at least a recognition that people are concerned by it. (That attitude of his may yet come back to haunt him; isn't it funny that he isn't worried that lots of poor gun owners will decide to act against the ruling class?)


Priapos

priapos

San Angelo, TX
October 2005

NOV 14, 2007 04:51 AM

Rich people needn't worry that the poor will kill them en masse. They can easily hire other poor people to defend them.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 14, 2007 07:25 PM

Priapos said:
Rich people needn't worry that the poor will kill them en masse. They can easily hire other poor people to defend them.



That does not always work out that way tho.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 15, 2007 02:56 PM

Colinism said:

Priapos said:
Rich people needn't worry that the poor will kill them en masse. They can easily hire other poor people to defend them.



That does not always work out that way tho.



But, but but... what's the point of being rich then???

</irony>

Priapos

priapos

San Angelo, TX
October 2005

NOV 15, 2007 04:39 PM

True enough. Ideology "wins" over practicality most times. See Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

Back to the topic though, it sounds great to use waste to generate energy rather that vice versa. The promoters will need something compelling to counter that Hindenburg argument, though. It doesn't have to make sense if it appeals viscerally. See above.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next