Current Events

TOPICS:

2/20/05

"Adopt A Sniper", College GOP's 'Culture of Life' [4]

2/20/05

SUV Driver Burns Car With Cigarette [2]

2/19/05

2/19/05

Greenpeace beatdown [8]

2/19/05

new nipples needed

2/19/05

LokiTorrent's Logs Give MPAA Nothing but Hot Air

2/18/05

NEWS: The Strange Case of the Spy and the Politician's Daughter

2/18/05

Pursuing her natural constituency [7]

2/18/05

NEWS: NASA Scientists: "There is (Probably) Life on Mars" [2]

2/18/05

Kyoto protocol comes into force today [3]

2/18/05

Why dont we have national health care? [7]

2/18/05

The With Hunt of Lawrence Summers

2/18/05

NEWS: Negroponte Anointed "Intelligence Czar" [2]

2/18/05

2/18/05

Legos..............WTF IS IT? [4]

2/18/05

NEWS: North Korea Claims It has the Bomb [4]

2/18/05

E.U. Directive Limits Working Hours for Drivers.

2/18/05

Gonzales to fight war on "obscenity" [3]

2/17/05

Alan Keye's daughter speaks at pro-lgbtq rally [2]

2/17/05

Photos from Iraq [3]

2/17/05

NEWS: Yet Another Reason To Go Ahead And Get that iPod [2]

2/17/05

Advertise on your Pregnant Belly...

2/17/05

NEWS: Budget Cutbacks? Try Again

2/17/05

NEWS: The Bush Election Victory, Statistically Speaking [2]

2/17/05

A clear constitutional defense of gay rights

2/17/05

NEWS: Napster Gets Cracked

2/17/05

u want me 2 kill him?

2/17/05

NEWS: Who Do You Have to Blow to Get a Press Credential Around Here?

2/17/05

Why we have the 2nd amendment [11]

2/16/05

Senator Specter Announces He has Hodgkin's

2/16/05

Happy Birthday, Kim Jong Il!!

2/16/05

NEWS: Broadband Providers Blocking VoIP?

2/16/05

NEWS: It's Quiet... A Little TOO Quiet

2/16/05

NEWS: Guantanamo Britons Free In Weeks

2/16/05

NEWS: CNN Chief News Executive Eason Jordan Falls on Sword [3]

2/16/05

NEWS: Alan Keyes's Daughter Catches the "Liberal Queer"ness.

2/16/05

NEWS: "Not There, Don't Know, Trust Us"

2/16/05

2/15/05

Kerry Supports Bush's $81Bln Plan For Iraq [2]

2/15/05

The Killing Place

PAGE:

1 ...

276 | 277 | 278

... 487

retweet

Kyoto protocol comes into force today

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3

SomeOneUK

United Kingdom

June 2004

FEB 16, 2005 05:52 AM

The Kyoto protocol comes into force today

What are your opinions? A waste of time? Our saviour? A belated step in the right direction? An EU led anti-US conspiracy?

I'm with it being a small step in the right direction.

bones_708

Houston, TX

December 2004

FEB 16, 2005 06:06 AM

Waste of time.

peart

West Lafayette, IN

May 2003

FEB 16, 2005 06:24 AM

The wrong direction.

Akrasia

Ireland

August 2004

FEB 16, 2005 06:41 AM

it's both the wrong direction and a belated right step.
Kyoto is basically a cap and trading system when we need to fundamentally reform our economic and social systems to give a priority towards sustainable development and not just market growth, But at least the Kyoto agreement is an indication that world governments recognise the severity of the climate change issue. (well, the sane ones anyway)

mightytoaster

Chicago, IL

August 2004

FEB 16, 2005 07:21 AM

This article from New Scientist is the most even-handed thing I've ever seen on global warming. I really don't know if Kyoto is the right step, but considering the worst-case scenario (ie, we all die), I think it's time we do something. The critics of global warming might be right, but even if they are it's just not worth taking a chance. Are we willing to gamble the planet to make conservatives and big industry happy?

Shal

Los Angeles, CA

October 2002

FEB 16, 2005 07:31 AM

bones_708 said:
Waste of time.

Why? Facts, figures, backup information please.

Shal

Los Angeles, CA

October 2002

FEB 16, 2005 07:31 AM

peart said:
The wrong direction.

Why? Facts, figures, backup information please.

bones_708

Houston, TX

December 2004

FEB 16, 2005 07:40 AM

bones_708 said:
Waste of time.

Why? Facts, figures, backup information please.

He asked, I answered, thats what I think. This is a bit of duplication on threads and I'm not going to go over the whole damn thing again. In basic, the Protocol is for CO2, is too expensive for the gain, doesn't have enough backing world wide.

piracy

Whitwell, TN

January 2004

FEB 16, 2005 08:30 AM

the environment is so fucking unpopular, maybe we should just get rid of it..

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

FEB 16, 2005 09:01 AM

We shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we can destroy the environment.

The Earth will kill us off before allowing such a thing.

Snottlebocket

Netherlands

March 2004

FEB 16, 2005 09:11 AM

i wish the us would join considering they are by far the largest pollutor in the world.

Stiles

Oakland, CA

November 2002

FEB 16, 2005 09:11 AM

skankzor said:
We shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we can destroy the environment.

The Earth will kill us off before allowing such a thing.

Ummm, what?

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA

February 2003

FEB 16, 2005 09:13 AM

skankzor said:
We shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we can destroy the environment.

The Earth will kill us off before allowing such a thing.

You just shot yourself in the ass.

DrStinkypants

Saint Paul, MN

October 2002

FEB 16, 2005 09:19 AM

skankzor said:
We shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we can destroy the environment.

The Earth will kill us off before allowing such a thing.

Thats this thing that irks me about all the save the earth bullshit. the earth is gonna be just fine.

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA

February 2003

FEB 16, 2005 09:22 AM

DrStinkypants said:

skankzor said:
We shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we can destroy the environment.

The Earth will kill us off before allowing such a thing.

Thats this thing that irks me about all the save the earth bullshit. the earth is gonna be just fine.

Think about it a little bit more and show me where he just shot him self in the ass.

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

FEB 16, 2005 09:46 AM

DrStinkypants said:

skankzor said:
We shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we can destroy the environment.

The Earth will kill us off before allowing such a thing.

Thats this thing that irks me about all the save the earth bullshit. the earth is gonna be just fine.

Think about it a little bit more and show me where he just shot him self in the ass.

Why don't you just cut to the chase? Environmentalism that focuses on "Saving the Planet" or whatever is misguided, and it's no wonder it doesn't resonate with a larger audience. The issue is human survival and maintaining a certain quality of life - until Environmentalists correctly identify that as the real issue, they'll continue to fail on the whole.

People don't give a fuck about the planet, and they don't give a fuck about ecology when it comes down to it. They do care whether gas is $5 vs. $1 a gallon, and they care about whether they can go outside without a gas mask on or not. But the Earth? Whales? Who gives a shit?

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

FEB 16, 2005 10:38 AM

Stiles said:

skankzor said:
We shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we can destroy the environment.

The Earth will kill us off before allowing such a thing.

Ummm, what?

We really can't do any sort of long term damage to the planet. Even if we set off all our nukes at once, the Earth wouldn't blink. We have only been on the earth for an incredibly short time.

The Earth isn't in any danger from our actions. We are. If we fuck the environment, we are only digging our own graves. Like Idjiit said, you need to put it in that perspective before people will really understand what is at stake.

Akrasia

Ireland

August 2004

FEB 16, 2005 12:06 PM

The planet we inhabit is more than just the rock floating in space, our environment includes the millions of diverse species of lifeforms that we share this rock with and these are being threatened by our actions right now as we speak.

handle

I'm lost

July 2003

FEB 16, 2005 12:12 PM

Kyoto. The anagram lover's Tokyo

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

FEB 16, 2005 12:22 PM

Idjiit said:
People don't give a fuck about the planet, and they don't give a fuck about ecology when it comes down to it. They do care whether gas is $5 vs. $1 a gallon, and they care about whether they can go outside without a gas mask on or not. But the Earth? Whales? Who gives a shit?

if you look at polls, most people (usually in the healthy 75% range) do care about the environment and they do want something done about global warming.

the problem is that those values come in conflict with their role as consumers, who want to pay the lowest price for the best possible services.

this is where technology and better policy decisions come into play. it's really not a hard problem to solve; we just don't have grownups in the US government who are willing to deal with it. that will change over the next few years, though.

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

FEB 16, 2005 12:29 PM

Define "care for the environment", s5. I'm not talking about a vague "I don't like brown air" sentiment, I'm talking about people who are concerned that we're irreparably fucking up fragile ecosystems and pissing away unrenewable resources. The point is that the Environmentalist movement in general hasn't been able to really get the public awareness on their side in a major way. In San Francisco? Sure. But travel the country and talk to working-class people and you'll see a different picture.

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

FEB 16, 2005 12:33 PM

bones_708 said:
Waste of time.

Why? Facts, figures, backup information please.

last time he was pressed, he posted this:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

when i showed him the proof that the petition was fraudulent and distributed by a fake science organization who were best known for publishing conspiracy books like their classic Nuclear War Survival Skills, he ignored the post and had nothing to say about it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

he also based his position on the solar output model of climate, even though solar output has been decreasing in recent decades, as surface temperature has been rising sharply.

what i've discovered about most "skeptics" of global warming is that their knowledge of the science always contains gaping holes. which i don't blame them for. there's been a massive disinformation campaign over the last few years by people who aren't scientists, and i really can't fault anyone for being confused.

still, people who are confused and have the wrong information have a responsibility to either read more, or to stop spreading their confusion to others.

this quote is right on target:

Another reason is that there is a well-funded industry whose purpose is to reassure us, and it is granted constant access to the media. We flatter its practitioners with the label "skeptics". If this is what they were, they would be welcome. Skepticism (the Latin word means "inquiring" or "reflective") is the means by which science advances. Without it we would still be rubbing sticks together. But most of those we call skeptics are nothing of the kind. They are PR people, the loyalists of Exxon Mobil (by whom most of them are paid), commissioned to begin with a conclusion and then devise arguments to justify it. Their presence on outlets such as the BBC's Today program might be less objectionable if, every time AIDS was discussed, someone was asked to argue that it is not caused by HIV, or, every time a rocket goes into orbit, the Flat Earth Society was invited to explain that it could not possibly have happened. As it is, our most respected media outlets give Exxon Mobil what it has paid for: they create the impression that a significant scientific debate exists when it does not.

[Edited on Feb 16, 2005 by s5]

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

FEB 16, 2005 12:39 PM

Idjiit said:
Define "care for the environment", s5. I'm not talking about a vague "I don't like brown air" sentiment, I'm talking about people who are concerned that we're irreparably fucking up fragile ecosystems and pissing away unrenewable resources. The point is that the Environmentalist movement in general hasn't been able to really get the public awareness on their side in a major way. In San Francisco? Sure. But travel the country and talk to working-class people and you'll see a different picture.

that's what polling organizations are for.

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewSpeech&Content_id=1519

What do the American people think about this issue? A poll conducted in May 2004 for the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies found that 70 percent of Americans believe that global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious problem. In contrast, only 20 percent of the 1000 adults polled believed that global warming does not represent a serious issue. Our poll indicates that most people know about global warming. They have serious concerns about the issue, and they want public officials to address it and other environmental issues. said Dan Esty, Director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. The poll also found that 55 percent of Americans believe that the scientific evidence is in with regard to global warming and climate change.

These results are consistent with earlier polls conducted.

According to a poll conducted by Zogby International from October 15th through October 20th of 2003, 79 percent of Americans agree that the United States should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The poll of 1200 American adults nationwide found that 75 percent responded positively to the following question, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have proposed legislation to begin addressing global warming. If enacted, the bill would require major industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, these industries would be required to reduce emissions to years 2000 levels within the next seven years. How do you feel about this proposal? Additionally, 67 percent agree that requiring major industries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can improve the environment without harming the economy.

A Gallup Organization poll of 1003 adults conducted in March through May of 2003 found that 75 percent of respondents favor imposing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

i've read similar results on pollingreport.com. you can go there if you don't believe me or john mccain.

but, while it's true that most people tend to favor environmental causes, they tend to rate them towards the bottom on their list of political concerns. there are two possible conclusions to draw here: (1) people have other concerns, but they would be happy if something were done about it. (2) there hasn't been the proper leadership to frame the issue and rally the public around it.

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK

August 2002

FEB 16, 2005 12:42 PM

I'd love to see the Democrats drop gun-control and try to make inroads with the outdoors sports community with this. What deer hunter or fisherman wants to see his sport disappear, or not be able to eat what he catches?

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

FEB 16, 2005 12:44 PM

Idjiit said:
Define "care for the environment", s5. I'm not talking about a vague "I don't like brown air" sentiment, I'm talking about people who are concerned that we're irreparably fucking up fragile ecosystems and pissing away unrenewable resources. The point is that the Environmentalist movement in general hasn't been able to really get the public awareness on their side in a major way. In San Francisco? Sure. But travel the country and talk to working-class people and you'll see a different picture.

People "care" about the environment because they don't have to do anything to care about the environment.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3