> >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> >
> >
> > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>
> Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
>
>
> Matt
>

I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
against the US.

It requires one to believe that there is a fixed amount of wealth and
limited resources that must go around fairly to everyone, and that the US
wants an unfair share of it. This is completely false. The fact is that
wealth is created by private and free enterprise and the US has always been
(hopefully will continue to be) about free enterprise. It isn't a measure
of greed or waste, but of entrepreneurialism and achievement.

Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
emissions and auto emissions. The tax the US places on it's own economy in
striving for clean air and clean water is enormous. Finding newer
technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
the world economy.

And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
world from despotism... from the ***** and from the Communists. And now
from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than ***** or Communists
because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.

 

> >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> >
> >
> > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>
> Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
>
>
> Matt
>

I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
against the US.

It requires one to believe that there is a fixed amount of wealth and
limited resources that must go around fairly to everyone, and that the US
wants an unfair share of it. This is completely false. The fact is that
wealth is created by private and free enterprise and the US has always been
(hopefully will continue to be) about free enterprise. It isn't a measure
of greed or waste, but of entrepreneurialism and achievement.

Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
emissions and auto emissions. The tax the US places on it's own economy in
striving for clean air and clean water is enormous. Finding newer
technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
the world economy.

And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
world from despotism... from the ***** and from the Communists. And now
from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than ***** or Communists
because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.

 

> >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> >
> >
> > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>
> Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
>
>
> Matt
>

I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
against the US.

It requires one to believe that there is a fixed amount of wealth and
limited resources that must go around fairly to everyone, and that the US
wants an unfair share of it. This is completely false. The fact is that
wealth is created by private and free enterprise and the US has always been
(hopefully will continue to be) about free enterprise. It isn't a measure
of greed or waste, but of entrepreneurialism and achievement.

Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
emissions and auto emissions. The tax the US places on it's own economy in
striving for clean air and clean water is enormous. Finding newer
technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
the world economy.

And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
world from despotism... from the ***** and from the Communists. And now
from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than ***** or Communists
because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.

 

st3ph3nm wrote:

>
>
> Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
> rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
> people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
> developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
> going to be a dramatic improvement.

Aw for the love of....

Don't you GET it? That is EXACTLY what's been going on for decades.
Which countries even HAVE emissions standards? The developed ones, often
led by the US. Which countries first implemented the ban on CFCs? The
developed ones, led by the US. Which countries even think about
efficiency and pour billions of reserach dollars into improved
efficiency? The developed ones.

Yes, the "80/20" rule is there, simply because countless people in the
UN-developed nations live in abject poverty and their only atmospheric
emissions come from campfires and composting excrement. Pushing the
devloped countries back to THAT level is not forward progress for
anyone, not even those in poverty in the un-developed countries.

And yet Kyoto is *STUPID* enough to punish the economies of the
developed nations, even though they're ALREADY leading the way to
improvements in efficiency and reduced emissions? And further to move
MORE industrialized emissions to the very countries with no standards
for controlling it???

Feh.

 

st3ph3nm wrote:

>
>
> Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
> rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
> people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
> developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
> going to be a dramatic improvement.

Aw for the love of....

Don't you GET it? That is EXACTLY what's been going on for decades.
Which countries even HAVE emissions standards? The developed ones, often
led by the US. Which countries first implemented the ban on CFCs? The
developed ones, led by the US. Which countries even think about
efficiency and pour billions of reserach dollars into improved
efficiency? The developed ones.

Yes, the "80/20" rule is there, simply because countless people in the
UN-developed nations live in abject poverty and their only atmospheric
emissions come from campfires and composting excrement. Pushing the
devloped countries back to THAT level is not forward progress for
anyone, not even those in poverty in the un-developed countries.

And yet Kyoto is *STUPID* enough to punish the economies of the
developed nations, even though they're ALREADY leading the way to
improvements in efficiency and reduced emissions? And further to move
MORE industrialized emissions to the very countries with no standards
for controlling it???

Feh.

 

st3ph3nm wrote:

>
>
> Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
> rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
> people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
> developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
> going to be a dramatic improvement.

Aw for the love of....

Don't you GET it? That is EXACTLY what's been going on for decades.
Which countries even HAVE emissions standards? The developed ones, often
led by the US. Which countries first implemented the ban on CFCs? The
developed ones, led by the US. Which countries even think about
efficiency and pour billions of reserach dollars into improved
efficiency? The developed ones.

Yes, the "80/20" rule is there, simply because countless people in the
UN-developed nations live in abject poverty and their only atmospheric
emissions come from campfires and composting excrement. Pushing the
devloped countries back to THAT level is not forward progress for
anyone, not even those in poverty in the un-developed countries.

And yet Kyoto is *STUPID* enough to punish the economies of the
developed nations, even though they're ALREADY leading the way to
improvements in efficiency and reduced emissions? And further to move
MORE industrialized emissions to the very countries with no standards
for controlling it???

Feh.

 

C. E. White wrote:

>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>
>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>warming'?
>
>
> Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.
>
> Ed

But we don't need to set civilization back 400 years just to prove THAT,
do we? Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. :-p

 

C. E. White wrote:

>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>
>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>warming'?
>
>
> Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.
>
> Ed

But we don't need to set civilization back 400 years just to prove THAT,
do we? Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. :-p

 

C. E. White wrote:

>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>
>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>warming'?
>
>
> Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.
>
> Ed

But we don't need to set civilization back 400 years just to prove THAT,
do we? Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. :-p

 

> Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. :-p <

Or, sufficiently unproven to the point of nauseum. Indeed, we can hevily
impact the problem through an immediate reduction in the greenhous gas
emissions emmanating from the mouths of Socialist elitists ....