Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    915
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Should this be in Political Poo?
    Anyhoo, here is a link to a petition to be presented at the UN climate change conference in Bali in a few days.

  2. #2
    God/dess VenusGoddess's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    13,598
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett.Oz View Post
    Should this be in Political Poo?
    Well, it should be, but since the board is closed, this should be in Member Boards.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    915
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Oops, sorry.

    XXXS

  4. #4
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Fuck Al Gore and his carbon credits corporation world scam.

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    some news re climate change that you're NOT likely to see in mainstream media came out in the Royal Meteorological Society Journal recently ...



    of course if global warming is for real then Washington doesn't need to raise funding for HEAP programs, do they ?

  6. #6
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Al Gore is tiresome. He's to global warming what Bono is to world hunger. He doesn't like it, he can pontificate about it, but that doesn't make him the expert on it.

    Newsmax is tiresome. It's to ultraconservativism what Al Gore is to global warming. A couple years ago, they were denying global warming existed. Now they're denying human causes. They focus on the reports that they want to believe, no matter how authentic or specious, and ignore any good data that doesn't go their way.

    Meanwhile, industrialization has unlocked billions of tons of carbon underground and put it into the atmosphere. But that's had no environmental effect. OK. Well, FWIW, the planet has been both warmer and colder in the past than it is now, without human help. But to say that humans aren't having an effect? That's head in the sand stuff.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    915
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    You know what, whether it is or isn't going to happen, whether it is natural or our own fault, whether we can stop it or not, I'd rather have at least 'tried' to do something.

    The other side effect is a general world-wide conciousness shift towards doing something for the world, be that climate change, world hunger, clearing land mines, reconciliation etc etc etc.....

    You don't have to 'sign' the petition and you don't need to support Al Gore, I'm just putting it out there for those who would like to do something.

    XXXS
    Last edited by Scarlett.Oz; 12-10-2007 at 06:16 PM. Reason: Thought the last bit sounded a bit nasty.

  8. #8
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Al Gore and the Church of climate change.

    Forgive me Climate guru for I have sinned. Today I drove an SUV across town. The roads are icy and I was afraid.

    Yay verily Child, one needs only to buy Carbon credits from my corporation as an offset to your sins. The absolution will occur in China and not offend.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    915
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    And when the blind man refuses to see does the world sink into darkness for the sights to behold are in far greater number than only climate change.
    And nay, not a cent does it cost to try.

  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    And nay, not a cent does it cost to try.
    well, Scarlett, therein lies the gap between having 'faith' and living in the real world. For 'developed' countries, it costs a WHOLE LOT to try.

    As you are undoubtedly aware, Australia recently elected a new prime minister Kevin Rudd, and his first act as prime minister was to sign the Kyoto Protocol ratification documents. However, Australia also gets 80% of its electric power from coal fired power plants, which will be dramatically impacted by the terms of Kyoto. Thus Australia's future failure to comply with Kyoto (which is guaranteed because new nuclear plants could not be online in 2010 even if they were ordered tomorrow) will result in huge amounts of 'carbon credit' purchases by Australian power companies and industries. These new costs will in turn reduce the profitability of Australian businesses, and will result in higher prices for electricity as well as every other product / service that has a significant energy content. Some sources have estimated that the imputed 'carbon tax' associated with signing the Kyoto treaty will result in a 75% increase in Australian electric bills.



    I remains to be seen of course how this new 'carbon tax' will ultimately affect the global competitiveness of Australian companies, will affect the 'disposable income' of average Australians, will affect future Australian unemployment levels etc. However, like the vast majority of cases where a major change is introduced, it will take years for the effects to percolate through the economy, and for those affected to react to those changes. Apparently no in depth cost projections have been performed in regard to the 'carbon tax' which will now be leveed on the Australian economy ... with a majority of Australian voters supporting Rudd and Kyoto ratification on 'faith' alone.

    However, in America, there ARE a number of projections in regard to the potential impact and unintended consequences of Kyoto ratification a.k.a. a 'carbon tax'. They appear to be quite severe.



    However, one fact is know for certain. Of the millions or billions of Australian dollars which are transferred between Australian power companies and industries to Chinese or Indian or Vietnamese businesses (which are de-facto exempt from reducing their carbon emissions unless paid to do so by Australians and citizens of other countries who signed the Kyoto Protocol), Al Gore or someone like him in the 'carbon credits' trading business will be collecting a tidy commission on your 'carbon tax' money.

    I would also add that signing the Kyoto protocol and enacting a 'carbon credits / carbon tax' system as a result of non-compliance doesn't actually reduce carbon emissions one bit by itself. This isn't exactly true since consumption of carbon based energy will be reduced as a side effect of rapidly rising energy prices, business and industry closures (or offshoring) etc. But unless and until some non carbon producing energy technology can take up the slack ... and the only practical technology available at the moment is Nuclear Power ... the end result of Kyoto ratification is mostly the transfer of money from Australians to the Chinese / Indians / Vietnamese etc. who are exempt from carbon reductions under the Kyoto treaty.

    And speaking of unintended consequences, immediately after Australia became a signatory to the Kyoto treaty, an Australian professor published this ...

    (snip)""Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing, but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote in an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia Monday.

    "Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behavior, a 'Baby Levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle," he argued.

    Walters said Australian parents who have more than an agreed number of children -- he cited a population-limitation advocacy group as suggesting a ceiling of two -- should pay the cost of planting trees to offset the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) the additional children will produce. (Trees absorb CO2, which along with other greenhouse gases is often blamed for climate change.)

    He calculated that a birth levy of around $4,380 (5,000 Australian dollars) would cover the cost of purchasing the land needed and planting the trees required to offset one lifetime's worth of CO2. An additional annual tax of $350-$700 would cover maintenance of the forest.

    Walters said medical practitioners had a responsibility to point out the environmental consequences of having children.

    "By the same reasoning, contraceptives, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, condoms and sterilization procedures should attract carbon credits for the user and the prescriber that would offset their income taxes, and lead to rewards for family planning clinics and hospitals that provide such greenhouse-friendly services," he said."(snip)

    from

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the way of a recent update, it would appear that Australian Prime Minister Rudd has now surprisingly backed away from his central campaign promise of committing Australia to compliance with the Kyoto treaty's carbon emission reductions ... at least until an accurate cost projection of the real world costs and consequences of the associated 'carbon credits / carbon tax' on the Australian economy can be evaluated over the next year ...

    (snip)"Then, on the very day Boxer's committee approved Warner-Lieberman, something happened 10,000 miles away that might just cement the fate of the conference -- Rudd backed away from his government's commitment to meet the proposed 2020 objectives. The PM tabled any discussions on mandatory targets until next year, when economist Ross Garnaut's report on the viability of emissions trading is due.

    By Friday, revelers likely wished they could retract their standing O when Rudd's Trade Minister, Simon Crean, declared that any plan excluding strict caps for developing nations would be fruitless. Ouch.

    All of this green dissent before even hearing from delegates of the red, white, and blue betrayed a conference in complete disarray. Not even this week's highly anticipated arrival of Green King Gore himself, his fist filled with silly internet petitions, is likely to breathe life into this corpse of a convention, or its likewise deceased post-Kyoto scam.

    While Greenies Gab, Science Strides Forward

    Without exception, everything discussed at UNFCC, indeed the very temporary greening of Bali itself, is predicated on the specious argument that GHG, and no other forces, might be driving global temperatures.

    But the science on which the U.N's hysteria-engendered flock base their planet-saving plans is settled only in their minds and the reams of hyped reports from the IPCC, which they foolishly expect to dictate global climate policies.

    Readers are all too aware of the endless tricks, deceptions, outright lies, and more tricks used to divert attention from any driver not Carbon (and, therefore, not industry) related. Those same readers are well aware that this author believes the factor most irresponsibly ignored by alarmists to be Solar, as I have opined many times, including here, here, and here.

    As it happens, last week also saw astronomer and Sun expert Dr David Whitehouse further the case for Solar forcing's majority influence. Whitehouse reported that it's been months since any sunspots have been observed:

    "After a period of exceptionally high activity in the 20th century, our Sun has suddenly gone exceptionally quiet."

    The significance of which might become quite evident quite quickly. You see, whenever presented with the obvious (and logical) correlations between solar activity and Terran climate in the past, Solar Deniers claimed that continued elevations in global temperatures after 1998 somehow disproved any direct connection. While insignificant in long-term analysis, Whitehouse nonetheless attributed this to the rapid increase between 1978 and 1998, after which average temps have held their high, but steady, level:

    "Almost everyone agrees that throughout most of the last century the solar influence was significant. Studies show that by the end of the 20th century the Sun's activity may have been at its highest for more than 8,000 years."


    He suggests we're actually in a period of solar activity low enough to not only counteract any GHG increases, but, as proposed by Russian Academy of Sciences members, actually cause temperatures to drop 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2020. Whitehouse dubs this new Solar season, which may even usher in another Little Ice Age, the Modern Solar Minimum. The good doctor also lists it with previously correlative periods the greenies completely ignore"(snip)

    from

    when the blind man refuses to see does the world sink into darkness for the sights to behold are in far greater number than only climate change
    arguably, they are far greater in number than human activity carbon dioxide based climate change alone !


    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 12-11-2007 at 10:43 AM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    915
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    I know better than to argue with Melonie but I will quote myself if I may:

    <quote> whether it is or isn't going to happen, whether it is natural or our own fault, whether we can stop it or not, I'd rather have at least 'tried' to do something.

    The other side effect is a general world-wide conciousness shift towards doing something for the world, be that climate change, world hunger, clearing land mines, reconciliation etc etc etc.....

    You don't have to 'sign' the petition and you don't need to support Al Gore, I'm just putting it out there for those who would like to do something.

    XXXS <quote>

  12. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    ^^^ sorry that I gravitated towards the global warming aspect ... but it was after all the central topic of this thread.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    915
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Indeed. Although I didn't intend for this thread to become a debate over global warming, I was just supplying the link for those who choose to use it.
    I appreciate the information you've supplied, as always, it is extremely interesting and informative.
    XS

  14. #14
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    So it's "all carbon" or nothing. Well, I'm not buying into that. With a bunch of carbon being unlocked from the ground at the same time that global temperatures rise, there's a correlation. Maybe it's major, maybe it's minor. But it sure seems to me that the interest that one has in supporting or opposing industrialization has a whole lot to do with how one believes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Another quote
    Readers are all too aware of the endless tricks, deceptions, outright lies, and more tricks used to divert attention from any driver not Carbon (and, therefore, not industry) related
    You know, I agree. But are the readers also aware of the endless tricks, deceptions, outright lies, and junk science used to divert attention away from carbon drivers?

    Here's a thought:

    Higher levels of greenhouses and inert gases aren't good for us. Nonreplenishing fuels won't get replenished. It behooves all of us, as stewards of our living space, to reduce waste and consumption wisely so that we can all enjoy burning these fossils a while longer as we slowly make the transition to more benign forms of energy production.

    Don't worry, it doesn't have to affect oil company stock prices. They can diversify their energy production methods and stay with the curve.

  15. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Don't worry, it doesn't have to affect oil company stock prices. They can diversify their energy production methods and stay with the curve.
    This has already been proven to be true ... i.e. after the province of Quebec recently instituted its own 'carbon tax' the oil companies immediately announced that they would pass on their increased costs to Quebec gasoline / diesel / fuel oil customers - as they refused to absorb any of the 'carbon tax' cost out of their own bottom line. Thus every Quebec resident is now paying higher prices for gasoline / diesel / fuel oil, although they are probably not aware that it is the result of the recently imposed 'carbon tax'.

    Please understand that I am NOT arguing that greenhouse gases are an insignificant source of environmental change / damage. What I AM arguing is that the Kyoto approach is flawed ... because it will impose huge additional costs on the economies of developed countries, and because it will do next to nothing in regard to reducing total worldwide greenhouse gas emission. The obvious reason for this is because China / India / Vietnam and other 'developing countries' are exempt from carbon emission reductions in the short term, and are on record as not accepting carbon emission reductions in the long term either.



    ... thus the Kyoto approach will wind up exactly where strict California clean air regulations have led. California businesses spent tremendous amounts of money to reduce their emission of air pollutants to miniscule levels, but California's air quality is not improving. The reason ... California's clean air regulations contributed to California businesses going bankrupt, moving out of the state, and / or outsourcing to China - China does not enforce emissions regulations thus the plants in China emit far more air pollution than their California predecessors - and the trade winds then pick up Chinese air pollution and transport it right back to California !



    (snip)"One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America -- air.

    An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate. These rivers of polluted air can be wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon.

    "There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.

    On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

    This transcontinental pollution is part of a growing global traffic in dust and aerosol particles made worse by drought and deforestation, said Steven Cliff, who studies the problem at the University of California at Davis."(snip)

  16. #16
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    This has already been proven to be true
    Mark this one for the SW history books. Mel and JZ come to similar conclusion points.

    Please understand that I am NOT arguing that greenhouse gases are an insignificant source of environmental change / damage.
    Good to hear.

    What I AM arguing is that the Kyoto approach is flawed ... because China / India / Vietnam and other 'developing countries' are exempt from carbon emission reductions in the short term, and are on record as not accepting carbon emission reductions in the long term either.
    Here again, Mel, we agree, particularly with the fact that China has become the most toxic country on the planet, and one has difficulty equating its level of industrialization and economic power as "developing."

    However, I cannot argue that we should start polluting more in order to keep up with the Changs.

  17. #17
    God/dess BalletBaby's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Candy Mountain
    Posts
    3,835
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    But to say that humans aren't having an effect? That's head in the sand stuff.
    Whoa. Who the fuck is spewing that crap?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexxaHex View Post
    Lysondra, can I taste your Abortion?
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowles View Post
    BalletBaby + Alice in Chains >>> Pie.

  18. #18
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    However, I cannot argue that we should start polluting more in order to keep up with the Changs.
    Nor am I. However, I would make the argument that we must balance the costs and consequences of reducing our emissions against the fact that the Chinese / Indians / Vietnamese will wind up producing new emissions that equal or exceed our reductions. This is a square law relationship, where a 5% reduction costs x, a 10% reduction costs 2x, a 15% reduction costs 4x, a 20% reduction costs 8x etc. If Kyoto is talking about 40% reductions for industrialized countries, this will essentially bankrupt those industrialized countries (or at least the poor and middle class who aren't benefitting from the carbon credits trading market). Also if Kyoto is talking about 40% reductions, this will put gov't policy in a position of choosing which industries can continue to operate (emit carbon) versus which must be shut down (or bankrupted by 'carbon taxes').

  19. #19
    Veteran Member Smoothcat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    415
    Thanks
    383
    Thanked 311 Times in 155 Posts

    Thumbs up Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    I haven't studied the Kyoto details, but assuming Melonie's info is right, it sounds like activists and politicians came up with those percentages before consulting with business and industry leaders. Big surprise, eh? (I wonder what Al Gore's friends at Occidental Petroleum think?)

    I'm continually surprised that some of the most intelligent and reasonable debate on many issues is found on a stripper forum.


  20. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Al Gore Petition for climate change.

    I haven't studied the Kyoto details, but assuming Melonie's info is right, it sounds like activists and politicians came up with those percentages before consulting with business and industry leaders. Big surprise, eh? (I wonder what Al Gore's friends at Occidental Petroleum think?)
    Well, for a fact, this is exactly what happened in regard to the recent election in Australia ! Fortunately, new prime minister Rudd had the political survival instinct to listen to the Australian power companies ... who started filling him in on the fact that under the Kyoto treaty requirements the effect of the 'carbon tax' on predominantly coal fired Australian power generation would result in an across the board hike in Australian electric rates on the order of 75% i.e. almost double. This tidbit alone, and the anticipated hate and discontent among Australian voters that would almost assuredly result from huge increases in their electric bills, prompted Mr. Rudd to reverse course on his campaign promise re Kyoto. Now that the dollar impact issue has gotten some attention, Mr. Rudd has called for a wider cost estimate, as well as projections of secondary effects i.e. higher energy costs due to the 'carbon tax' rendering Australian export industries non-competitive.

    From the standpoint of the projected costs of the 'carbon tax' and the projected secondary effects on industry due to the resulting much higher energy costs for end users, the USA is quite a bit farther down the road - as are the Europeans. As discussed in detail in the previous post's link, the size of the dollar impact and the size of the potential secondary impact on unemployment are huge.

    As to Al Gore and his former friends at Occidental Petroleum, in reality the 'carbon tax' will not significantly impact oil company profits. As in Quebec, it simply gets tacked on to the end user's purchase price. And even if oil company profits are diminished by a reduction in total oil usage due to the higher end user's purchase price causing users to reduce their consumption, the potential profits for Al Gore and his new friends in the carbon credits trading business will be astronomical !
    Last edited by Melonie; 12-12-2007 at 10:52 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. BC Climate Change refund? ( new B.C. Carbon Tax )
    By scarlett_vancouver in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-08-2008, 07:35 AM
  2. Al Gore Petition for climate change.
    By Scarlett.Oz in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-10-2007, 11:04 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-02-2007, 09:56 PM
  4. timely news release from NASA re climate change...
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 09:20 AM
  5. Climate Change and the Economy
    By GoldCoastGirl in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-07-2006, 03:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •