BF2S Forums Bush' Global Warming Strategy

Don't cows put out more than cars/factories? I'm talking in terms of methane here, although CO2 could come into the mix.

CameronPoe wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268452,00.html


Didn't anyone tell him about the Kyoto Treaty? Wow.

The Kyoto treaty is a joke. . . .an absolutely FLAWED enviornmental plan

What because it involves sacrifice? Because it involves emissions reductions?

NO because it doesnt include checks and balances. . . There are no incentives to follow the protocol.

Nations like China, India, and Russia laugh at this treaty. . . .Why committ economic suicide when other major polluters wont follow suit to improve their own emission standards???

There are so many loopholes and inconsistencies with the Kyoto protocol its laughable!!

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-05-31 18:14:07)

So Bush puts out a plan that begins to address global warming but does not cause the financial destruction of America, and you are complaining/surprised?

ReDevilJR wrote:

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268452,00.html


Didn't anyone tell him about the Kyoto Treaty? Wow.

Wow, I thought this is good news...the US leader wants to become more environmentally friendly...

...oh well, on wit da hatin'

Okay, seeing as how Al Gore has a fucking mansion that has to be the most energy inefficient pos I've ever seen, and our president has an eco-friendly house that basically runs on itself... Who really wants to be environmentally friendly?

wait for it, wait for it...

Neither!  They are both trying to make $$$.  Al Gore is a hot air balloon, GW is a fucking monkey.  But both of them are rich, and got there by exploiting us (actually I think both got rich by riding the family name).

Too bad GW's got alcoholic daughters and Gore, Jr. is a pothead, they could continue the legacy (or are they already?).

ReDevilJR wrote:

Okay, seeing as how Al Gore has a fucking mansion that has to be the most energy inefficient pos I've ever seen, and our president has an eco-friendly house that basically runs on itself... Who really wants to be environmentally friendly?

Well, to be truthful -  The US hasn't really been leading in eco-friendly department, so there's plenty of improvements in store...unless we want to continue to perpetually piss on the Boss in DC for finally getting his head out of his ass.

Politics ain't going to grow any more glaciers

Last edited by Pug (2007-05-31 18:35:25)

ReDevilJR wrote:

Pug wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

Okay, seeing as how Al Gore has a fucking mansion that has to be the most energy inefficient pos I've ever seen, and our president has an eco-friendly house that basically runs on itself... Who really wants to be environmentally friendly?

Well, to be truthful -  The US hasn't really been leading in eco-friendly department, so there's plenty of improvements in store...unless we want to continue to piss on the Boss in DC for finally getting his head out of his ass in perpetuity.

Politics ain't going to grow any more glaciers

Then what will? Seeing as how we don't know 100% of how the Earth works, how do we know the Earth isn't going to get warmer for a bit, then cool down? Yes, there's cycles, however, cycles DO change, as NOTHING lasts forever...

Some options here:
1) Argue man-made versus natural causes
2) Argue GOP vs DEM has a better eco-friendly platform
3) Argue Bush vs Gore credibility
4) Argue we can do better or everything is fine
5) Argue with no hope of compromise, see who calls the other Hitler first

#1-3 have been done before.  I'm talking about #4, but #5 looks promising tonight...

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268452,00.html

President Bush has called on 15 major countries to agree strategies to reduce greenhouse gases.

Didn't anyone tell him about the Kyoto Treaty? Wow.

Wow, I thought this is good news...the US leader wants to become more environmentally friendly...

...oh well, on wit da hatin'

There's an agreement there for him to sign. He now wants to change the goalposts as it were. Why bother when the vast majority of the planet has reached agreement on a policy already (no mean feat)?

Not to mention the fact that it all sounds like attention-seeking substanceless soundbites. He knows he'll be out of office before he'll be pushed to lift a finger on fossil fuels.

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268452,00.html


Didn't anyone tell him about the Kyoto Treaty? Wow.

Wow, I thought this is good news...the US leader wants to become more environmentally friendly...

...oh well, on wit da hatin'

There's an agreement there for him to sign. He now wants to change the goalposts as it were. Why bother when the vast majority of the planet has reached agreement on a policy already (no mean feat)?

Not to mention the fact that it all sounds like attention-seeking substanceless soundbites. He knows he'll be out of office before he'll be pushed to lift a finger on fossil fuels.

Like you said, Bush has finally come to terms with what his aftermath of presidency will be - so now he`s planning on a greenhouse gas strategy and pulling troops out of Iraq before he leaves office.

CameronPoe wrote:

Varegg wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Nations like China, India, and Russia laugh at this treaty. . . .Why committ economic suicide when other major polluters wont follow suit to improve their own emission standards???

And claiming economic suicide must be a joke, cutting emissions will be very good business in the long run when the health benefits from lower emissions is shown.

+1

It's amazing how US Republicans/Conservatives can be so short-sighted. Economic suicide is running head long into an oil production peak without making any attempt whatsoever to deal with the issue of spiralling fuel costs, dwindling supplies of oil for plastics, etc. and the possibility that we could be responsible for global warming. They seem to only look at things on the 5-10 year scale: the quick buck.

It's amazing how liberals/democrats are two-faced, one day they'll agree with ya, the next they're stabbing your back about it...

ex) Hillary & Kerry... (Both agreed to the war prior, but changed their minds to help with liberal publicity...)

Varegg wrote:

Like you said, Bush has finally come to terms with what his aftermath of presidency will be - so now he`s planning on a greenhouse gas strategy and pulling troops out of Iraq before he leaves office.

Not to mention the thousands of new business springing up to cater for these reductions. In the UK you now have to produce a SAP calculation for every building Private or commercial build which gives a carbon rating. It means ppl building new houses in the UK will find it near impossible to put a coal fire in your house to meet the SAP targets.

Say you want to put allot of glass in your house. As the glass is not as good an insulator as a cavity wall, you mush compensate somewhere else in your build, like using a renewable heating source like wood pellet burner or ground source heat pump. The amount of business who have sprung up around this area of conservation is huge. Companies who do SAP calcs, sell Solar panels, wind turbines, water recycling systems, ground source heat pumps, pellet burners, high density insulation, it goes on and on. And that's just in the private housing market. Add to that, industry and commercial and all the business which have sprung up to cater for making them greener.

These Carbon reduction laws add £5000 to a standard build in the UK. Which I have had to do in my own house. But I don't mind, its a little sacrifice that every home builder has to make,(call it rent to the planet that has allowed us to own a little piece of it for our life time) but its got massive benefits. The 'U' value and heat loss in your house will drop and the £5000 is recouped on savings over 10 years according to my calcs.


These business will counter the loose of business caused by the cut backs in the USA.

ReDevilJR wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Varegg wrote:

And claiming economic suicide must be a joke, cutting emissions will be very good business in the long run when the health benefits from lower emissions is shown.

+1

It's amazing how US Republicans/Conservatives can be so short-sighted. Economic suicide is running head long into an oil production peak without making any attempt whatsoever to deal with the issue of spiralling fuel costs, dwindling supplies of oil for plastics, etc. and the possibility that we could be responsible for global warming. They seem to only look at things on the 5-10 year scale: the quick buck.

It's amazing how liberals/democrats are two-faced, one day they'll agree with ya, the next they're stabbing your back about it...

ex) Hillary & Kerry... (Both agreed to the war prior, but changed their minds to help with liberal publicity...)

[sarcasm]Isn't it amazing how opposition governments criticise the failing policies of their opponents and offer alternatives to voters?

I never thought politics worked like that.[/sarcasm]

S.Lythberg wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

It's a good idea. But good luck getting China to sign.

China will not sign, because there will be no incentive for them to do so.  The US is heavily reliant on trade with china, and will not support, or follow, any trade embargo, and the UN is too defunct to do much of anything anyway.

Which is why Kyoto was an idea that could work, whereas this is just a pipe dream.

It could be that this is just a ploy by Bush to get people to stop hassling him about global warming. If he tries and fails that won't look as bad as ignoring the issue entirely.

Berster7 wrote:

Which is why Kyoto was an idea that could work, whereas this is just a pipe dream.

It could be that this is just a ploy by Bush to get people to stop hassling him about global warming. If he tries and fails that won't look as bad as ignoring the issue entirely.

If bush would pass a bill allowing for incresed nuclaer power generation (maybe buy a fast breeder from France), i would stop hassling him, but China, Russia, and India are as stubborn as countries get, and he's wasting his effort.

You're right that he's just trying to save face with the Dems, but this is probably not the right way to do it.