h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

His original report said "Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant" so he thought that there had been a mistake. He thought they were cutting down on pollutants and noxious substances and that they had accidentally agreed to cutting down on a perfectly harmless waste gas. Carbon Dioxide is not harmful to humans in itself.

He investigated a bit further and found that cutting down on this harmless gas was going to cost his country millions (billions?) so he announced a change of policy.

Then he was told about global warming, something he hadn't heard of before, and realised that he had talked himself into a tight corner.

I'm surmising here.

Why is everybody blaming Bush? Didn't the senate vote against ratifying the treaty 95 to 0? Hardly his (or Cheney's) sole decision.

Anyway, Bush is saving our aussie arses so lets see a fairer and better thought out treaty than kyoto.

I can back up the research numbers on military and welfare with some personal experience. 1/8th of the military may be on welfare as a whole, but among young military families, E-5 and below, that number becomes the vast majority.

Above E5, the salary becomes liveable.

At E-5 and below, the salary stinks. For a single service member, however, it isn't too important, because they get free (awful) housing, free (indigestible) meals, and (barely competent) medical care. In other words, all of their survival needs are met, so the money can be used for extras.

However, a family situation is different. Even those who manage to get on-base housing (which is not necessarily always available), they still have to buy food, pay utilities, buy and maintain a car to get to and from work (in most places in the US, a car is not a luxury, but a necessity... we're not such a small country that we can cover it with railroads), etc. The salary does not meet these demands. And the spouse has no time to build a career which can adequately compensate, because they have to uproot too often. In order to meet their needs, they qualify for government assistance programs like WIC and food stamps. These are not military subsidies... these are available to all citizens as part of the welfare system.

What I don't like about Gore: He is not a particularly well-informed environmentalist, and his record does not reflect his extreme speeches. He is using their rhetoric to scare people into supporting him. He and his wife both stand for the suppression of free speech. And he's one of those safety-Nazis I've always distrusted.

"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty to gain some temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Here's a great example of why our founding fathers are sometimes obsolete. This would be an excellent quote, say, if we were discussing the regulation of muzzle-loaders or scythes. But we're not. Energy production, consumption, and its regulation are uniquely modern issues and takes more careful thought than simply calling on the ghosts of Franklin et. al.

I've always worried about the sanity of the american public. THe fact of the matter is, no sane person would ever stand for the presidancy, so the world has to make do with idiots like Bush. Not sure if that was relevant. It does always shock me just how much there is the governments could do about the environment, but dont.

When I brought up the Franklin quote, I was referring to him being a safety-Nazi. Mandatory seat belts. Mandatory safety equipment for motorcyclers. Then bicyclers. Then skateboarders and in-line skaters. Before too much longer, you're going to need a flak jacket, a helmet, and road flares to walk across the street. Just make sure you're wearing goggles and leather gloves before handling the flares.

Everyone wants someone else to blame... no one else seems to care, certainly not the media, that the senate did do that, they are content with blaming bush...

I hadn't heard what bush was doing for u guys, I'll have to check that out

(that was to magrat)

safety-Nazi? Come on! Seatbelts and helmets save lives (I realise that is govt mantra but I don't care) the problem with americans like you is you think that your "freedom" is more important than say, everything. I suppose you would consider anyone who supported gun control to be a 'safety nazi'? All you have is governments making laws which will improve the safety and quality of the lives of their citizens, and as elected representatives of the people I think thats what they are there to do.

And supression of free speech? How do you figure that one? What did he do to suppress free speech?

sorry for such an angry post, I'm having a bad day

what is bush doing for australia? giving us a chance to get out of kyoto without looking like the bad guys. Aust is a high coal energy producing nation, and we do it more environ friendly than a lot of other countries, and we would have to cut back on that to meet the unrealistic kyoto targets, while the responsibility for producing the energy we stop producing would pass to developing nations which don't have any limits and would produce the energy in a lot more un-enviro friendly way, hence worse for global warming. This way, it is also better for aust economy.

Living as I do in a nation that has gone through the painful process of meeting its commitments under Kyoto I can't help thinking of Bush & those that back him as wusses, yes meeting it is going to hurt but its going to be a lot more painful in the long run if you ignore it.

what nation is that happydude?

I can't help feeling that europe has it slightly easy in this whole issue, ie east germany's old and un-enviro friendly industries being closed down, changes to gas which had nothing to do with the environment, but let europe look like saints.

actually I'm quite fed up with the whole thing. Doesn't it just come down to differences in culture? Britain tends to be against GM, US for GM, etc. Whole different ideologies, but it doesn't mean either side is right, and Bush will negotiate another treaty, its not the end of the world (though people will now probably retort that it is).

Europe tends to look at the worst case scenario - which with global warming is a disaster, which with GM crops is a disaster. Whereas the New World thinks ahhh, it will be alright. I know which one I follow, specially knowing what people, and big business is like.....
BCNU - Crescent

Kyoto might not matter.

The joke about Bush being tired of just executing individuals and wanting to do whole populations doesn't seem so funny now.

The difference between Americans and Europeans would seem to be a belief in the individual and society respectively. Bush sees the Kyoto agreement as a kerb on America's freedom to pollute (or do business I think is how he said it). This is short-termism on a massive scale. A few individuals feathering their vast nest while millions - now and in the future - suffer.

Happy is from London.

Another thing you have to take into consideration is that one european nation is about the same size as a state in the US. The gov't of those individual nations don't have to put up with the energy concerns of 260~ million people. And ontop of that we have our friendly California environmentalists who drive to the protests of the building of powerplants in their voltswagon buses (which probably pollute as much as the plant would), succeed in stopping the electric companies from building this *horrible* plant, go home and find that the toaster doesn't work and then complain to the gov't that it's not meeting their needs. The thought never crossed their mind that it could be their fault!!!! And now the state gov't of cal. says that it is the fault of the deregulation of the power industry. I've got news for ya, other states have done it perfectly well and only cal has had any problem with it. Another thing I love...the state gov't locks the prices of power at a certain level, bankrupts the compaines, gives them loans to stay afloat, and trys to buy back the power companies in payment for the loans that they wouldn't have needed in the first place if it wasn't for the gov't! Can you look me in the face and tell me the state of cal's gov't is being fair to the power industry? About the only way out of this problem, now that it is soo bad, is to build a couple large nuclear power plants, or a ton of smaller any type plants...

The EU has a population of well over 350 million, and we are just shutting up and getting on with it. We do not have the benefit of one overriding authority, we are just muddling through as we can. Maybe we should have gone to the individual US states, and got them to sign up, maybe they wouldn't break their word....
BCNU - Crescent

If I can use an analogy, at the moment the world is like a person who has a nasty splinter in their thumb, now Kyoto is an attempt to pull the splinter out & put a drop of disinfectant on it. Now we all know this is going to hurt and some of us are willing to put up with pain because we know its better than infection setting in & having to have our arm amputated, and some of us are running away because it night sting a little bit & praying to god it don't get infected.

They question you have to ask is what sort of person are you & your nation.

An "abbreviated avian" am I JD? Yes well, I suppose you're right

I liked you method of analysis very much. Could you suggest it to your esteemed leader please. He needs you on his team.

I'm with you on the nanny state issue Colonel Sellers although I do think there should be strong gun control in America (none of my business, I know). It's one thing to take away a person's right to endanger themselves and quite another to give them the right to endanger someone else.

I have to take issue with Yowuzupman's analysis of energy deregulation in the States. I live in a state that deregulated its electric industry four years ago. At that time, while it was being debated in the state legislature, representatives from other states (including California) spoke before our elected officials and literally begged us (Montana) NOT to deregulate. But our government was controlled by those who worship at the altar of the free market and deregulation became the law of the land. All of our dams and other power-producing facilities were sold to one company in Pennsylvania by their former owner, the Montana Power Company. Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPL), no longer fettered by price controls established by the state, raised their rates far in excess of what deregulation's backers predicted. PPL's profits rose and our state's economy was destroyed. Mills, mines, manufacturing plants, businesses large and small have had to close their doors as they can no longer afford to stay open. Thousands have lost jobs thanks to energy deregulation. But deregulation's backers refuse to apologize and admit they made a mistake. They say "Wait, let the free market adjust prices, other power companies will come to Montana."

Who? Montana is the fourth largest state and is 49th in population. What company would be stupid enough to come here? The area of service is too large for such a small customer base. The only way they could make a profit is either a) jack up rates astronomically for customers or b) bypass the state entirely and sell power to desperate Californians. In any case, deregulation has been and is an incredibly idiotic and short-sighted idea. Until basic human nature--greed--has been eliminated, it will never work.

Fraulein, what about CF Aluminum, who shut their doors for 1 year so they could sell all of their power to California? They made more money selling power than they could manufacturing aluminum. Not only that, but all of their employees are being paid, for this one year at least, as though they *were* at work. The problem is, what happens after this year?
Frankly, the biggest problem I see is that we have spiking power prices, and the Bush admin will not, even if it *is* for the good of the entire globe, impose any sort of new regulations on manufacturing in the US, for fear that it will drag us down into recession. But what Cheney, et al, are ignoring is that without these regulations, there will be lawsuits (can you imagine the US being sued in UN court?!), and higher costs in the end. What is it with republican admins that they cannot see the forest for the trees?
This is where Ben Franklin and his quotes might come in...what is it, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?