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

QUOTE - Fifth of all: Personally, I dont see why it's our business what you do in Europe. Unless you'll be charging our carriers too? UNQUOTE

Exactly. It is NOTHING to do with the American Government what we decide to do over here, but if you read my original posted article you will see that the US Government is determined to undermine it anyway. Would we be charging your carriers too? Yes. That is the plan - why is that a problem? Most of your major carriers are in Chapter 11 anyway, so why should they care?

The US government is costing the GLOBAL aviation business millions of dollars by making them implement Data collecting that they insist on receiving before they enter your airspace. This was unilatteral, no country has a choice, and we have to do it because George says so.

When it comes to things like Kyoto and the proposed Aviation "Green" tax, the US Government interferes, drags its heels and does its very best to blow the whole initiative out of the water. We already know that the American continent is the largest user of energy on the planet, but the Government there seem hell bent on continuing to burn fossil fuels as long as the American Dream is not affected.

I am afraid Leo that your answers so far do seem to lean towards the "It is not worth worrying about" camp. This unfortunately merely underscores my belief that generally speaking, the most energy hungry continent on the planet views anyone who complains about that as a complete pest that should be swatted. What gives George W the right to hold the rest of the world to ransom like this?

Well, does anyone object to personal jet taxes? Fact is, most of those people are rich enough to pay the tax and fly anyway. But the taxes could be channeled to further clean-fuel research. I think that clean-fuel research is really what we need, not a limit on transportation.

Can I ask a technical question?

What is "my English regent"??

ta

PS: where does our 'energy hungriness' connect to taxing pollution? Please stick to the topic.
But i have to go. Have a nice day. I truly appreciate talking with you.

Well I do 'recycle' banana peels and anything else organic - it goes onto the compost heap to be dug into the garden in the autumn. I try to only buy things in recycled/recylable packaging and often don't have anything for the bin men because I have recycled all of our domestic waste. I would actually support a tax on rubbish - it really annoys me that many people could recycle and choose not to and taxing them would encourage them to recycle more.

<>

'Whether' irregularities, Leo? You mean, whether they happen or not? Or whither?

<>

You are dead wrong about that, Leo. But I'll tell you what. Since you made this seriously erroneous statement, how about you go and find some evidence to back it up? Look for some serious studies that say exactly that and show them to us.

<>

You know, that sounds just like your President talking. Again, I'd be fascinated to see if you could show us some hard facts to back these ludicrous statements up.

Since you seem intent on not listening to what others here have to say, then perhaps you could educate us by proving your statements rather than expressing them in a manner as if simply posting them makes them true. Okay?

Looking forward to your links!

az

[quote]according to my English regent, our current actions wont help prevent the flooding or anything, (PS: flooding doesn't = death. It equals loss of low lying areas.) and will have no effect whatsoever for 200 years at least. [/quote]


Hmm, the loss of low lying areas...such as, but not limited to: the Netherlands (my country and loads of it are below (current) see level, Bangladesh, already troubeled by floodings, parts of florida and islands in the pacific...

And 200 years...hmm 2004 - 200 years is 1804...that's a year that sounds more realistic than 2204 and that's also a difference of 200 years.

In other words...we better act no or I'll have to start filling sandbags!

Current actions indeed will not prevent anything 'cause not evryone is helping (can anybody say Kyoto treaty, from wich the US backed out?)

flooding does = death if it comes suddenly and violently, or if it destroys crops and people starve to death. Even if no-one dies, the numbers of people that will be displaced and will have to be rehoused will be huge.

Okay, let's tax personal jets. Fine. Will that be enough to reduce global emissions, either through cutting ownership or planting trees? If so, fine, if not, what else can we do? It only makes sense to do little or nothing if you are *sure* that either climate change won't happen, or if you *sure* there's nothing that can be done to stop it or to lake it less severe. The evidence, even on the most sceptical science, does not support this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3928017.stm

i knew that the american government was in deep denial about the environment, i didn't realize that americans on the whole were so as much as leo alpha is demonstrating!

sure there are different theories and scenarios about global warming etc. but it's a no-brainer to say that pollution is bad for the environment; and that environment IS the planet, the only one we have? we can't buy another one!

pollution IS a by-product of living. pollution that is more than DOUBLE european levels, and TEN TIMES the world average is a by-product of a lazy, selfish, immoral society.

to clear up the idea of "buying" the right to pollute: it's not just buying your own pollution allowances. it's the US wanting to buy from other countries what they don't "use". if argentina's or canada's pollution is only half what's allowed, they would be able to sell the remaining rights to the US.

that means the number 1 offender will have no reason to get better, and whatever efforts other nations make will only profit their GNP, not the planet.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climate.jsp?id=ns99992642

is the contrails thingy. As suggested, a case of plausible circumstantial evidence but no control case to verify. Interesting though.

As for climate change (AIDs, Climate Change, this thread really is taking in all the world ills isn't it?) yes it is happening, yes it could be a major problem (although I like the idea of the UK being plunged into -20 something winters!) but I don;t see how the tiny contribution of mankind can be causing it given the number of other factors of a far greater scale that are going on in the natural world.

QUOTE: PS: where does our 'energy hungriness' connect to taxing pollution? Please stick to the topic. UNQUOTE

That took my breath away. I will connect the dots for you - The North American continent burns more fossil fuel than any other on the Planet. Therefore, the North American continent POLLUTES more than any other on Earth. Ergo, if POLLUTION were taxed in an effort to do something to help the planet, then the North American continent MIGHT curtail its 'Energy Hungriness' - although history has proved (Petrol crisis in mid 70's resulted in the US drawing up plans to seize Saudi oilfields)that they will go to any lengths to avoid pain.

Instead, the American Government does everything and anything it can to stop green issues being addressed on a global basis - therefore, not a lot gets done. I find it outrageous that one continent dictates and everyone else has to follow suit. I also find it amazing that Leo manages to completely avoid giving any kind of straight answer to any straight question.
I will not bang on anymore as I will never get an answer. The North Americans will continue to dictate to the rest of the planet while they remain at the top of the pile, and everybody will have to submit to their will. What a world.

The tiny contribution of mankind? Mankind is thé dominant species...we're six billon people and still growing strong! We as mankind in total are causing a lot of troubles!
Also, what are the other factors you talk about?

Tiny contribution? Yes, in terms of pollutants. If you wish, I shall see if I can find some figures somewhere. We ain't that important you know. The Earth has survived far greater and far swifter climate changes than we currently expect. And don;t forget, our records are only really accurate fopr a couple of hundred years at most, although assumptions can be drawn from various deposits around the world.

Is there not a single American reading this board that actually cares what happens to the planet?
The outright denial and fumbling for excuses blows me away - and they wonder why people do not like them?

Erm, that reply was to my post, but are you actually including me in your response?

<<...but I don't see how the tiny contribution of mankind can be causing it.>>

In nonlinear systems the relationship of cause and effect is nonlinear. Anybody who's interested in the possible consequences of a rise in ocean temparatures of a couple of degrees centigrade should read about methyl hydrates and the Permian extinction sequence - small causes can have *big* consequences.


Noggin

This is a reply to the thread...

For the people that posted in the first 40 post, thak you for the reporting fron *the doing something about it* point of view and the supportive remark others gave you.


This is a reply to the thread title, the question it poses..

If you take the World population to be around the 6 billion mark, the population of the U.S.A. as 250 million then, speaking a one, singual person there is something you may like to consider: I am pissed off having to hear the isolationist speaches from those that seek to govern the U.S.A. only to gloss over it when attending international meetings...

America is not "The World" there are other views besides, saying you want to know about the rest of the world only to sit there and say well your way is right anway, so it don't really matter what anybody is willing to pass onto you is a prime example of why I would imagine there are a few more in the 6 billion that wishes...

America should shit or get of the potty when it makes a promise to the world than has no intention of keeping, whatever the issue, peace, economics, health, polution, you name it, America cares for America and that doe mean American industry not the American people of whom thare are a great deal of good people, a great deal of ill informed people and apparently a great deal of just plain stupid. This born out by the last "Everyday Joe" member of the American public I had a conversation with in Americ though the U.K. was in the southern hemisphere.

To end, Americans may be happy living in "The Unites States of Gen-erica" the rest of the planet may not want to live in a generic world being pacified by a self-deluded system, is something to consider.

But since I made an assertion in this thread that I have now found , at least in part, to be untrue, I feel compelled to retract and appologise here.
I asserted the tiny effect of human impact on pollution and so forth.
however, doing some reasearch into but one area (Sulphur Dioxide emissions) I find that:

UK SO2 for 2002
1.002 Tg. SO2
http://www.emep.int/REVIEW/2004/Nat_tot_emis1-6.html (but doesn't seem to include America?)

http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/22/sulfur.php
Gives 13.4 Tg/a SO2 for Volcanic eruptions.
= 13.4 Tg per year

From previous Link, Total anthropogenic SO2 per year in 2002 was
= 17.518 Tg per year

Although as volcanic and other seismic events are unpredictable the values above are minimums for them. And the figures between the two sites do not tally exactly. But, for example, one eruption mentioned in the site emitted 122 Tg SO2 in 8 months alone. but that was back in the 1700's

Ho hum, a useful day well spent learning stuff! And I ain;t even started looking at CO2!

I seem to remember hearing that there was a war or something back in the 40s.

If I could make a suggestion to this thread, it might help when discussing issues like pollution to differentiate between the probability or likelihood of something occurring from the consequences of it occurring. This is non-trivial, and causes a lot of unnecessary anger amongst those who debate such things. One person may concede that the dangers of, say, global warming are undeniable, but then take the stance that it isn't likely to be as bad as the opposition says. The other person might interpret this as the first is arguing that global warming doesn't happen and therefore is nothing to be concerned about - a misinterpretation of the original opinion. Vice versa, it should be noted that when talking to people who have the opinion that the consequences of such an event are potentially severe enough that probability or likelyhood is not applicable, and thus is a bit of a red herring. Actually focusing in on these differences is what will lead to a meaningful debate, something I personally do not hold out much probability of occurring amongst politicians any damn time soon.

In addition, it might be useful to mention exactly *which* pollutants one is discussing and include a per-capita figure (rather than making a blanket statement that some nation pollutes more than anyone else). These things just help to clarify an already complex issue.



- JD