Global Warming?

1,424 posts

You can use "global warming" to simply refer to the fact that the Earth's average temperature is increasing.

I love how most people are so human centered. Global warming has occurred a couple of times in the billions of years Earth has existed. The times it happened before now, there was not 1 internal combustion engine or other polluting device that we currently blame for global warming. Thus, you can not blame human use of anything solely for global warming.

I agree with Bikeman that we are all stewards of the environment. Just because we aren't solely responsible for global warming doesn't mean we can abuse the environment with reckless abandon. We as a planet need to reduce, reuse and recycle. I'm not an environmentalist, but when I found out that by recycling 1 pop can that I was saving enough energy to power a television for 3 hours, or that by recycling my water bottles I was reducing our dependence on foreign oil, I started recycling everything I could.

My recycling won't be enough though. Even in G8 nations, including the wealthiest, the US, recycling and reduction efforts are poor in many areas. The real problem I see is that we (the G8 nations) can sign every protocol to reduce emissions, etc. but if the developing world continues to pollute at the rates they do, our reductions will make no difference at all. For every PZEV, ULEV and LEV we sell in the US, there are 10 other cars world wide with no emissions controls whatsoever. With more people living in the developing world than the G8, we can not change anything without the developing world's cooperation.

I know that people feel that it isn't right to require the developing world, to comply with such measures, and many will argue that no one made us comply with such measures when we were a developing nation. What we have to remember is that when the G8 was developing, there were no such things as emissions control devices or recycling measures. There also was not a World Bank or an IMF to give us money to adopt such technologies had they existed. Since all these things exist today, I see no problem with making them comply.

Another thing I have a problem with is that much of the future problems we will have as a planet will be water shortages, food shortages and unbreathable air. This won't happen in the G8, but it will in developing nations. In many of them it will simply be due to their ever burgeoning populations creating more pollution and using more resources than they have. Moral of that story: If you live in an overpopulated place with not enough water and not enough food, think long and hard about having more children.

I think that is all I care to say on the subject.

Contour gets it. Right now, the world is probably at least one-third overpopulated. And that situation is only getting worse. With more mouths to feed, and more of what's coming out of the "other end," there will only be more pollution. It is time for the "developing countries" to stop "developing" until they can sustain the populations they already have in place. Fortunately, we live in a time when we can control our reproduction without the need to destroy human lives in the process. It is just a matter of developing the will to do so. I believe that keeping family sizes down to the parental couple and no more than two offspring would be just about right. If we don't do this, then we will be in a battle for the distribution of resources, and facing shortages of everything.

It is unlikely that any sort of "one world" government will be able to take hold. We must accept the concept of national sovreignty, and each nation must be responsible in the way it manages it's resources and population. Working together as nations wold be nice, but that is also quite unlikely. Therefore, it is also likely that stronger nations will determine the course for weaker ones. I think it is up to the "stronger" nations to adopt a sound, economically and ecologically sustainable means of managing it's resources, and sharing it's "lessons learned" with the rest of the world with the goal of a richer, happier life for all. Of course, that means that we must get more people driving Corollas with diesel engines, and less people driving gas-guzzling SUV's.

Now -- where are the diesel Corollas for North America? Hmmm?

C'mon Toyota of North America -- let's get with it!

1,424 posts

I was not thinking of a world government when I wrote my post. If anyone got that feeling, I apologize. As an American I believe that no one has the right to strip a nation of its sovereignty in any way, that is why I am against signing things like the Kyoto Protocol. While I agree that we need to take the environment seriously, I do not think anyone else should be telling us how to do it.

I'm also a firm believer that all we can do is lead by example and provide incentives to get other countries to cooperate on environmental issues (such as the World Banks current program to give aide money to nations so they can develop modern waste treatment and removal systems in urban areas). We can not force any country to stop polluting.

Another thing I firmly believe is something that one of my professors once said to me. He stated that if people in developing countries started behaving like people in the developed countries that they would one day become that the world would face fewer problems in the future. I agree with this because more people isn't better. All more people means is that there are more mouths to share a finite amount of food, more bodies to share a limited supply of freshwater and more people to be a burden on the taxpayer.

While I'm not in support of programs such as China's old one child system or the program that India instituted in the early 1990s that required men with 3 or more living children to have a vasectomy (which they quickly abandoned), I do think limiting the number of children one has is a good idea. Lets face it, in developing nations it may not cost a lot to have another child, but you are adding to your already overpopulated country, which isn't helping. In countries like the US where people feel like they must provide a lot for their children (a nice house, nice clothes, a nice car, college, insurance, etc.), having children is really expensive and a lot of people can't afford to have very many. Not to mention that having children that you can't rear because you are working all the time tends to be discouraged since we are supposed to be caring and sharing parents.

Since each successive generation in the US feels like they have to provide more for their children than they were provided with, they tend to have fewer children. This is why our population is aging. My great grandparents had 2, 3, 4 and 6 children respectively, My Dad's parents had two children and my Mom's parents had 3. My parents had 2, my Dad's sister had none and my Mom's oldest brother had only 1 child, while her youngest brother has none. Consequently my father has 17 cousins, my mother has 15 and I have one.

It seems as if my parent's generation figured out how to master birth control and therefore keep our population stable. Unfortunately this isn't a lesson my generation has learned yet. I know people my age that have children already, and I consider myself far to young and at this point too selfish to have a child. As I see it, it's an attitude problem. You wouldn't believe how many twenty-something males, especially the ones with only 1 sex partner (long term girlfriend) think birth control is not their responsibility, but their girlfriends. This is not acceptable, especially if we carry this attitude into our married lives and expect our wives to take care of birth control. IMHO, long term use of birth control (hormones) isn't good for anybody. I'd rather have a 30 minute outpatient procedure and limp around for a couple of days then to make my wife take pills that may cause her to get cancer someday, but that's just me.

This is all I'm going to say on these issues.

I hope this discussion isn't too adult for anyone. It is simply meant to be a reply to Larry's comments.

I was not thinking of a world government when I wrote my post. If anyone got that feeling, I apologize. As an American I believe that no one has the right to strip a nation of its sovereignty in any way, that is why I am against signing things like the Kyoto Protocol. While I agree that we need to take the environment seriously, I do not think anyone else should be telling us how to do it.
I'm also a firm believer that all we can do is lead by example and provide incentives to get other countries to cooperate on environmental issues (such as the World Banks current program to give aide money to nations so they can develop modern waste treatment and removal systems in urban areas). We can not force any country to stop polluting.
Another thing I firmly believe is something that one of my professors once said to me. He stated that if people in developing countries started behaving like people in the developed countries that they would one day become that the world would face fewer problems in the future. I agree with this because more people isn't better. All more people means is that there are more mouths to share a finite amount of food, more bodies to share a limited supply of freshwater and more people to be a burden on the taxpayer.
While I'm not in support of programs such as China's old one child system or the program that India instituted in the early 1990s that required men with 3 or more living children to have a vasectomy (which they quickly abandoned), I do think limiting the number of children one has is a good idea. Lets face it, in developing nations it may not cost a lot to have another child, but you are adding to your already overpopulated country, which isn't helping. In countries like the US where people feel like they must provide a lot for their children (a nice house, nice clothes, a nice car, college, insurance, etc.), having children is really expensive and a lot of people can't afford to have very many. Not to mention that having children that you can't rear because you are working all the time tends to be discouraged since we are supposed to be caring and sharing parents.
Since each successive generation in the US feels like they have to provide more for their children than they were provided with, they tend to have fewer children. This is why our population is aging. My great grandparents had 2, 3, 4 and 6 children respectively, My Dad's parents had two children and my Mom's parents had 3. My parents had 2, my Dad's sister had none and my Mom's oldest brother had only 1 child, while her youngest brother has none. Consequently my father has 17 cousins, my mother has 15 and I have one.
It seems as if my parent's generation figured out how to master birth control and therefore keep our population stable. Unfortunately this isn't a lesson my generation has learned yet. I know people my age that have children already, and I consider myself far to young and at this point too selfish to have a child. As I see it, it's an attitude problem. You wouldn't believe how many twenty-something males, especially the ones with only 1 sex partner (long term girlfriend) think birth control is not their responsibility, but their girlfriends. This is not acceptable, especially if we carry this attitude into our married lives and expect our wives to take care of birth control. IMHO, long term use of birth control (hormones) isn't good for anybody. I'd rather have a 30 minute outpatient procedure and limp around for a couple of days then to make my wife take pills that may cause her to get cancer someday, but that's just me.
This is all I'm going to say on these issues.
I hope this discussion isn't too adult for anyone. It is simply meant to be a reply to Larry's comments.

I'm glad to see you weren't thinking about one-world government. But believe me, a lot of people are, and that's pretty scary. One-world government implies that the whole world will be "governed" by only a few, most-likely self-selected elite dictators. They will reject your reality and substitute their own. They will ultimately decide who lives and who dies. Please God don't let that happen!

I believe that life choices, such as smaller family sizes, need to be left in the hands of individuals. However, they should be given the information they need to make good choices. Controlling the global population is something which involves a very delicate balancing act -- one can cross the line from overpopulation to semi-extinction of the human race in a very short time -- the lifespan on a single human being. Keeping this in mind, we must agree that the planet's resources aren't going to sustain an unlimited population, at least not for very long. Therefore, we need to start doing all we can to conserve these resources, and also think about ways of controlling the demand for their use. I'll be the first to admit that this is scary stuff -- but the possible consequences of not thinking along these lines is even more frightening.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional...rticleid=198692

I recently read this article in a newspaper at work a couple days ago. A town around here in Eastern Massachusetts called Brookline is voting on a double excise tax for SUV drivers. It goes to show you how DUMB people can be. Everyone thinks that fuel economy is universally determined by the size and weight of the car. Realistically, fuel comsumption increases by only 1% for every 100 lbs. The difference between a 3200 lbs Camry and a 3800 lbs Highlander with the same engine is nearly negligeble (2-3 mpg at most). I don't like SUVs because most people I know who drive them are bad drivers and don't even need the extra cargo space. Still, it seems absolutely unfair to label all SUVs as gas-guzzlers. The size of the car's engine and the driver's habits have more to do with how well a car can be on gas. Someone driving a 2WD V6 4Runner with a light pedal foot could probably get 22 MPG or more. Now put some idiot behind the same wheel with an AWD V8 and a real attitude, that MPG could dip as low as 13 or less.

If you want my opinion, just put excise tax based on the engine size. If someone really needs the V8 4Runner over the V6, make them pay for it. It seems pretty dumb anyways to buy a V8 4Runner. It makes only 24 more HP than the V6 (260 vs 236).

I don't buY the global warming theory too much. To me it's more about not wasting finite resources (oil), and completely destructing renewable ones (over fishing etc...)

Every gallon of gas I burn, is one less that will be available for my children.

Regardless of whether or not global warming is real, we still need to face the fact that stuff like coal, oil and even uranium are finite, and basing our Western Capitalist economy around dependence on these 3 energy sources is pure madness.

Here is an interesting thing I heard somewhere.....the period of land-based peak oil production was back in like 1996-7. True, 70% of the world is not land-based so one can only assume that there is a decent amount of oil awaiting to be found out in international waters. Think about it; since the 1960s most of the BIG oil fields - Prudhoe Bay, North Sea, Cantrell, are offshore. And this trend of new discoveries will probably continue. Up to a point. There will be a point where demand will always outstrip supply - it seems we crossed that threshold back in 2004-5. This means that whilst production may not peak for a while yet, pure 3rd world demand growth means there will continue to be a steep price paid for oil. Whilst the global economy is still in good shape, imagine if oil was still $25 a barrel instead of $75.

However, there will come a time when oil production WILL peak. It could be 2100. It could be 2027. It could even be tomorrow. When this comes, the use of oil as a transportation fuel will be impractical. The world economy will basically cease to exist. Basing our economy on oil supply is at best foolhardy. Same goes for coal and uranium - these will also run out, however, not for several decades or centuries.

So, as little dependence of fossil fuels as possible will ensure continuing robustness in the global economy. If anything this should be the case for embracing biofuels, hydrogen, renewables etc.

Whilst burning a litre of petrol does release about 2.3kg of CO2 into the atmosphere, fossil fuels pollute in other ways. The basic production of oil, especially in fossil fuels is quite polluting. When an oil resevoir is partially depleted, it is pressurised with water. The water comes out with the oil; this water is then released back into the environment. In the 3rd world there are no environmental laws so this contamination of water continues unabated. Mining for coal is very dangerous; in China, only accidents where more than 5 fatalities result are actually recorded. And it can damage the local environment; decades of coal mining under Newcastle was a factor in the 1989 quake that killed 13.

Finally, there are security issues - soon OPEC will control the bulk of oil production. Many persons involved with OPEC indirectly through company/profit ownership are supporters of terrorism. What funded 9/11, London Bombings, Madrid Bombings? Bombs are expensive, as are flying lessons. Oil money funded these horrid acts.

So what I hopefully have shown that whilst global warming may/may not exist, adopting the ways that would be used to combat it would enhance our lives economically, environmentally and from a security point of view.

Bikeman982

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional...rticleid=198692
I recently read this article in a newspaper at work a couple days ago. A town around here in Eastern Massachusetts called Brookline is voting on a double excise tax for SUV drivers. It goes to show you how DUMB people can be. Everyone thinks that fuel economy is universally determined by the size and weight of the car. Realistically, fuel comsumption increases by only 1% for every 100 lbs. The difference between a 3200 lbs Camry and a 3800 lbs Highlander with the same engine is nearly negligeble (2-3 mpg at most). I don't like SUVs because most people I know who drive them are bad drivers and don't even need the extra cargo space. Still, it seems absolutely unfair to label all SUVs as gas-guzzlers. The size of the car's engine and the driver's habits have more to do with how well a car can be on gas. Someone driving a 2WD V6 4Runner with a light pedal foot could probably get 22 MPG or more. Now put some idiot behind the same wheel with an AWD V8 and a real attitude, that MPG could dip as low as 13 or less.
If you want my opinion, just put excise tax based on the engine size. If someone really needs the V8 4Runner over the V6, make them pay for it. It seems pretty dumb anyways to buy a V8 4Runner. It makes only 24 more HP than the V6 (260 vs 236).

I think any person that owns an SUV or other fuel guzzler has their own penalty.

They have to spend more for gas for the same miles that a fuel efficient vehicle would.

Why penalize them even more by establishing higher excise taxes?

See every reply in these pages: