[Avinash_Tyagi]

For the longest time the debate over global warming has been raging.

The issue was never whether the Earth was warming, as the evidence of that is incontrovertible, but rather, whether Human actions were at least partly responsible and if they were to what degree.

Recent findings seem to indicate that Humanity is at least partly responsible for this warming trend, this coming on the heels of the Kyoto treaty, an international attempt to cut back on worldwide CO2 levels, however the US chose to remain neutral from the treaty due to economic reasons, this is especially problematic due to the US being a large CO2 producer, so the question becomes should the US reconsider its stance on the Kyoto Treaty, or should the Bush Administration continue its course.

What are your opinions on this matter

[stepurhan]

For me, the simple answer is, yes the US should reconsider it's position. Sadly, like anything in politics, I don't think it's a simple as that.

If I recall correctly, the reason George W Bush pulled out of the treaty was because of the effect it would have on American industry. Arguably, that is the whole point (American industry produces a lot of CO2 which is the root of the problem) but there are factors that affect how the Bush administration deal with that.

Firstly, there are the vested interests that just don't want to have to do anything. They have a certain amount of influence in Washington and Mr Bush doesn't want to upset them. Secondly, polluting is (financially) cheap to do but curbing pollution is (financially) quite expensive. You could say that compensation claims make pollution expensive but with something like CO2 emissions (and other air pollution), it's very hard to pin a claim on an individual company. Without specific limits (which could be enforced individually) the damage is the result of the many different compnies pollution. If the Bush administration tried to enforce strict controls on industry I would not be surprised if industry sought government support in making the expensive modifications required.

I'd like to think that governments and industry could be made to work for the good of the planet rather than their just in their own self-interest. But even my own government, who are signed up to the Kyoto protocol, seem to be trying to find ways to limit what they have to do. Maybe I'm just too cynical. Anyone got a more positive viewpoint?

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

I'd like to think that governments and industry could be made to work for the good of the planet rather than their just in their own self-interest. But even my own government, who are signed up to the Kyoto protocol, seem to be trying to find ways to limit what they have to do. Maybe I'm just too cynical. Anyone got a more positive viewpoint?

Unfortunately you seem to be 100% right, the only way I see possible is to actually have the governement implement fines or incentives to cause industry to reduce pollution, however that results in either loss of support of the rich or a raising of taxes on citizens, both of which are unpopular, as a result governmments are going to continue to try and push the issue into the hands of future leaders, however like every other problem, ignoring it only makes it worse later.

[RLacey]

Bush election = oil = CO2 = Kyoto rejection

Something like that.

= BAD

[Titan]

Has anyone read Michael Crichton's latest, State of Fear, for a contrarian, politically incorrect view of global warming? You'd find it interesting I think.

[lumi]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

I'd like to think that governments and industry could be made to work for the good of the planet rather than their just in their own self-interest. But even my own government, who are signed up to the Kyoto protocol, seem to be trying to find ways to limit what they have to do. Maybe I'm just too cynical. Anyone got a more positive viewpoint?

Some government officials are probably interested in global warming happening, because that would open up more land in the North. Discussions have already happened on who should get the land.

[Maquisard]

Right, but with the caps melting won't they be loosing a lot more livable land down south? Like, I dunno, NY and LA?

[lumi]

Originally Posted by Mares

Right, but with the caps melting won't they be loosing a lot more livable land down south? Like, I dunno, NY and LA?

They'll sell it as the next Venice.

[rio]

They'll sell it as the next Venice.

Behold the power of marketing.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Originally Posted by Titan

Has anyone read Michael Crichton's latest, State of Fear, for a contrarian, politically incorrect view of global warming? You'd find it interesting I think.

Skimmed it.

Crichton is an author not a Scientist and this book like all of his others reflect this. The book is about as factually true as the movie "The day after tommorow"

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Avinash_Tyagi

Skimmed it.

Crichton is an author not a Scientist and this book like all of his others reflect this. The book is about as factually true as the movie "The day after tommorow"

Science fiction of course. But his point was that it is all science fiction at this point in time. Scientific data has shown two divergent results. Granted the books footnotes all lean in one direction, but he argues in the appendices a balanced viewpoint.

Perhaps his most powerful point is that the computer modeling the environmentalists use for trumpeting their catastrophic crisis-laden view, is based on guesswork in the setting of initial variables such as weighing factors. This is due to the fact that we don't yet have a good enough understanding of this global process.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Perhaps his most powerful point is that the computer modeling the environmentalists use for trumpeting their catastrophic crisis-laden view, is based on guesswork in the setting of initial variables such as weighing factors. This is due to the fact that we don't yet have a good enough understanding of this global process.

However the shift in ocean temperatures and salinity are proven events not based on computer models.

In fact since the oceans have acted as Sink holes for CO2 for quite some time the changes may be a cause for concern.