SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:57 am

The World Environmental Summit is due to start in Johannesburg.

However, I for one find the USA's environmental stance, a farce, a facade, a presidential campaign front, and poor. It is a pity.

Though oil barons are mostly blamed for the Texan presdient's stance, I do not think it's just them. Many Americans, hence voters, will be hit in the pocket somewhat, if environmentally friendly policies come into place. And that is not a politically sound policy to therefore follow.

However, I think it is needed. It is unfortunate that a significant number of middle class people upwards (I think the US calls them 'Middle Americans'), will not sacrifice some Dollars for the environment. The notion that we all care for the environment but do not want to spend money on it is an illogical one and is one that will therefore lead us to an environmental disaster - "resistance is futile" as the Star Trek Borg say, or at least if the USA continues this 'resistance' against the environment.

The USA emitts the most global warming gases. Global warming however, is denied by the US Government to protect itself. This is unimpressive and shows lack of compassion and thought for the future.

China and India are also increasingly giving out global warming gases, however, their per capita emissions are far less than the USA's.

The Kyoto agreement has gone far in €urope. The UK for example has reduced greenhouse gas emissions significantly and the rest of €urope has reduced such emissions in comparable amounts. Why not the USA?

Though we are not going to get far with this President, (he lied about Kyoto and other environmental issues), the world should get together and order the US to get it's act together. The USA should not be the one to ruin it for everyone just because they are obviously larger and therefore incurr more costs when turning to a pro-environmental stance. There are many ways to fund such ventures. General Electric makes huge profits for example and a tax could be put on such similar large profit making companies. 1 billion Dollars per company will not be missed.

Before I get flamed by such Americans, I like Boeing and United Airlines among other nice US brands and companies.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
DPrush
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 8:11 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:06 am

I am not going to flame you in any way, there's no need to. But we won all the wars (Yes, I know about Vietnam, it was more like fighting with one arm tied behind our back) and we are the richest, most developed and the wealthiest country in the world, so we set the policy and not anyone else. I've been overseas, and eventhough the fuel/pollution policies in numerous places I've visited are a lot more stringent, the smog levels are quite higher due to more frequent use of low grade gas and/or diesel fuel. Also, inspection procedures are a lot more lax and thus the emissions from individual operators are substantially higher. American environment is pristine compared to that of Europe, S.America and Asia, so we do not feel the need to belong to any of the organizations that would dictate their policies to us, without firsthand taking care of what is going on in their own backyard.

Thank You
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:10 am

Don't speak for all of us DPrush...Bush is in favor of drilling in Alaska, but not Florida (where his little toad of an election-stealing brother is Governor). Methinks if they found oil in the Grand Canyon that would be then end of that natural wonder...
Coast to Coast and Border to Border, Ozark Flies YOUR Way!
 
DPrush
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 8:11 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:18 am

I am not speaking for all of us here, Thank You. Nor do I propose drilling in ANWR
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:26 am

Sorry, but do a little more research on the subject and have some balance. You need to realize that the U.S. is a very big country geographically. In some areas you would be amazed like our national Parks for example, and the total lack of polution. UNTOUCHABLE in comparison to other areas in the world.

And what of the U.K.and it's environment?

My suggestion is to write your PM and complain and stop whining about the U.S. and it's position.

This was just another bash U.S. posting. And I called you on it!

Before I get flamed by such Americans, I like Boeing and United Airlines among other nice US brands and companies.

Spare us will you.

Drill Anwar, and say NO to Kyoto Accords.

ClipperHawaii

"You Can't Beat The Experience"
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:33 am

As far as global warming is concerened, I have just 2 words. Prove it. You can't. Know why? I does not exist. You can stick global warming in your ozone hole. Not too far though! LOL

 Smile
CH





"You Can't Beat The Experience"
 
roguetrader
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:14 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:33 am

Singapore_Air,

If you are so concerned about the environment I'm sure you'll agree that it is a worldwide problem. In America, Kyoto is viewed as yet another attempt by foreigners to influence American policy. But, a compromise could be considered, I think. You want America to get cleaner - if you can find a way that does not penalize America's success, an agreement is possible. You have to understand that Americans believe that when other nations can't match American economic performance, the other nations will resort to government regulation under any guise in attempt to bring the US down to their level.

For example, if you could determine what it would cost to bring America and anywhere else up to the standards you desire and then divide that cost on an exact per capita basis to be shared by all people equally, that would I think be fine. You wouldn't even have to include the poorer countries in the tax - just figure out what it woud cost to sanitize the world and split this proportionately between Europe, America, Japan and perhaps a few other industrialized nations.

Something like this is the only compromise America would consider - a compromise where all nations are taxed or otherwise share the overall cost equally and in which no nation is singled out. Otherwise America may never get close to the standards you desire. If the environment is so important to you, the cost shouldn't matter. America believes costs DO matter and will not bear a greater proportionate cost than anyone else.

kind regards,

RogueTrader
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Clipperhawaii, RogueTrader

Thu Aug 22, 2002 4:36 am

Clipperhawaii: My suggestion is to write your PM and complain and stop whining about the U.S. and it's position.

We´ll do that the second you stop your own dirt at your borders and keep it to yourself. Honestly!  Big thumbs up



RogueTrader: For example, if you could determine what it would cost to bring America and anywhere else up to the standards you desire and then divide that cost on an exact per capita basis to be shared by all people equally, that would I think be fine.

Yeah. If someone doesn´t wash for a month, it´s really the other people´s responsibility to get him cleaned up. Really.  Insane


RogueTrader: Something like this is the only compromise America would consider - a compromise where all nations are taxed or otherwise share the overall cost equally and in which no nation is singled out.

Start washing more frequently and people won´t complain about your stench any more.
 
apathoid
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:19 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 4:56 am

Don't speak of what you know not Ozark. ANWR is a wasteland. How do I know??? I lived in Barrow and Kotzebue. (get out a map) I have been to ANWR many times. I worked on the North Slope. I know first hand the ridiculous pains that the oil companies go through to prevent environmental damage. I would wager that the North Slope is cleaner than your house. I know that the precious Caribou couldn't care less what the oil companies do. In fact, if you leave your hangar doors open in Deadhorse, the caribou will come in the hangar in droves to get away from the mosquitoes. Everything your little Sierra Club Nazi buddies tell you about ANWR is a lie. Drill away. No one would ever notice you were there. Next time you want to spout off, don't tow the party line. Get a little info for yourself.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:40 am

Not only is ANWR an icy wasteland, but the size of the actual drilling site when compared to the size of the entire state is equivalent to a postage stamp on a football field. Ozark, I'm guessing you want us to believe half the state would be dripping in soot killing everything precious. Give me a break. Did you know these sites actually ATTRACT wildlife?
"Shaddap you!"
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:42 am

ClipperHawaii: Your tone is rude and shows a lack of care for the environment. "My suggestion is to write your PM and complain and stop whining about the U.S. and it's position." - Why? To create a presentation about how it is possible to be successful and have the highest GDP growth of the G7 nations and be environmentally friendly?

RogueTrader: "You have to understand that Americans believe that when other nations can't match American economic performance, the other nations will resort to government regulation under any guise in attempt to bring the US down to their level." Such a belief is only harnessed through arrogance and inaccurate knowledge of the subject. Americans do not care about the environment if it costs them one cent.

"(First sentence, second main paragraph)" No it won't. It costs, and why spend on the environment when you can spend on bonds and stocks? In a sterotype, Americans would not like it as it costs.

"If the environment is so important to you, the cost shouldn't matter." A pity I can't say the same for the Bush administration. What did Clinton think of Kyoto? I can't remember.

"America believes costs DO matter and will not bear a greater proportionate cost than anyone else." What about any cost?
----

The point I'm making here is that there needs to be a change of mindset. Not everyone is open minded as Rogue Trader seems to be. The seemingly misuse of economic power is wrong. However, it is also pitiful for €uropean and other 'big' countries to sit back and fight a battle in vain.

If anything, Iraq should be a bargaining point for the US. Sure they can go it alone, but a few friends would make it a lot easier.

ClipperHawaii: "This was just another bash U.S. posting. And I called you on it!"

Spare us will you? Your selfishness and incapacity to open to reality will be futile for you
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:46 am

What I DO know is that a designated National Refuge should remain as such. Once you start chipping away...it's a slippery slope. And why the f*ck hasn't anyone developed alternative sources of energy since the 70's oil crisis? Big Oil won't allow it...especially with a slimeball oil-grubbing Prez in the White House. I wouldn't be caught dead at the Sierra Clubhouse...
As for my household cleanliness...I let the cleaning lady worry about that.
Coast to Coast and Border to Border, Ozark Flies YOUR Way!
 
AerLingus
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 9:22 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:54 am

The United States provides a HUGE amount of products to the global community. Automobiles, electronics software and hardware, industrial equipment, medical products of virtually all kinds, pulp and paper products, and a variety of other items.

The world's largest economy doesn't get that way by consuming it's own products. The world demands American products, so we deliver. We pollute because you buy our stuff.

Think about the American things you use before you complain about our pollution.
Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 7:03 am

Ozark, LMAO!!! You blame Bush for everything don't you. You're a comedy act, dude.

"And why the f*ck hasn't anyone developed alternative sources of energy since the 70's oil crisis"

Well, they have, big guy. Either its impractical, has other problems, or just simply isn't economically feasible to mass-produce to the middle class.

I know, I know....its all Bush's fault. He's soooooooooo dumb, yet has been running this energy conspiracy since the 70s right under our eyes. Too bad Clinton wasn't smart enough to figure it out and stop him when he was running things. heeheehee!!!
"Shaddap you!"
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 7:52 am

AerLingus, there are big export countries which are able to reduce the pollution...
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

AerLingus, JetService

Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:05 am

AerLingus: The world's largest economy doesn't get that way by consuming it's own products. The world demands American products, so we deliver. We pollute because you buy our stuff.

Wrong.

The USA have a massive trade deficit. They consume much more foreign products than they export.

Europe, on the other hand, has a significant trade surplus and still manages to clean up its act. At the expense of a part of its short-term growth, that much is true. But this will only become more expensive with any additional day of idle denial.


Ozark: And why the f*ck hasn't anyone developed alternative sources of energy since the 70's oil crisis

JetService: Well, they have, big guy. Either its impractical, has other problems, or just simply isn't economically feasible to mass-produce to the middle class.

Is that why european firms have become market leaders in this emerging field? Hmmmm...

Just think of the steel situation and extrapolate to other branches where some are innovating, and some are standing still...
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:18 am

I can't blame Bush for everything...I'm sure he didn't have anything to do with the Kennedy assasination (maybe Dad did). And yes, GOP presidents as well as the 2 Democatic ones have sat on their butts while we send our citizens out to die for oil interests...my point being we've had 30 years to come up with alternative energy sources, hell it only took a decade from JFK saying "we'll put a man on the moon" until we actually did it. WHY? Because no one had a vested interest in us NOT putting a man on the moon (the fromer USSR notwithstanding). You think TexonShellaco wants to find a way to turn water in fuel? Sure they do....and we'll see GW marching in drag in a gay pride parade down the main street of Crawford Texas.
Coast to Coast and Border to Border, Ozark Flies YOUR Way!
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:24 am

The rest of the world makes me chuckle.

The only analogy I can think of is an 16 year old whippersnapper who upon getting his first kiss on a date giving unsolicitewd sexual advice to an old geezer, never mind the geezer having 8 kids.

Brief chronology of U.S. environmentalism:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLL DATA: ENVT. ONE OF 3 NATIONAL PROBLEMS:
1965 -- 17%
1970 -- 53%
EARTH DAY 1970
NEW MAINSTREAM GROUPS:
Environmental Defense Fund, 1967
League of Conservation Voters, 1970
Environmental Action, 1970
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, 1971
Natural Resources Defense Council, 1971
EMERGENCE OF BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Federal Environmental Legislation:
Wildlife and Endangered species
Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 1929
Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act, 1934
Endangered Species Preservation Act, 1966
Endangered Species Conservation Act, 1969
Marine Mammal Protection Act,1972
Endangered Species Act, 1973; Amds, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1988
Air
Air Quality Act, 1960, 1967
Clean Air Act, 1963; Amds, 1970, 1977, 1990,
Water
Water Pollution Act, 1948
Water Pollution Control Act (Amds), 1956
Water Quality Act, 1965
Clean Water Restoration Act, 1966
Water Quality Improvement Act, 1970
Federal Water Poll. Control Act (Amds) 1972
Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974
Clean Water Act, 1977
Federal Water Poll. Control Act (Amds) 1977
Solid & Hazardous wastes
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 1965
Resource Recovery Act, 1970
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 1976
Comprehensive Env. Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amds, 1984
Superfund Amds and Reauthorization Act, 1986
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, 1986
Pesticides & Toxics
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 1972; Amds 1988
Toxic Substances Control Act, 1976
Environmental Pesticide Control Act, 1978
Noise
Noise Control Act, 1972
Quiet Communities Act, 1978
Forests, Parks & Land Use
Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, 1960
Wilderness Act, 1964
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971
Land Use Policy Act, 1974
Strip Mining Act, 1974
National Parks and Recreation Act, 1978
National Forest Management Act, 1976
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 1977
Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OzarkD9S: And why the f*ck hasn't anyone developed alternative sources of energy since the 70's oil crisis?

Well, you're anyone. Did you feel enough concern to become an engineer and pitch in to solve this problem?

OzarkD9S: Big Oil won't allow it...especially with a slimeball oil-grubbing Prez in the White House.

I was under the impression there were several presidents in office since 1974.

Singapore Air: China and India are also increasingly giving out global warming gases, however, their per capita emissions are far less than the USA's

This really raised my eyebrows, to suggest these two particular countries are more eco-friendly than the U.S.
I think this stat is very misleading. India and China have gargantuan populations which with this taken alone skews the statisitic. Industry could be filthy and still look good, per capita.
It is ridiculous data such as this which destroys any credibility of these eco groups and their agenda.
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
AerLingus
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 9:22 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:24 am

Klaus:

I have a feeling you're not taking into account the size of the American and European economies. The American economy is still larger by comparison and in terms of sheer volume still produces more products despite a deficit.

Furthermore, Europe is a continent. It is not a country (I didn't need to remind you of that, did I?). The EU is a group of member nations, not a superstate - not one nation. That being said, it's unfair to compare the trade deficits and surpluses of the two areas. Why? Because the United States is an independent nation that does not have the benefit of the strengths and shared prosperity of member nations. It's like apples and oranges.
Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:38 am

The whole concept that humans can inadvertantly and significantly affect the global climate on a long-term basis is unbelievable. How many ICE AGES has this planet has been through before man ever invented the internal combustion engine? And yet we are concenred because average tempartues have gone up .1 degree over the past 50 years? Please spare us until there is solid evidence!

I'm all for advocating practical environmental concerns: Keeping water supplies clean, ensuring that our forests remain renewable, establishing plenty of parks, and yes, maintaining a reasonable level of air quality, but the whole global warming issue is just not a major concern. Please do not think we are not doing anything about air quality in the US. We have "ozone days" in major cities where certain rules take effect regarding lawnmowers, mass transit, etc.
 
AerLingus
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 9:22 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:41 am

Another thing!
Singapore_Air:
You're not taking into account the numerous efforts the United States has undertaken to reduce industrial emissions in the past 20 years. We are still one of the leaders when it comes to new methods of industrial emissions reduction.

I supported the Kyoto Accords and I still do, but:
Your implication that the people of the United States are uncaring and ignorant in regard to environmental issues is something that I find absurd and in itself ignorant. The comments are economically discriminatory, nationalistic and bordering on...well...stupidity!
Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:42 am

I stated that ALL presidents sat on their butts on this issue. Perhaps my passion for art circumvented my educatonal desire for a better world in terms of alternative energy sources, MY BAD! Perhaps you'ld like to fund my educational studies in this field...and pay my bills while I do...I'm afraid my areas of expertise preclude this, but hey, I'm willing to try.
Coast to Coast and Border to Border, Ozark Flies YOUR Way!
 
sccutler
Posts: 5582
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 10:38 am

With great trepidation, I join the fray... only briefly.

It is a source of boundless amusement for an American to get chastised on environmental issues by a chap from the UK...

...when nearly every meaningful industrial pollution reduction technology and initiative originated in the USA.

I recognize that the member who started this thread spoke from his (or her) heart, but heartfelt beliefs founded on false premises are still false.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
roguetrader
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:14 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 10:53 am

Klaus,

You said:

Yeah. If someone doesn??t wash for a month, it??s really the other people??s responsibility to get him cleaned up. Really.

My idea is about COMPROMISE. The US doesn't believe in the legitimacy of this proposed regulation - you do. The compromise is to split the cost: you will get what you want (a cleaner world), the US will get what it wants (no penalty for its size.) Your idea that America be forced to adopt a regulation it doesn't want AND be forced to enact and pay for a US policy created by non-Americans will never work. If the environment is really that important to you (which of course it is not), a compromise will be acceptable. It is in fact the only way America would accept Kyoto.

In reply to this statement:
The world demands American products, so we deliver. We pollute because you buy our stuff.

Klaus says:

Wrong.


No, Klaus, YOU are wrong. Your wishful thinking will not change the fact that the US is by far the largest exporter in the world. The net account deficit has no effect on who is the largest exporter. America is of of course the largest importer and exporter, just as it leads virtually every economic indicator. The strength of the dollar makes imports to the US cheap and US exports expensive. Still, American products are demanded far more worldwide than the products of any other country. 450 million Europeans or a billion Chinese produce less than 280 million Americans - this is a major fact Kyoto seeks to 'remedy'.

kind regards,

RogueTrader
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 11:31 am

You have to understand that Americans believe that when other nations can't match American economic performance, the other nations will resort to government regulation under any guise in attempt to bring the US down to their level.

Home Run point, Rogue Trader. You're rising on my chart with a bullet these days, despite our past tussles.  Big thumbs up

Furthermore, Europe is a continent. It is not a country (I didn't need to remind you of that, did I?).

Don't worry, Aer Lingus-they're working real hard to make it one big, happy, fuzzy country.

An agreement like Kyoto-which Clinton proposed, I believe, as does Bush-is not good when it asks the American people to shoulder the burden of the costs for this agreement, while letting China off free and clear. That's not fair nor equitable. I do see it, like Rogue said, as an attempt by an envious and jealous world, to try to knock the U.S. economy and taxpayer down a few notches closer to them, by dictating to us what we should do. I always hear Euros complaining that they don't like the U.S. dictating to them. Well guess the hell what? We don't want YOU dictating enviormental policy to us, got it?

If the American people want to change the course of envoirmental policy, then let us take care of it-but don't dictate to us what/when/how/where/why we should do it.

Methinks Europe and the rest of the world is getting a little too big for it's britches these days.  Smile
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 11:32 am

Ooops, my bad: I said "Kyoto, which Clinton proposed, I think..." I meant to say "which Clinton opposed, I think..."

Sorry 'bout that.
 
174thfwff
Posts: 2831
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:47 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 11:36 am

Reading this thread reminded me that I needed to go fill up my Ford Excursion and my Yukon XL....

-174th
Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Staten, Uptown, what now? Lets make it happen.
 
Guest

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:04 pm

Dprush says:

"""I am not going to flame you in any way, there's no need to. But we won all the wars (Yes, I know about Vietnam, it was more like fighting with one arm tied behind our back) and we are the richest, most developed and the wealthiest country in the world, so we set the policy and not anyone else"""

I wonder if there is an escalator clown with a Kitty Kat thumping a Kroc tm blow up doll attached to that statement? ***thump*** ***thump***

Aerlingus says:

"""Think about the American things you use before you complain about our pollution."""

Does that include the fast food wrappers that I see EVERYWHERE that pollute our cities?  Big grin

Having said that, I would not be so arrogant to suggest the Australian Government is any better than the United States.

Australia is the largest greenhouse gas contributer per capita on the entire planet!

mb

Owner of the *yay* trademark.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:21 pm

Does that include the fast food wrappers that I see EVERYWHERE that pollute our cities?

The fast food wrappers aren't polluting-it's the people in your cities who are throwing them everywhere that are the polluters, aren't the?
 
Pacific
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:23 pm

Why is China and other developing countries exempt from Kyoto? Because the population developing countries like China don't have the money like the USA to adopt expensive clean technology....the average GDP per capita in China is like $700 compared with around $30,000 in the USA. China has already started in some places. Beijing has strict policies regarding factories and some cities have started adopting Euro 1 standard for diesel emissions.

Pacific
 
Guest

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:44 pm

Alpha1,

Your absolutely right but the ultimate source of the majority of these wrappers has "Made in the USA" on them.

Trust me, by far 90% of visible trash in this city is McDonalds wrappers.

Where did McDonalds originate from?

Why does McDonalds encourage people to drop their trash in the streets compared to other fast food / take away food places?

Interestingly Maccas in the city would represent probably 5% (if that) of food consumption (lunch in the CBD) but around 90% of visible trash?

Why is that? Does anyone have any thoughts as to why?

(P.S. I thought I'd better put something in here in case your missing ADG too much! LOL  Big grin )

mb
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:44 pm

Because the population developing countries like China don't have the money like the USA to adopt expensive clean technology....

So we just lop the costs onto the American taxpayers because they're wealthier than the chinese people? Sorry, that's a non-starter. Again, it must be equatible. Either all polluters contribute to the solution, or you won't get the support of the American people, who will have to pay their hard-earned money to satisfy Europe and the rest of the world.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:47 pm

Your absolutely right but the ultimate source of the majority of these wrappers has "Made in the USA" on them.

Irrelvant. If your people disposed of them properly, it wouldn't matter if they said "Made on Mars." In this case, it is YOU that is the polluter, not the the U.S. Stop trying to shift responsibility for your own actions. Again, you're the polluter here, not the U.S.
 
Guest

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:52 pm

Alpha1,

Do you have any idea why so many people drop this particular trash?

It's baffling.

I wonder if anyone notices the same phenonema anywhere else in the world?

mb

 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:53 pm

Amazing that so many people want to shift blame on the United States for things totally out of our control. I still am waiting for some idiot to try and blame us for that brown cloud hanging around India and China.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:55 pm

Nice dodge of the question, Mx_5boy. Again, you can't blame the U.S. because people in other countries throw things on the street that say "Made in the U.S.A". That's an arrogant double-standard. Tell the people in your country to take some responsiblity for themselves, and to stop blaming the U.S. for all their problems.
 
Guest

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:57 pm

Alpha1,

What about the deliberate dumping and mixing of GM / Non GM crop seeds to farmers around the planet from some of your multinationals?

Thats enviromental pollution.

mb
 
Pacific
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:05 pm

So I guess we wait for some poor guy earning $700 a year to increase his income first so that they can afford it....or will some islands in the Pacific as well as NYC, LA etc. be flooded if the developed countries which can afford to cut down emossions don't act first? The necessity to cut emissions under Kyoto would also increase innovation and research in lower-cost clean energy which can then be applied to the developing nations.

Pacific
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:06 pm

The necessity to cut emissions under Kyoto would also increase innovation and research in lower-cost clean energy which can then be applied to the developing nations.

Translation: let the U.S. taxpayer also pay for cleaning up other polluting nations around the world.

Sorry. No dice.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:09 pm

Once the developing nations are richer and can afford clean energy, they have to start paying themselves to cut emissions.

Pacific
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:11 pm

Once the developing nations are richer and can afford clean energy, they have to start paying themselves to cut emissions.

But until then, you want it to come out of MY pocket.

Sorry, agian, no dice.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:15 pm

Yep exactly, because New York may already be flooded by the time the 10billion people in the wold can afford the clean technology, or there may be a world crisis because oil ran out etc. You may not be but I'd be willing to pay extra for environmental protection once I'm in the world of work and can afford it.

Pacific
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:17 pm

You may not be but I'd be willing to pay extra for environmental protection once I'm in the world of work and can afford it.

Fine, go ahead and pay YOUR money to satisfy Europe and the rest of the world. I'll keep my to feed, clothe and house my family.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:25 pm

The economic damage from the flooding of major cities far outweighs the costs of the Kyoto protocol. So why can't the whole world do it now? Because they can't afford it, so those who can afford should help protect the environment right now and then the developing countries should follow once they can afford it. It may not seem fair but is there any other way? I do recognise that the US has made efforts to cut emissions such as electric cars in California. The Kyoto simply proves commitment for a sustainable future. Drastic cuts in one moment out of necessity is very expensive but a gradual cut in emissions would certainly be affordable in developing countries.

Pacific
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:10 pm

Pacific, I don't think you're gonna convince Alpha 1 to pick up the tab. LOL! Besides, he & I are hooking up to fly to Sydney and clean up those darn Big Mac wrappers Mx5_boy throw all over the place. Big grin
"Shaddap you!"
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:13 pm

I hate to break out bad news, but the pollution issues in the USA has nothing compared to the pollution problems in the lesser-developed world.

Look at the environmental problems in other parts of the world:

1. The terrible air pollution of cities in China.

2. The unspeakable filth of cities in India.

3. The open storage of nuclear waste in the former Soviet Union.

4. The uncontrolled slash and burn agriculture in South America, Africa and parts of Southeast Asia.

Before the USA signs the Kyoto Accord, they want to make sure the lesser-developed world has done something to solve their own very serious pollution problems.
 
brianhames
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2000 2:22 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:30 pm

I agree with ClipperHawaii reguarding Global Warming, proove it. Not a shred of evidence exists...
 
apathoid
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:19 pm

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:39 pm

Oh my god alpha....let it never happen again....but I agree with every word you have said on this thread...wow...
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:48 pm

Alpha 1 is the personification that the Americans do not want to pay once cent, whether cost is divided equally or not. It is stupid that such thoughts exist.

"I agree with ClipperHawaii reguarding Global Warming, proove it. Not a shred of evidence exists... " Oh do get out of your microcosm.

RayChuang brings up very good points and I think the international world needs to pressure these lesser developed countries to get their act together.

"Before the USA signs the Kyoto Accord, they want to make sure the lesser-developed world has done something to solve their own very serious pollution problems." - I suppose there's no pointin asking why.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Guest

RE: Poor USA Environmental Position

Thu Aug 22, 2002 4:18 pm

Jetservice,

Whilst I was being predictable with my original post, many councils here in Australia are trying to work out why this seems to be such problem. (macca wrappers everywhere)

Even though Sydney is pretty clean, the rubbish you do see is of the golden arches variety most of the time.

What's the different between someone who buys a sandwich and someone who buys a Big Mac? Why does the sandwich eater put his / her wrapper in the garbage bins provided whilst the Maccas buyer throws it in the street? (Not all Macca's customers do this, but their rubbish is far more prevalant as street trash.)

No one has answered my question on eviromental pollution caused by GM crops seed entering the normal seed chain and being planted.

Who's going to compensate farmers who can never sell their organic crops as they have been polluted by GM crops cross polinating?

mb

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WarRI1 and 11 guests