Bush and the environment

[Akira 0]

Bush And The Enviroment

[Guest]

Hmm. Nice propaganda. If he is so concerned about the environment, why did he back out of the Kyoto agreement?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America is more engaged than ever in meeting the challenge of climate variability with smart policies that guide concrete actions today and provide for even more progress ahead.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a poor lie.

Did you check who wrote this ? Surprise, surprise...

[FSPilot 0]

People hate Bush for damaging our environment, which we wouldn't have to do if we had Iraq's oil supply.

People hate Bush because they think he's attacking Iraq to gain it's oil supply.

Make up your mind.

[Akira 0]

What is it with the Kyoto Agreement? What kind of enviromentalist rallying cry is that? And then anything else that is brought up about what he is doing enviromentally speaking is considered "propoganda". What kind of narrow-minded double talk is that?

As I stated a LONG time ago and which is easily backed up, Bush didn't "back out" of the Kyoto Agreement. Your Beloved Clinton did, in a far more slick and politically motivated way. He had PLENTY of time to send the Agreement he "signed" to the Senate for ratification but held off. He kept it bottled in the White House until Bush came in and then left the political time bomb sitting in HIS lap. The overwhelming European opinion seems to be that since Your Beloved Clinton signed the agreement that the US was automatically in. You are misinformed. The Congress has to RATIFY the treaty in order for the US to become a part of the agreement. What you saw was nothing but political grandstanding and were easily duped into HIS propoganda...but since that fit your view anyway what do you care?

"Kyoto Agreement Kyoto Agreement!" The rallying cry of liberal enviromentalist....the very ones who ignore the fact the US is doing the same thing on its OWN, and until your precious fractured unenforceable agreement has the ability to do something substantial thats the way it will be.

Propaganda...PUH-lease...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 19 2002,18:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People hate Bush for damaging our environment, which we wouldn't have to do if we had Iraq's oil supply.<span id='postcolor'>

No, we don't hate Bush for damaging your environment. You voted for him. We hate Bush for damaging OUR environment. We didn't vote for him.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People hate Bush because they think he's attacking Iraq to gain it's oil supply.

Make up your mind. <span id='postcolor'>

The problem is (for us) not in the drilling, but in the use of fossile fuels. It doesn't matter if they are from Iraq or Alaska.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Nov. 19 2002,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is it with the Kyoto Agreement? What kind of enviromentalist rallying cry is that? And then anything else that is brought up about what he is doing enviromentally speaking is considered "propoganda". What kind of narrow-minded double talk is that?<span id='postcolor'>

It is a big difference between an international agreement like the Kyoto and something that the officials of one administration say.

If I explain it in your language: Trusting Bush to deal with the environment is the same as trusting Saddam Hussein to inspect his stockpile of weapons himself.

Also, if you read the article you will see that the proposed actions are not even up to the knees of the Kyoto agreement, which demands much more.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 19 2002,23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, we don't hate Bush for damaging your environment. You voted for him. We hate Bush for damaging OUR environment. We didn't vote for him. <span id='postcolor'>

Technically, I didn't vote for him.

And I doubt he's done anything to hurt your environment (can we settle on THE environment? ). Seeing as how he's only been in office for a little over 2 years.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Nov. 19 2002,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I stated a LONG time ago and which is easily backed up, Bush didn't "back out" of the Kyoto Agreement. Your Beloved Clinton did, in a far more slick and politically motivated way. He had PLENTY of time to send the Agreement he "signed" to the Senate for ratification but held off. He kept it bottled in the White House until Bush came in and then left the political time bomb sitting in HIS lap. The overwhelming European opinion seems to be that since Your Beloved Clinton signed the agreement that the US was automatically in. You are misinformed. The Congress has to RATIFY the treaty in order for the US to become a part of the agreement. What you saw was nothing but political grandstanding and were easily duped into HIS propoganda...but since that fit your view anyway what do you care?<span id='postcolor'>

geeze, it's 2 yrs since Clinton left and still want to talk about him....he must be great.

the reason why Clinton did not ratify it is because Republicans cried like a baby over it. If I remember correctly, it did not even pass the congress thanx to Republicans constantly questioning it and trying to derail it. At the time, republicans were calling the protocol a threat to industries, and wanted to kill it.

[dayglow 2]

Kyoto will never be effective as the top polluters don't have to follow any restrictions. If India, China, Russia, etc are still allowed to follow their industy practices then it won't be effective. I live here in Canada and we will have a huge crunch from the agreement and we produce less than 3% of the world total.

Another thing Kyoto focuses on Carbon Dyoxide. Why? 95% of the C2 gas in the atmosphere is naturally produced. The other 5% by burning fossil fuels. Of the 5% Canada produces 3% of that and we should hamstring our economy because of that?

COLINMAN

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ Nov. 19 2002,19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kyoto will never be effective as the top polluters don't have to follow any restrictions. If India, China, Russia, etc are still allowed to follow their industy practices then it won't be effective. I live here in Canada and we will have a huge crunch from the agreement and we produce less than 3% of the world total.

Another thing Kyoto focuses on Carbon Dyoxide. Why? 95% of the C2 gas in the atmosphere is naturally produced. The other 5% by burning fossil fuels. Of the 5% Canada produces 3% of that and we should hamstring our economy because of that?

COLINMAN<span id='postcolor'>

First, Russia has agreed to ratify the Kyoto agreement. Second, the world's largest number one polluter is the United States.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalwarming/graphic/0,7367,397009,00.html

Now, as for the CO2: It is a delicate balance we are talking about and those 5% push it way over the limit. The worst part is that it is constantly increasing:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm

[dayglow 2]

Russia is in the agreement, but under it they don't have to reduce anything because of the economy, and indutrial state. The way the deal is setup it has a surplus of credits.

COLINMAN

[Guest]

Not according to this BBC article. Also China has apparently ratified the agreement.

[-TU--33ker 0]

it's not only the US gouvernement who don't care about the environment, it's the american people themself. i still don't know why american families need sometimes more than three cars (in germany the average are 2 cars) which need around 20 litres of petrol for 100 kilometres (european cars about 6-8)! and they drive everywhere! even just to get some cigarettes around the corner. What's the prize for petrol in the US?? i think it's 50 cents for a litre(i've read this a while ago). in germany we have to pay around 2$! i think the US administration would get a lot of trouble if the US price would be the same. that's why they keep the prizes low and need more oil. sometimes i think, the right to drive an environment polluting monster, is part of the bill of rights!

....ah fuck who is this??.....

...damn it's the CIA!... get off you bastards!... let me go!

...Nooooo!!!

[dayglow 2]

Ahh, but that is misleading because they don't have any 'clean technology' in use to help reduce emmissions already, so adding them will cause a huge cut in output. Now vs Canada where we have been working for a long time in reducing emissions to do the same cuts has more effect on the economy. If every vehicle in Canada was taken off the road we wouldn't even be close to hitting our target.

COLINMAN

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Nov. 19 2002,14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it's not only the US gouvernement who don't care about the environment, it's the american people themself. i still don't know why american families need sometimes more than three cars (in germany the average are 2 cars) <span id='postcolor'>

uhh.. I don't anyone with more than 2 cars. Can you site a source for your statistic?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">which need around 20 litres of petrol for 100 kilometres (european cars about 6-8)! and they drive everywhere!<span id='postcolor'>

I drive a kraut burner. I don't think European cars are more efficient. My father's ford gets better MPG than my audi.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> even just to get some cigarettes around the corner. <!--emo& What's the prize for petrol in the US?? i think it's 50 cents for a litre(i've read this a while ago). in germany we have to pay around 2$!<span id='postcolor'>

you're happy that your government taxes your fuel to outrageous levels? LOL!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> i think the US administration would get a lot of trouble if the US price would be the same. <span id='postcolor'>

yes, because American consumers aren't stupid enough to accept that level of taxation.

[PitViper 0]

When will Kyoto actually be implemented in countries that have signed it?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 19 2002,20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When will Kyoto actually be implemented in countries that have signed it?<span id='postcolor'>

It is already in effect and 93 countries have ratified it or have promised to do so.

List of those who signed it:

http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

[-TU--33ker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 19 2002,20:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">which need around 20 litres of petrol for 100 kilometres (european cars about 6-8)! and they drive everywhere!<span id='postcolor'>

I drive a kraut burner. I don't think European cars are more efficient.<span id='postcolor'>

lol compared to an american pickup truck, our cars really don't need very much!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> even just to get some cigarettes around the corner. <!--emo& What's the prize for petrol in the US?? i think it's 50 cents for a litre(i've read this a while ago). in germany we have to pay around 2$!

you're happy that your government taxes your fuel to outrageous levels? LOL!<span id='postcolor'>

we're not very happy about that. but what should we do? we can't just attack a country which has rich oil resources. or should we enter an oil tanker in hamburg and throw all the oil into the water??

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> i think the US administration would get a lot of trouble if the US price would be the same.

yes, because American consumers aren't stupid enough to accept that level of taxation.<span id='postcolor'>

it's not stupidity, it's realism! but we still get around with that prize.

it aren't not only the cars that pollute the environment, i didn't mention the air conditioning of american houses yet.

air conditioners cause the holes in our ozone layer.

the germans don't need such stuff. it's cold enough over here.

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Nov. 19 2002,14:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...What's the prize for petrol in the US?? i think it's 50 cents for a litre(i've read this a while ago). in germany we have to pay around 2$!<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, that's why you European guys have to drive super-mini-compact 4-cylinder cars where you're stuffed tighter than sardines in a can while we arrogant Americans get to sit in our big block V8 cars like kings in a sofa

On the other hand bottled water here costs twice as much as gas. No sarcasm.

[Longinius 1]

"On the other hand bottled water here costs twice as much as gas. No sarcasm."

Why buy bottled water when you can drink it for free from the tap... :-)

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Nov. 19 2002,20:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i still don't know why american families need sometimes more than three cars (in germany the average are 2 cars) which need around 20 litres of petrol for 100 kilometres (european cars about 6-8)! and they drive everywhere! even just to get some cigarettes around the corner. What's the prize for petrol in the US?? i think it's 50 cents for a litre(i've read this a while ago). in germany we have to pay around 2$!

<snip>

....ah fuck who is this??.....

...damn it's the CIA!... get off you bastards!... let me go!

...Nooooo!!!    <span id='postcolor'>

you lived in US citites? lol...

if any european lived in US cities for longtime, especially in suburbs, there is no way you can take either public transportation or walk. due to sheer size of suburbs and their land developement, finding a shop closest usually means 1-2 miles away. no, i'm not living in a freaking farm land, but a well developed suburb. it is to the point where 1 block is about half a mile or so long. so that's why we have freaking 3 cars per house hold. 1 for dad, 1 for mom, and maybe one for kids since mom can't be everywhere at once.

so what US needs is good public transportation system that can compensate for driving. thing is US citites are larger than typical europe cities, so trying to apply european public transportation development is somewhat hard.

and besides, why does europe need to drive when they have their "superior" public transportation system?

here in LA, where we get ripped off in terms of gas ( ) it's about 1.60 per gallon. one gallon is about 3 liters, so $.53 per gallon?

and besides, most sedans drive around 18-30 miles per gallon, which translates to 27km-45km per gallon, which is 9km-15km per liter.

however, SUVs are different. take about half of previous number.

ofcourse, previous number for sedan includes small autos like Ford Focus and Honda Civic. My mom's camry gets 20 miles on freeway, and 18 on surface.

yes, sorry about sending CIA, but we had too muh time in our hands

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Nov. 19 2002,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it aren't not only the cars that pollute the environment, i didn't mention the air conditioning of american houses yet.

air conditioners cause the holes in our ozone layer.

the germans don't need such stuff. it's cold enough over here. <span id='postcolor'>

freons(?) do, not all chemicals. most houses use alternative to freons AFAIK.

one thing i hate about east coast is there humidity. my friend from atlanta says that in summer, it's 100degrees fahrenheight with humidity up to 90%. ouch.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Nov. 19 2002,14:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"On the other hand bottled water here costs twice as much as gas.  No sarcasm."

Why buy bottled water when you can drink it for free from the tap... :-)<span id='postcolor'>

I (used to) pour vodka into empty water bottles and sip from that all day long, and people wouldn't suspect a thing. But I'm feeling much better now.

-=Die Alive=-

[Longinius 1]

"so what US needs is good public transportation system that can compensate for driving."

A society that cant develop proper bus and train communications must surely be underdeveloped... : )