State of the union speech

[crashdome 2]

my one and a half cents:

For over a year GWB he has done nothing but try and promote peace and demand that weapons of mass destruction be obliterated.. peace on earth, blah blah blah....

What about before 9-11-01? Nothing related to that cause what-so-ever. Rapid change of heart? or an opportunity for glory? hmmm... personally I dont care. All I know is that what he is doing looks like revenge and I see loose cannons and tight security.

Basically I see what I saw in the book "1984" by George Orwell.

[crashdome 2]

Oh, and about the Hydrogen car,

please......

Looks like he's taking credit for someone else's idea.

There have been Pollution free (some I believe are hydrogen powered) vans owned by my University and used as simple transport vehicles for around town and campus for years. They have always been well on their way to commercial market and Japan is leading the research right now. It's coming and he knows it, but to the average person it looks like a miracle device and he's claiming the position of pushing it's development. $1.2 billion? I'd like to see it itemized....

GWB is a moron, will always be a moron, and I didn't vote for him. - there - now I feel better.

[Balschoiw 0]

If Bush was so interested in Hydrogen cars, why doesn´t he just buy them from BMW or Mercedes Benz ?

They already have them on the list, so you don´t have to invent them twice

Anyway, hydrogen cars will not make you independant from ME energy sources. Saudi Arabia is currently the only nation on the world that is building plants to produce hydrogen in large amounts. They seek for an alternative when their oil supplies run out and are already planning and building huge plants to produce the new energy source. They have indeed a local bonus. They have reliant sunlight 365 days a year that is the factor number one for hydrogen production.

[Guest]

That's all true, but the fact alone that he even bothers to mention investments in environmentally sound technology is a big step forward. This is an important first step of accepting environmental issues at face value regardless of a strong industrial lobby.

Now Bush may not care about the environment but by saying that he does others are forced to say it too and by that it gets accepted as a universal issue. The next step would then be actually doing something about it. I am fully confident that USA will get there some day.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ÄŽ'm sorry to say that the US is the biggest single polluter and consumer in the world. <span id='postcolor'>

Sources? (reliable ones please)

At least the U.S. has standards. There are already plenty of environmental controls put in place. I am willing to bet that developing countries like China and India put out alot more harmful pollution that the U.S. does, if not now, than it will only take time.

Tyler

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 29 2003,17:55)</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">ÄŽ'm sorry to say that the US is the biggest single polluter and consumer in the world. <span id='postcolor'>

Sources? (reliable ones please)

At least the U.S. has standards. There are already plenty of environmental controls put in place. I am willing to bet that developing countries like China and India put out alot more harmful pollution that the U.S. does, if not now, than it will only take time.

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

From Kyoto:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States is by far the world’s biggest polluter in absolute terms. In 1999 its CO2 emissions made up 25% of total world emissions, even though its population accounts for under 5% of the world total. What is not so often reported is the more damning fact that the US is the worst large country polluter in relative terms too. In 1999 its CO2 emissions hit 5.6 tons per capita – the highest in the world among major developed countries.

<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.prospex.co.uk/kyoto.htm

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 29 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 29 2003,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kyoto won't do crap all.

It's funny that developing industrial nations that pollute the most (China, India, Mexico and so on) are the countries that are allowed to have the loosest standards under Kyoto (or haven't even ratified it to begin with). I also find it funny that the same people who championed Kyoto in Canada are the same people buying up coal and energy reserves in China.

Coincidence?

I'm all for H-powered cars and technology, so long as it's not too expensive and aids the environment.

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

ÄŽ'm sorry to say that the US is the biggest single polluter and consumer in the world. So if Kyoto was such a crappy and insignificant treaty why didn't US sign it then, no harm done?

It's much more concrete treaty than some environmental candies put up in the speech and really could slow down the inevitable global warming. I'm not an environmentalist in fact, that's why I rely on treaties that are enforced and controlled.<span id='postcolor'>

Even if america did sign the kyoto treaty,the companies would just move more of their factories to china,mexico,other asian countries.My shoes are made in china.Pants/shirt made in mexico.Car made in canada and mexico,and melted together in america.Whats weird is there seem to be lots of japanese car companies factories,like toyoto.My computer is made in someother country.

So sure it might stop making USA being #1,but don't think its going to go away.When there is demand,they(companies) will do anything to meet the demand.

[Guest]

China and the other countries you mention have accepted the Kyoto agreement. The point of the Kyoto agreement is a global reduction of the CO2 emissions. Setting global goals becomes very difficult when the biggest polluter doesn't want to play along.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When there is demand,they(companies) will do anything to meet the demand. <span id='postcolor'>

Not if it is regulated by laws. If the fines for pollution are larger then their profit from polluting then they will fall in line.

[foxer 0]

But then prices will go up.So the normal joe wouldn't be able to afford lots of stuff.

[Tovarish 0]

So what? The "average joe" buys and consumes much more crap than he actually needs

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 29 2003,21:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what? The "average joe" buys and consumes much more crap than he actually needs<span id='postcolor'>

Let's not be a commie now

This is america,buy what you want,if you can afford it.

But think about it,Food prices would go up,alot more homeless.No jobs,more crime.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 29 2003,21:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But think about it,Food prices would go up,alot more homeless.No jobs,more crime.<span id='postcolor'>

And the alternative will be to continue irresponsibly poisoning the planet until drinkable water and breathable air are as unaffordable as you think everything else will be made by Kyoto.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 29 2003,20:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But then prices will go up.So the normal joe wouldn't be able to afford lots of stuff.<span id='postcolor'>

There will be an initial cost for the R&D of new technologies. Once they are in use there won't be any special costs.

To help motivate this progress the Kyoto agreement introduced 'pollution markets'. Within a country companies get a quota of pollution that they are allowed to use. If they develop products that don't use up that quota then they can sell off the remainder to other companies.

Edit: Also one thing that should be added is that the emission reductions that the Kyoto agreement demands are very modest.

[bn880 5]

And about unemployment, the idea if having everyone who is able to work, actually working is absurd these days. Sure if we get rid of all machinery, computers, vehicles etc. we would all be suddenly employed. But so what.

Unemployment is a reality of the future and has to be managed. Obviously if 6 or 10% of the population is unemployed, it means that whoever is employed will have to share sooner or later. It's in the books for many young people even at this forum, you won't be employed all the time, it will be nearly impossible.

For me this makes a lot of sense, we created all these technologies and traderoutes etc. so that we wouldn't have to do so much work, and now all of a sudden we can't handle not enough work.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 29 2003,21:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 29 2003,21<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But think about it,Food prices would go up,alot more homeless.No jobs,more crime.<span id='postcolor'>

And the alternative will be to continue irresponsibly poisoning the planet until drinkable water and breathable air are as unaffordable as you think everything else will be made by Kyoto.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe we should just commit suicide.Because right now we are destroying the world as we type.Do you think theres an plastic computer out there,there does not pollute.When that computer goes out,how do they fix it ? They have to order something from a company,which comes from a factory,which the factoring is polluting.I mean i would love see a nice clean earth,but for real do you think it's really possible ?

See how we on the subject,I have an question.

Between 1945-1990(?) how many nukes in those years did they set off ? I'm thinking america set off 2 nukes a year.Then i'm thinking russia did the samething when they got their nukes.Now thats 45 years of 4 nukes a year being setoff,so 4 times 45 would be 180.Now wouldn't this make the earth hotteR ? Soo if we didn't blow up anymore nukes we would be ok? Maybe that's why the earth feels hotter ?

[bn880 5]

Being aware and responsible does not mean you commit suicide. Don't shut down important issues this way.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 29 2003,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe we should just commit suicide.Because right now we are destory the world as we type.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe, but it would be a lot less painful to just ratify Kyoto . You make it sound like it will be worse than suicide. lol. Sure we all pollute, but apparently everyone but the US, who happens to be the biggest polluter of all, is willing to do something about it!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Between 1945-1990(?) how many nukes in those years did they set off ? I'm thinking america set off 2 nukes a year.Then i'm thinking russia did the samething when they got their nukes.Now thats 45 years of 4 nukes a year being setoff,so 4 times 45 would be 180.Now wouldn't this make the earth hotteR ? Soo if we didn't blow up anymore nukes we would be ok? Maybe that's why the earth feels hotter ?

<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, we have your theory, vs. the Scientific community's

[foxer 0]

You need money to advance,without money you will get no where.If lots of countries have to pay welfare,and other stuff to their people,they would bring down the R&D money.So how can we advance to better ourself without money.No one is going work for free.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 29 2003,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe we should just commit suicide.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not about committing suicide or going back to the stone age. It is simply about modernizing the current industry and developing environmentally friendly technology.

The cost is the development and implementation of such technology. Industry and commerce are profit oriented, you can't blame them for not wanting to go through a potentially expensive development. That's why we have governments whose concern should be the citizen's well being in general.

These development costs are marginal relative the massive production that we have. Is it any real difference if you pay 100 € or 110 € for your new shoes?

Kyoto is not a radical agreement. It allows for a gradual reduction of the pollution at such a rate that it should not affect the quality of life of the people in any way.

[Tovarish 0]

uh-huh, I'm sure the US would go broke if they ratified Kyoto . I'm also sure that the US spends much more per capita on social services than other countries . And it's not "for free", it's to secure a future for the planet.

[FSPilot 0]

Didn't the president say he was enacting a bill that reduces pollution by 70% over the next 15 years? Why are you all concerned about a kyoto agreement.

[foxer 0]

These development costs are marginal relative the massive production that we have. Is it any real difference if you pay 100 € or 110 € for your new shoes?

So what is that if you want to buy an sixteen thousands dollar car ? Soo it would be 1600 extra for that car.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 29 2003,21:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Didn't the president say he was enacting a bill that reduces pollution by 70% over the next 15 years?  Why are you all concerned about a kyoto agreement.<span id='postcolor'>

Because Kyoto is an international agreement. A local decision can be changed easily, international agreements have more weight. Another very important thing is that this is a global problem that we need to solve together. It doesn't work if each country sets its own standards.

Trusting Bush (who's ass is owned by corporate America) to help the environment is like asking Saddam to disarm himself

[foxer 0]

Between 1945-1990(?) how many nukes in those years did they set off ? I'm thinking america set off 2 nukes a year.Then i'm thinking russia did the samething when they got their nukes.Now thats 45 years of 4 nukes a year being setoff,so 4 times 45 would be 180.Now wouldn't this make the earth hotteR ? Soo if we didn't blow up anymore nukes we would be ok? Maybe that's why the earth feels hotter ?

Ok, we have your theory, vs. the Scientific community's  

Not a theory just an question.....

How bout this one,In new mexico when they was setting off nukes in the desert,Did any of that sand turn into glass ?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 29 2003,21:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These development costs are marginal relative the massive production that we have. Is it any real difference if you pay 100 € or 110 € for your new shoes?

So what is that if you want to buy an sixteen thousands dollar car ? Soo it would be 1600 extra for that car.<span id='postcolor'>

It was just an example. The cost for R&D of new technology in a period of 10-15 years is far less then 10% of a total net sale price. It is difficult to estimate but my guess would be under 1% on average.