http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/10/29/2055227.shtml

From the Link:

Coryoth writes, "In a report commissioned by the UK government, respected economist Sir Nicholas Stern concludes that mitigating global warming could cost around 1% of global GDP if spent immediately, but ignoring the problem could cost between 5% and 20% of global GDP. The 700-page study represents the first major report on climate change from an economist rather than a scientist. The report calls for the introduction of green taxes and carbon trading schemes as soon as possible, and calls on the international community to sign a new pact on greenhouse emissions by next year rather than in 2010/11. At the very least the UK government is taking the report seriously; both major parties are proposing new green taxes. Stern points out, however, that any action will only be effective if truly global."

it is true that we have climate patterns but dont you think these climate changes have been more dramtic because of global warming?

i just got home from a ski trip and there was hardly anything. we had to walk up some hills that were big patches of grass and it was even worse back in minneapolis. no snow at all. its 40 degrees out right now at 7:45pm. and fuck, i live in minneSNOWta! all i know is i really want my kids to be able to ski eventually.
it is only december but i really am going to cry if its not snowy for christmas and my birthday. i think if people spent more time outside in the winter theyd realize how fun it is. once you play a winter sport your whole perspective on winter changes. so my mission is to get more people out so more will care about global warming!

quote:

I've only lived here going on five years, but I've been told that when (and if) it snows, it is substantially less than in years past. Heck, people around where I live don't tend to leave, so they know what's been going on for decades. I can't find any scientific data to prove it, though. I don't think temperature has everything to do with it, though.

I don't doubt that there's been some climate changes in the long term on the century scale. But many people mistake normal climate cycles for "global warming". When people say they "feel global warming" they don't know what they're talking about. Changes on the 5-10 year scale can't be attributed to global warming without correlating it to a longer climate trend. Show me that and I'll conceed this point.

Same goes to you speed. I will say this, saying something is due to "global warming" is extremely hard to prove, because there's been regional climate shifts that last for decades long before we started pumping out CO2.

quote:

I rather trust the local experts who are in direct contact with the problem than a geologist(all my respects to your branch of study, it is definitly interesting) that is located thousands of miles away and most likely has no first hand contact with the issues and the figures that local experts provide to back it.

No, you'd rather trust people who'll say what you want to hear.

I'm from Alaska and the Doctor probably knows more about the climate over there than I do.

quote:

The glacier in Alaska is a different situation than Spain. Global warming is having a larger effect on the more northern latitudes. Nevertheless, you still cannot FEEL the warming.

yes you can. I rather trust the local experts who are in direct contact with the problem than a geologist(all my respects to your branch of study, it is definitly interesting) that is located thousands of miles away and most likely has no first hand contact with the issues and the figures that local experts provide to back it. I'll try to find suitable sources, as the only ones I can provide right now are in Spanish and they hold little validity on an english speaking website.

quote:

I mean, I always thought "it snowed every winter" when I was a kid. Then we had a few years with almost no snow in Jersey. Now we're back to blizzards and ice storms. Annual climates are highly variable.

I've only lived here going on five years, but I've been told that when (and if) it snows, it is substantially less than in years past. Heck, people around where I live don't tend to leave, so they know what's been going on for decades. I can't find any scientific data to prove it, though. I don't think temperature has everything to do with it, though.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:

quote:

You're not going to feel global warming, period.

Actually, I have. There's a glacier near Anchorage, Alaska that I used to visit often in my younger days, something on the order of 12 years ago. Then, you could throw rocks from the visitor's center and hit the glacier. Only a couple years ago, I visited again and the glacier had receded so far up the valley that it couldn't even be seen from the visitor's center. This was no small glacier, so the fact that it receded so far in so short of a time is clear evidence of warming. I don't care if it's a result of human actions or simply natural, but it's there and it's obvious.

Heck, even here in Washington, one can see the effects of global warming. It used to snow every year during the winter. Now it just rains. Of course, it always rains in Washington, but I do miss the snow in the winter.

The glacier in Alaska is a different situation than Spain. Global warming is having a larger effect on the more northern latitudes. Nevertheless, you still cannot FEEL the warming. I'm skeptical that the snow issue in Washington is related to warming. This is simply because it doesn't make sense with the climate models I've seen. The various projections are all signifigantly different, but I just looked up a map generator from the Goddard Institute that showed that the Washington area hasn't had any major average temperature increases from 1900-2006. Certainly nothing that would cause it to cease snowing indefinitely.

I mean, I always thought "it snowed every winter" when I was a kid. Then we had a few years with almost no snow in Jersey. Now we're back to blizzards and ice storms. Annual climates are highly variable.

quote:

European nations do not house factorys i the US, the average income of an american worker is equal if not higher to that of a European, you just displayed a total lack of knowledge on basic political economics by saying that. There are the cases where you'll find and assembly plant for the automobile industry but most of these are beeing transferred to southeast asia as we speak so your argument holds no validity.

You've simply got no idea what you're talking about. The decision to place a factory in an area is not based soully on workers wages. BP, one of the largest petroleum companies on the planet, has huge stakes in the US. So to various European chemical companies. There's also Japanese automobile and electronics factories. The US has many, many forgien factories and plants in it's borders.

quote:

In short, you believe that the US has no obligation to the protocol because China doesn't. That logic may work for military matters, but when the objective is the reduction of potentially destructive emisions i don't see why the US shouldn't do it jus because they disagree with the position granted to China. That sounds more like a feeble argument to back out of accepted responsibility than a real motive.

Without China or India, any emissions reductions the US implements will be for naught. The only difference is that the US will be poorer when the effects of global warming hit. You see, the US only accounts for 1/4 to one 1/3 of the carbon emissions, and the Kyoto protocols don't really have us reducing our emissions all that much. Meanwhile China, India, and the rest of the developing world would essentially be picking up the emissions we just cut.

Therefore, Kyoto isn't "us doing bad things because they can too". It's "why should we fall on our noble sword while half the world doesn't have any resonsibilty whatsoever".

quote:

I'm getting the feeling that more than trying to prove me wrong you just want to transfer some of the guilt of my acusations to Europe and especially China.

You mean where it belongs?

quote:

You're not going to feel global warming, period.

Actually, I have. There's a glacier near Anchorage, Alaska that I used to visit often in my younger days, something on the order of 12 years ago. Then, you could throw rocks from the visitor's center and hit the glacier. Only a couple years ago, I visited again and the glacier had receded so far up the valley that it couldn't even be seen from the visitor's center. This was no small glacier, so the fact that it receded so far in so short of a time is clear evidence of warming. I don't care if it's a result of human actions or simply natural, but it's there and it's obvious.

Heck, even here in Washington, one can see the effects of global warming. It used to snow every year during the winter. Now it just rains. Of course, it always rains in Washington, but I do miss the snow in the winter.

you just quoted me out of context that doesn't say much about you confidence in your points.

European nations do not house factorys i the US, the average income of an american worker is equal if not higher to that of a European, you just displayed a total lack of knowledge on basic political economics by saying that. There are the cases where you'll find and assembly plant for the automobile industry but most of these are beeing transferred to southeast asia as we speak so your argument holds no validity.

quote:

Who's the one that doesn't place a priority on the environment now? You see, it's not only the corporation's fault, but also the people for tolerating it.

How would you "tolerate" it if you worked like a slave and got payed sh*t?
Would you give a f*ck about the environment? No you wouldn't and neither would i or anyone on here. You sound like one of those people that's out of touch with global reality.
You can blame the people of india for electing a government that doesn't give about the environment, but i doubt they care much when most of them have problems getting enough to eat. it is us, the accomodated westerners that have to worry about these issues because we can. When you live below the poverty line and work 10 hours a day in a factory or selling cheap produce to tourists you can't be expected to invest your time in environmentalism.

In short, you believe that the US has no obligation to the protocol because China doesn't. That logic may work for military matters, but when the objective is the reduction of potentially destructive emisions i don't see why the US shouldn't do it jus because they disagree with the position granted to China. That sounds more like a feeble argument to back out of accepted responsibility than a real motive.
(simplified: since they can do bad things(polute freely) we can also do them, it doesn't matter if that means even more polution)

The protocol itself establishes two types of compliant nations:

Annex I, wich includes developed country's. And Annex II, wich includes developing country's.
For reasons geared towards equal economic growth possibility's nations belonging to Annex II aren't obliged to reduce physicall emisions, but have the possibility of implementing Emission Reduction Projects(tagged GHG Reduction on the kyoto Protocol official statement) wich can be purchased by AnnexI nations to compensate their excess emisions.
The mecanic is simple, India isn't obliged to comply because it's economy can't right now(it's proven that american economy can), but what India can do, is voluntarily reduce it's emissions and sell "reduction points" gained this way to Annex I country's. This is a way of ensuring economic developement.
Coincidentally, emission levels under the protocol are calculated to compensate econnomic developemente for involved nations, so even if India did not voluntarily reduce it's emissions to sell it's gained points the emission levels of other complaiants would cover it. this is an obvious disadvanteage for India, as they lose the chance of making money out of the protocol.

I'm getting the feeling that more than trying to prove me wrong you just want to transfer some of the guilt of my acusations to Europe and especially China. In 1997 China didn't have nearly as much political power as it holds now a days so saying the protocol is biased is plain stupid. Actually, the US had more global influence than it has now back in 1997 so dunno...

sorry about the typos, I'm writing this from an apple pc using firefox and for some reason it doesn't display the textboxes correctly, thus i can't see what I'm writing.

quote:

First and as a minor point i would like to point out that a vast majority of India's Green House gas emissions come from foreign corporations factories(wich also happen to be set in india to take advantage of the nearly slave labor treatment they can give their employees).

By this logic this makes Japan, China, and Europe responsible for all the pollution that thier factories in the US produce. The emissions of a country are dictated by it's government, as you pointed out.

But Kyoto will make it worse, as it places little to no restrictions on developing nations. This will cause a further flight of heavy industries to India and China. These countries have such a huge labor market that labor will always be cheap. On top of this, these nations have no incentive OR obligation to reduce emissions as they industrialize, thanks to the Kyoto protocol. That's the main objection there is in the US political system right now. Again, if it was a fair, rational plan across the board it would have no problem getting implemented. But it's not. And you have the whole world to blame for that, not the US.

quote:

and since the official withdrawal from the kyoto protocol in march 2001 the administration has adopted a policy that tolerates waste emissions without restriction,

That is just patently untrue. Read up on US emission regulations.

quote:

but developing nations like India must decide on their priorities, and in the eyes of a government charged with bringing economic growth to the region, getting as much foreign investement is preferable to saving the environment.

Who's the one that doesn't place a priority on the environment now? You see, it's not only the corporation's fault, but also the people for tolerating it.

quote:

Now that that point is sorted, we can talk about Russia. coincidentally while i was drinking my coffee this morning and reading the paper i found a 3 page detailed article on Global Warming. This article included a list of country's that produce the most emissions, wich country's have raised that quota the most over the past years, and wich country's have reduced it. It so happens that Russia has reduced it's CO2 emissions by almost 32% since 1990 when serious interest was first taken on the issue, and the first measurments where made. The source is a spanish newspaper so i won't bother to quote it here, but if i can find a graphic to ilustrate i will post it.

The situation with Russian emissions is misleading. You say they've reduced their emissions since 1990 "when the first measurements were made". Think about what else happened in Russia in 1990? Was it conducive to the growth of industry. Hardly. The emissions drop in Russia and the former USSR is due to a collapse in industrial output following the breakup of the USSR. Not some noble effort ot restrict emissions. Even now many nations in the former USSR block are using brown coal generators.

quote:

You are correct on China, they are responsible for a large chunk of the annual emissions, but it is noteworthy that China holds 1/5th of the worlds population, whereas the US doesn't even represent 1/10th, and still produces more

The difference is that China's emissions are projected to explode as it's economy continues to expand. China has huge coal reserves and no incentive through Kyoto to do anything about CO2 emissions. Time will tell how that works out, in the meantime the world will keep blaming the US for the problem.

Right now, you have two possiblities in the way that international emissions regulations are set up. One, the US falls on it's own sword in an act of noble sacrifice and sets strong emissions standards driving industry to Asia. Or two, we stay "competative" and deal with the consequences, which we'll be more equiped to do since we're the richest and have a large technological infratstructure. At least that's the way many people are looking at it.

Without a level playing field you're going to have a hard time getting people to follow through.

I think what he's saying about India is right but that doesn't justify his incredible display of anti americanism.

speed drop the radicalisms, it doesn't look good

Following your claims about Russia, China, and India's responsibility i think it would be interesting to bring up the Kyoto protocol.

First and as a minor point i would like to point out that a vast majority of India's Green House gas emissions come from foreign corporations factories(wich also happen to be set in india to take advantage of the nearly slave labor treatment they can give their employees). many of these corporations are american, and since the official withdrawal from the kyoto protocol in march 2001 the administration has adopted a policy that tolerates waste emissions without restriction, often letting corporations regulate polluting on their own. Local regulations do handicap this somewhat, but corporations have found the perfect solution to two of their biggest problems, getting cheap labor, and emission control.
You see, in a poor developing country like India, the government has to decide what is preferable, allowing foreign company's to establish themselves and create jobs and a positive influx on a growing economy, or regulating these company's thus making them find better places to put their factory's and money. In a rich country, controling emissions isn't a problem if desired, but developing nations like India must decide on their priorities, and in the eyes of a government charged with bringing economic growth to the region, getting as much foreign investement is preferable to saving the environment.

Now that that point is sorted, we can talk about Russia. coincidentally while i was drinking my coffee this morning and reading the paper i found a 3 page detailed article on Global Warming. This article included a list of country's that produce the most emissions, wich country's have raised that quota the most over the past years, and wich country's have reduced it. It so happens that Russia has reduced it's CO2 emissions by almost 32% since 1990 when serious interest was first taken on the issue, and the first measurments where made. The source is a spanish newspaper so i won't bother to quote it here, but if i can find a graphic to ilustrate i will post it.

You are correct on China, they are responsible for a large chunk of the annual emissions, but it is noteworthy that China holds 1/5th of the worlds population, whereas the US doesn't even represent 1/10th, and still produces more

quote:

stfu

If this is how you're going to keep responding to people, don't be shocked when your posts get moderated. It's immature and doesn't contribute to the thread in any way. So knock it off.

stfu

i'll keep going tomorrow >>
I'm going to bed now, 12:45 here and i get up at 6 to work. When i get into the office i'll post a worthreading response. Note this is not evasion, you'll be able to read my post as soon as you wake up wich will be between 6 and 9 hours after i do.

quote:

stfu

This screams maturity and wisdom.

quote:

you picked apart my statement based on technicall issues like the misinterpretation on your part of my use of the term toxic waste.
by toxic waste i refer to all contaminating residue generated by heave industry and motor vehicles, etc...

No, it was not my misinterpretation, but your MISUSE of the term. This is an example of the extremist tactics I was talking about earlier. "Toxic Waste" is a loaded term that has a very specific technical definition, which does NOT include CO2 or Methane. Ask any credible scientist or policy specialist if greenhouse gases are "toxic waste".

In any discussion that involves so much data and information, you NEED to use proper terms. Otherwise you're just an amatuer who's talking out of thier ass.

quote:

And the current state of affairs is very much the responsibility of american capitalist pigs, on this issue, and pretty much everything else that makes the news, in some way or other.

Wait, did you just blame everything that goes wrong in the world on capitalism? Do you expect to claim any kind of objectivity now? Are you serious?

quote:

Oh, and i have felt global warming, many spanish metheorologists, both government funded adn independent have provided significative evidence that the climate has changed in a noticeable way over the past few years.

Well I'm sure you've felt the divine love of Jesus warming your fragile little heart too, but you HAVE NOT felt global warming. You've felt a recent local climate shift. The measured increases so far have been negligble when discussing what you feel. What global warming will effect is small temperature increases across the board, which will affect temperatures more towards the poles, and collectively affect percipitation and evaporation rates on a regional scale. You saying that the recent heat waves in Europe are due to "global warming" is just as flawed as claiming that was the reason that the US was hit by so many devestating hurricanes last year.

quote:

first and foremost, people don't give a sh*t about global warming because large portions of the media still deny it as a reality, and make people think of global warming as an invention of extreme environmental activists. This process can be called alienation, in wich a governemt, energy lobby, independ individual, etc... seek to distance the public from a credible(and now verified) issue though disinformation. you will often see the media portray environmentalist activists as radicals that tie themselves to trees and look like washed up hippies.

Firstly, I don't know what friggin' news program you're watching but that is NOT the way any major news network has portrayed environmentists or scientists. I frequently watch CNN and Fox News, and neither has consistantly portrayed environmentalists as "hippies". There's some bias on Fox, but CNN is fairly even.

However, what I REALLY want to take you to task on is the way you portray the American media as some kind of massive "EVIL CONSPIRACY AGAINST ALL THAT IS GOOD IN THE WORLD". The reason the media reports on climate change the way it does is because journalism in the last few decades has shifted to a "two sides to every story" mentality. That means that both pro and anti-global warming advocates get equal airtime. This is disporprotionate to the actual science of course.

The problem then, is not some evil conspiracy of bourgoise oil barons sitting in a smokey room plotting our demise, but rather a trend in journalism away from actual investigation and more into "balanced" debate.

quote:

Second, i asusme that as a US citizen residing in the US you mostly have acces to US media and information on the matter, and you would probably be extremely surprised if you where to gain acces all of a sudden to the independent media available in the rest of the world.

Actually, I get most of my information on this particular subject through scientific journal articles, and talking to actual researchers. You see, I'm about 16 non-major credits away from a degree in Geology from one of the most respected Geoscience departments in the US. Last week I attended the National Convention of the Geological Society of America, where they had a few talks about this very subject. That is, how science, specifically global warming, is portrayed in the media. The presentations were comprehinsive, with actual climate scientists, professors of journalism, and actual journalists discussing how and why the media acts as it does. If you haven't noticed, since you're abroad, there's been a huge upswing in "green" journalism here. Why? Because people have been responding well to it. The media reports what is happening, and puts a spin on it that people will like and buy. Not what the government wants.

I really wish you could have listened to those talks, because it totally blows your position out of the water.

quote:

and yes, in some ways it may be anti americanism that motivates many of us to constantly confront you with facts that question everything you have acces to on your government controled media.

Government controlled media? Please. Seriously, step back and slap yourself in the face. Have you seen a White House press conference recently? Have you seen what's going on here in our political system and how fed up people are? Have you seen CNN blasting Congress and the President for failing to deal with basically everything? Outrage at corruption? Anything? How about how studies that indicate the Media responds to public opinion, not government control?

Since you're abroad, you're totally disconnected from what's going on here and it shows. I make no claims about Spanish media, but you're dead set on this government control issue. It's an opinion I see repeated by many Europeans I talk to. They often dont' consider that what drives the media here is private citizens, not government agencies. I experianced this when I was in Britian when i was assisting some field research. Several graduate level students from Plymouth were dead set in telling me that Farhienheit 9/11 was "banned in the USA by the government". I told them they were full of shit because it played in theatres all over the place, and I saw it myself, ha. There's a whole lot of propaganda going on over in Europe and abroad about the US. Probably because there's a bunch of ethnoscentric nationalist assholes on both sides.

quote:

Therefore i question absolutely everything i see that is related to US policy and deem it flawed and incorrect in it's nature, based on cultural issues, wich have proven very problematic and conflictive.

Again, this is an immature and bias position to take. You deem everything about US policy to be flawed? Really? The rest of the world runs on Oil and coal, and uranium too.

indeed it is

first and foremost, people don't give a sh*t about global warming because large portions of the media still deny it as a reality, and make people think of global warming as an invention of extreme environmental activists. This process can be called alienation, in wich a governemt, energy lobby, independ individual, etc... seek to distance the public from a credible(and now verified) issue though disinformation. you will often see the media portray environmentalist activists as radicals that tie themselves to trees and look like washed up hippies. the reason of this is to distance the largely disinformed masses from these pests, that may somehow make people realize that their government is destroying the environment, and thus are a menace to economic interests.

Second, i asusme that as a US citizen residing in the US you mostly have acces to US media and information on the matter, and you would probably be extremely surprised if you where to gain acces all of a sudden to the independent media available in the rest of the world. most americans when presented with evidence from any one of these independent sources tend to react saying that it it either a lie, or a product of anti-americanism. the thing is, it is most definitly not a lie, and yes, in some ways it may be anti americanism that motivates many of us to constantly confront you with facts that question everything you have acces to on your government controled media.
I myself, like i have stated on previous occasions, am an american citizen living abroad, and i feel disgusted at my home country and it's responsibility in the current global situation. I do not feel any responsibility or special urge to bitch about these things, but one of the things i've noticed in my many visits to family and friends is the total lack of real political alternative to the current establishment. Therefore i question absolutely everything i see that is related to US policy and deem it flawed and incorrect in it's nature, based on cultural issues, wich have proven very problematic and conflictive.

And last, i enjoy heated debate, therefore i provoke people to get the best out of every conversation.

Well this is about to get very interesting...