Global warming?

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

If we invent/build the technology to help curb the effects, then we can sell it to the rest of the world.

One of the most green innovations in recent history is the oxygen sensor. Developed by Bosch. Every car in the world now requires one - with the Germans reaping profits everywhere in the world from their innovation.

When the Germans decided to get serious about air pollution, well, as a result, most American coal plants are dependent in some way to innovations reaping more profits for Germans.

Countries that choose to solve problems by innovating routinely become world leaders and economically wealthy.

Solutions to ozone depletion reaped tremendous profits for Dow Chemical(?) who simply developed new material to replace ozone depleting CFCs.

The nations who find solutions to global warming will clearly reap wealth as a result. History has demonstrated that repeatedly.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

That's ridiculous. If we invent/build the technology to help curb the effects, then we can sell it to the rest of the world. I don't care what you may think, I KNOW we can get ourselves off of damaging technology like coal and oil and move to completely clean and green technology to generate all the power we need, both for cars and for buildings.

Nah, we will just laugh at their stupidity, assuming they don't change, in twenty years when our innovations bring in money and then they get regulations put on them.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

That's ridiculous. If we invent/build the technology to help curb the effects, then we can sell it to the rest of the world. I don't care what you may think, I KNOW we can get ourselves off of damaging technology like coal and oil and move to completely clean and green technology to generate all the power we need, both for cars and for buildings.

Pure fantasy. The powerful lobbyist of this country and group we have in Congress have ruined the political process. Nothing like that will ever happen in your lifetime.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Pure fantasy. The powerful lobbyist of this country and group we have in Congress have ruined the political process. Nothing like that will ever happen in your lifetime.

First, its the US shouldnt act on GHG emissions until China does first....strike one.

Then, your econ 101 theory-the resulting innovation would be an economic deterrent.....strike two

Now, the lobbyist have ruined the political process, somehow preventing any action on GHG emissions - you forget that friends of big oil are no longer in the WH or the majority of Congress.....STRIKE THREE!!!!!

Relegating you back to the minors of politics until you are better prepared to play with the big boys and big girls.

[Undertoad]

Now, the lobbyist have ruined the political process, somehow preventing any action on GHG emissions - you forget that friends of big oil are no longer in the WH or the majority of Congress...

BALL ONE

and proof the batter shouldn't be the one calling balls and strikes

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

First, its the US shouldnt act on GHG emissions until China does first....strike one.

Then, your econ 101 theory-the resulting innovation would be an economic deterrent.....strike two

Now, the lobbyist have ruined the political process, somehow preventing any action on GHG emissions - you forget that friends of big oil are no longer in the WH or the majority of Congress.....STRIKE THREE!!!!!

Originally Posted by Undertoad

BALL ONE

and proof the batter shouldn't be the one calling balls and strikes

LOL...good one.

How about if the numbers speak for themselves:

oil and gas political contributions, last election: 77% - R, 22% -D
(since 1990 - 75% - R, 24% - D)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

oil and gas PAC contributions in last election: 76% - R, 24% - D
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indu...E01&cycle=2008

energy and natural resources political contributions, last election: 66% R - 34% -D
(since 1990: 70% - R, 30% - D)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...goButt2=Submit

Instant replay - STRIKE THREE!

Swinging and whiffing at the air - three bogus reasons for the US not to act on GHG emissions...none supported by facts.

[TheMercenary]

Yet you choose to ignore the facts I posted about the contributions of China and India to the worlds problems. You are among those partisans that would love to see us spend ourselves into the third world cleaning up our emissions while these "emerging countries" have to do absolutely nothing. You fail. Again.

[Undertoad]

I think next we will see how the numbers change once power changes.

ETA: donations to Ds up more than 100% from 2006 to 2008. Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yet you choose to ignore the facts I posted about the contributions of China and India to the worlds problems. You are among those partisans that would love to see us spend ourselves into the third world cleaning up our emissions while these "emerging countries" have to do absolutely nothing. You fail. Again.

Right...my goal is to make the US a third world country rather than demonstrate leadership.

[TheMercenary]

And in another few years as China and India build a few more coal fired plants each week.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Right...my goal is to make the US a third world country rather than demonstrate leadership.

You are blinded by idealistic thoughts of "leadership" while the realists laugh at you.

[TheMercenary]

Ok, this was funny.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I think next we will see how the numbers change once power changes.

ETA: donations to Ds up more than 100% from 2006 to 2008. Q.E.D.

Donations generally increase in presidential election years as opposed to off years.

I dont expect the Obama/Dem Congress energy/environmental legislation will be as sweeping as I would like...but far more than the obstruction during the last eight years.

[TheMercenary]

A more realistic assessment.

This paper assesses the prospects for implementing greenhouse gas controls in the United States. One basic fact frames the analysis. Namely, controls stringent enough to actually stop global climate change would as yet still cost more than the damage expected from climate change. Although a modest level of emission control could yield more benefits than costs, even modest controls face formidable political challenges. The opponents of emission controls hold great organizational advantages over the proponents. To be sure, a strong surge of public sentiment might politically overwhelm all these objections and barriers. But public support for emission controls is too tepid for that to be likely any time soon. Moreover, overcoming these domestic problems, could it be done, would be only the first step toward a viable international control regime, without which national controls would be futile. And the anarchic nature of the international system makes global environmental agreements notoriously difficult to reach, to sustain, and to enforce.

Forces operating beyond the narrow arena of national and international environmental policy will also heavily influence the prospects for emission controls. Several likely trends suggest that these prospects are ebbing rather than rising. Predictable national security and fiscal policy challenges may well out-compete the climate issue for both public attention and economic resources. At the same time, the emerging globalization of the natural gas market will spark new conflicts between the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that of decreasing America's dependence on foreign energy.

Other factors, though, have been cited as reasons for hoping that this unfavorable tide could be stemmed and even reversed. One of these, a possible disruption of Persian Gulf energy supplies would—on closer investigation—have quite unfavorable implications for the prospects of U.S. emission controls. Other factors could indeed enhance the prospects for emission controls, e.g., a large, favorable partisan shift, important scientific breakthroughs, or diplomatic pressure from Europe. Although these possibilities cannot be ruled out, they are too speculative to form the basis for an adequate strategy for managing climate policy. The realistic political response is simply to admit that the current and likely future political constellation of forces is unfavorable to the implementation of all but modest emission controls and to adjust the goals of climate policy to match the political realities. An explicitly Fabian strategy would eliminate the benefit-cost problem because gradually slowing the growth of emissions would cost far less than Kyoto-like rapid emission reductions. And such a policy could also be shaped to achieve non-climate benefits. Concretely, linking mandatory emission controls to a plan for "tax shift" promises political and economic advantages. And emission controls may actually confer useful diplomatic benefits on the United States.

http://www.earthscape.org/pmain/sites/cpc.html