Global warming wipes island off Sunderbans map

Nick-H · Feb 27th, 2007, 16:37

Scientific agreement would certainly help, but it is unlikely to ever happen! It may not be quite as bad as economics (more theories than there are economists) but there will always be different interpretations and prognoses.

Perhaps (wild statement following...) the only scientists who don't agree that tobacco kills are the ones who are paid to think otherwise!

The consumer, at least in Europe, largely won the war on product labelling and reduction of additives. There always seems to be a scientist to tell us that we are wasting our money if we spend more to buy organic rather than 'traditionally grown' (there's a spin for you; major use of chemical fertilizers only began a few decades ago; really organic is 'traditional') but the demand grows.

The hippy fads of yesterday became the consumer choice of today.

Next maybe we could start fighting to loose more of that packing around our chosen goods. We are the buyers; the market must listen to us. Even if it turns out we're wrong!

It becomes a lot harder when it comes to (if we can't face doing without altogether) the choice of, say, a motor car. We may be able to specify that our furniture is mad from renewable-resource wood: how about our cars? Yes, I know I should be doing without a car

.

I read, in a BBC story recently, that a UK hospital was saving on it's electricity bills by removing a percentage of its lightbulbs. What shocked me was the response: people accusing the management of pettiness! They should have been praised, and told to ensure that corridors and offices unoccupied at night were kept entirely dark at night. How many empty office empty office blocks burn power every night?

cyberhippie · Feb 27th, 2007, 17:07

Before we go down the road of businesses and their impact on ""funny weather" We should all of us hold up our hands in honest appraisal.

We with our LED's (10 percent of household energy is used keeping those little standbye lights burning in our homes. On the DVD player, Stereo, PC etc etc) garden hoses, dishwashers and cars. Indeed do the kids REALLY have to be driven to school?

"We" that is to say myself also, tend to concentrate too keenly on big businesse's carbon foot print. The average consumer will have to think long and hard about how we live in the modern world. Do we have to have emerald green lawns in the hight of summer. Do we have to own 2 + cars. keep houses at a steady 24 degrees throughout the year.
Unless there a massive turn around of new technologies, then the houshold of the future will have to a little more austere than the glitzy consumer show houses we now inhabit.

Self sustatining houses are already a reality but few if any will support the kinds of energy use we regard as normal in the west.
Same goes for wind/wave and other green alternatives. (nuclear being different)

Also in terms of the way we live, the powering of industry might very well become a problem, so lots of goods we take for granted might not exist in the future because of spiraling costs in production.

Industry emissions need to be cut fir sure and big business would be wise to make the leap sooner rather than later but remember lot's of emissions are produced on our behalf!!

CliveG · Feb 27th, 2007, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick-H

Perhaps (wild statement following...) the only scientists who don't agree that tobacco kills are the ones who are paid to think otherwise!

The consumer, at least in Europe, largely won the war on product labelling and reduction of additives. There always seems to be a scientist to tell us that we are wasting our money if we spend more to buy organic rather than 'traditionally grown' (there's a spin for you; major use of chemical fertilizers only began a few decades ago; really organic is 'traditional') but the demand grows.

The hippy fads of yesterday became the consumer choice of today.

Next maybe we could start fighting to loose more of that packing around our chosen goods. We are the buyers; the market must listen to us. Even if it turns out we're wrong!

It becomes a lot harder when it comes to (if we can't face doing without altogether) the choice of, say, a motor car. We may be able to specify that our furniture is mad from renewable-resource wood: how about our cars? Yes, I know I should be doing without a car

.

I read, in a BBC story recently, that a UK hospital was saving on it's electricity bills by removing a percentage of its lightbulbs. What shocked me was the response: people accusing the management of pettiness! They should have been praised, and told to ensure that corridors and offices unoccupied at night were kept entirely dark at night. How many empty office empty office blocks burn power every night?

Wild statement indeed!!! I worked as a microbiologist for BAT for 10 years, eons ago, and we knew the harmful effects of tobacco but hadto sign contracts not to reveal our knowledge. I suspct that is the same for many industrial scientists. Wrong I know but they need to work.

Packaging is a mondern day curse -what was wrong with fish and chips in newspaper instead of now where you ge polystyrene trays and plastic spoons. A recent documentary showed consumers going and purchasing their goods from supermarkets and afterthey were paid for they unwrapped everything and gave the packaging back to the checkout operator. Only one store a fuss about it. There are many instances where the consumer has changed attitudes. It was the public that demanded that all electrical goods should be sold with sealed plugs to avoid electrocution. Consumer power is there if we choose to use it. 15 years ago recycling bins were rare - now every household in the U.K. has one (if they wish). Our council insists that garden waste is recycled and you can be fined if you dump it in the normal household rubbish bin - a small gesture but a signal that things must change.

Car clubs are springing up in the U.K. In my city you can book a car, take a swipe card provided by the club, show it to the receiver in the car which is parked in a street nearby and the car opens with keys inside. You pay for the usage. When I return to the U.K. I may well sell my car and use this method - no tax, no insurance, no maintenance, no parking.

Cyberhippies you are right it is our fault and if we said no to a few of these gadgets companies would sell less and as a result reduce CO2 emissions from their factories. It would also make them think about producing more energy efficient gadgets both in production and usage.
As I said earlier any change I believe will come from the bottom up.

just_an_old_boy · Feb 28th, 2007, 11:48

Some more trouble...

Quote:

Developing nations hit back on climate change

Reuters
Posted online: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 0915 hours IST

Rome, February 28: Developing countries, including emerging economic giants China and India, are not prepared to take the blame for climate change, the head of the G77 group of developing nations said on Tuesday.

Some countries in Europe and North America want developing countries to accept limits on their emissions of greenhouse gases when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012, but the G77 looks likely to oppose that.

"Most environmental degradation that's happened has been historically caused by the industrial world," said Munir Akram, Pakistan's permanent representative to the United Nations and chairman of the G77 group in New York.

"China, India and others are at the stage where they are now taking off and it's quite natural that their emissions of carbon are increasing," he told a news conference after a two-day meeting of G77 diplomats in Rome.

"There's a sort of propaganda effort to try to shift the blame for environmental degradation on to these fast-growing economies, and the motives are not very well disguised."

One of the main reasons US President George W Bush pulled his country out of Kyoto was that the 1997 UN treaty only imposed emissions limits on developed countries.

The European Union remained in the pact but wants developing countries included in a second phase treaty which will be discussed at a UN climate change meeting in Bali, Indonesia in December.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report, released earlier this month, predicted global temperatures would rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius (3.2 and 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century due to the greenhouse effect.

Emissions from industry and transport, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), a by-product of burning fossil fuels like oil and coal, are blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere in a process set to increase disasters like floods and droughts.

"The developing countries contribute the least to environmental degradation but are affected the most," read a statement issued by the G77 after the Rome meeting, which covered everything from aid to UN reform.

With China's economy growing at 10 per cent a year its appetite for fuel is increasing rapidly and the country is believed to be building a coal-fired power station every five days -- a major source of CO2.

But Akram said any efforts to limit developing country emissions in the coming years would be viewed with suspicion, especially as most developed nations had made little progress in cutting theirs.

"Unless the North comes to grips with its responsibility it will be difficult to come to an international consensus by which all of us can contribute to halting the degradation of the environment, and certainly stopping the development of developing countries is not the answer."

CliveG · Feb 28th, 2007, 13:39

"Unless the North comes to grips with its responsibility it will be difficult to come to an international consensus by which all of us can contribute to halting the degradation of the environment, and certainly stopping the development of developing countries is not the answer."

So it looks like governments will only act when the shit hits the fan!!! Nothing new there then.

While all countries should look seriously at its CO2 emissions it is true that emerging nations - even China still have comparatively low emissions if you calculate the emission on a per head basis. There is certainly an argument for the emerging countries to be allowed to increase their CO2 emisssions in the light of that fact but that they should take all possible measures to use new and less harmful technologies and where necesary be helped with new technology or finances to achieve that. The developed countries have had their chance to develop and now should pay the price but like nuclear power, a source of energy that has its problems but will still be an important energy in the future it is felt (wrongly in my view)that it is O.K. for some countries to have nuclear power to help their energy crisis but not others. In the same way it is alright for some countries to have polluted the atmosphere over the past 100 years but wrong for emerging countries.
Some governments need a reality check. You cannot stop countries such as China from building power stations but you can help then develop cleaner ones. With such a potential crisis on our hands new technology should be nade freely available to all countries.

We need a fair and sustainable global policy to not only cut emissions but also to look at global deforestation, air traffic and any other factor that either contributes to global warming or can assist in reducing it. However I do not think we have an organisation that is powerful enough to order countries to take the right measures. This is why I believe it will be the people who call for change.

One further thought. Oil companies have known for years about global warming and the future global oil deficit. Do you not think that they have alternatives up their sleeve that they will pull out when oil is no longer able able to supply our energy requirements. Its a fair bet that their Researchand Development centres have for many years been looking at alternative fuels but when they do reveal all how much will it cost and how will that effect global politics?

capt_mahajan · Feb 28th, 2007, 14:56

Oil companies are meeting a demand, like druglords. As long as demand remains, we can't shoot the messenger.

I have said this before, the US, with 5% of the world population, consumes 23% of its energy. And, the 5% of the world's population that lives in the U.S. has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other five largest countries.

and

From a consumption perspective, the developed countries have a bigger population growth problem than the developing countries! Next time you hear about a woman in India who has seven children, remember that she'd have to have more than 20 children to match the impact of an American woman with just one child.

source: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.or...ergy/index.php

Developing countries see a multiple whammy facing them, which, unless addressed, will not effectively include them in any fight against global catastrophe

-that the environment has been largely degreaded by a handful of countries, thus far.
-that most of these countries have prospered economically often at the expense of developing countries.
-that most of these countries are trying to foist expensive technologies on the same developing countries without sufficient subsidy
-that these developing countries are expected to slow down their own economic growth for environemntal reasons
-that a few rich countries consider themselves above the law with respect to international protocols. That parts of the US are doing a lot regardless is moot. They have no international obligation to do so. Other countries have.
-that one or two rich countries are making insufficient effort to reduce emissions at home

I am afraid the first step has to be taken by countries like the US (and there is no evidence of that so far)... after that, they can at least claim moral high ground. Right now, its a deadlock.

Bigzero · Feb 28th, 2007, 15:29

From the wikipedia page on Kyoto Protocol:

Look at the change in GHG emissions over the last 15 years or so. May be interesting to find out what countries like Germany, UK have done to reduce it.

Country Change in GHGEmissions (1990-2004) EU Assigned Objective
for 2012 Treaty Obligation 2008-2012
Germany -17% -21% -8%
Canada +27% N/A -6%
Spain +49% +15% -8%
USA +16% N/A N/A
France -0.8% 0% -8%
Greece +27% +25% -8%
Ireland +23% +13% -8%
Japan +6.5% N/A -6%
UK -14% -12.5% -8%
Portugal +41% +27% -8%
EU-15 -0.8% N/A -8%

If you look at total energy consumption,

USA (24%), China ( 14%) Russia ( 6.9%), and Japan ( 5.3%) are the top 5 consumers of energy, and together they account for 50% of global energy consumption. India comes 6th at 3.9%.

If the top 10 countries make an effort for reducing energy consumption, they will be able to make a significant impact.

(Source - nationmaster.com.)

However when it comes to per capita consumption, countries like India and China are way below in the list. ( at 60 and 52 respectively ). USA is at 8th, preceded by a clutch of some small, oil rich nations like Kuwait and Qatar, Norway etc, and some other developed countries like Canada, Singapore etc.

Bigzero · Feb 28th, 2007, 15:36

Sorry about the bad formatting- somehow i cant get the columns aligned!

CliveG · Feb 28th, 2007, 18:42

Capt.
I don't disagree with you analysis but all the finger pointing in the world will not bring about a change in the US policies if they continue to dig their heels in. Somehow they have to be brought willingly on board. The people in the US who are doing something, despite their government, should be praised from the roof tops not put down as meaningless. If they continue to grow in numbers their government will have to listen (The Vietnam War was a good example of people power bringing about change). The people of the US can shame their government and we can help them to do so by showing solidarity with and for their efforts. You will never bully those countries that are polluting our planet into change but we can set a good example in our own countries. Why do we have to insist that the US makes the first move? I don't accept we are in a deadlock situation - we would be if those countries that are making an effort decide to stop and wait for the US to play catch up.
Just because my neighbour drops his rubbish on the pavement doesn't mean I should or would do the same until he stops.

capt_mahajan · Feb 28th, 2007, 20:04

CliveG, the intention was not finger pointing, but just pointing out if the chicken or the egg has to come first

I fear that public pressure is not going to do much here, whether in the US or India or wherever. Politicians have to show some leadership on this one, and they are not famous for that.

Curious whether the California experience has been driven by public pressure or by legislation.

kmalik · Feb 28th, 2007, 21:11

I'd say California initiatives are popular with a large number of people (majority?) - more so on the liberal side but not only so. Arnie, being a very astute politician, has positioned himself towards center-left on a number of issues, while being a Republican. This way, in the elections, Republicans face the Hobson's choice between Arnie and a democrat, while the democratic opponents have the air taken out of their 'issues' as Arnie has already taken away the punch line!

If politicians doing the right thing is the answer, then look for another answer! In the US, there is an increasing awareness of the environmental issues, although I doubt that is very deep or broad. The politicians are starting to respond to it - to appeal to or at least not turn off this group of votes. At the same time - the economic interests rule - in politics as well as with the individual voters. The price of gasoline trumps more drilling / pipeline building in ANWR with individuals; it's hardly a secret what the oil company are pushing for.

There is an interesting case study in environment versus money that features much maligned WalMart. WalMart has attempted to actively push for replacement of incandescent lighting with florescent lighting. In its efforts - it has got a lot of push back from the GE and others who have a lot of money tied up in the production of incandescent lighting.

As an economic realist, I believe that the real momentum for environmentally responsible behavior will require circumstances where it is individually rational for people to do so. When the gasoline price tripled, no one needed to tell folks that driving a large SUV is a bad idea or that it was bad for the environment. Raise it a few more times, and people will start to reconsider whether even the share cars are a good idea

CliveG · Feb 28th, 2007, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by capt_mahajan

Curious whether the California experience has been driven by public pressure or by legislation.

Could be both but give Arnie his due he has become an astute politician either for reasons of self preservation or a genuine desire to protect his electorate. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter as long as the right policies are put in place.

As an economic realist, I believe that the real momentum for environmentally responsible behavior will require circumstances where it is individually rational for people to do so. When the gasoline price tripled, no one needed to tell folks that driving a large SUV is a bad idea or that it was bad for the environment. Raise it a few more times, and people will start to reconsider whether even the share cars are a good idea.

Agreed - as I have said many times when a litre of fuel or a bowl of rice costs a weeks wages people will have their minds concentrated on what is important. Ipods, SUVs, washing machines etc will suddenly seem less important when your very survival is at stake.

cyberhippie · Feb 28th, 2007, 22:56

It is a bit of a catch 22 situation for India though. I'll add my voice to the throng who say we cannot stymie growth in India by unrealistic emission demands.

However from my reading of the possible repercussions of the "funny weather" May well be glacial meltdown in the Himalaya and possible interruption of the very important monsoon cycle which is a very finely balanced phenomenon.

India already has massive problems with water supplies, In contributing to the CO2 emissions you may just be stacking up problems for the future.

This coupled with Chinese plans to dam rivers and you have a pretty uncertain future. Which may actually in itself harm growth!

HHHmmmmmmmmm!

capt_mahajan · Feb 28th, 2007, 23:21

There is no doubt in my mind that most countries are shortsighted about the economic impact of climate change. India included. If they were not, they would be doing much more, because the economy is, unfortunately, everything these days.

India has another problem. Awareness of the full impact of climate change, and consequently public pressure, is very limited, and very low priority for many citizens. Therefore I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the government to put this high on their agenda.

I still feel that leadership has to come from the West, followed by increasing and pragmatic pressure on the rest of the world to quickly follow. That, to me, seems the best way. To quote Benjamin Franklin, we must hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang seperately.

Unfortunately, I don't see a single country which is moving urgently to gather worldwide consensus on this danger, junkets for examining environmental impacts notwithstanding.

cyberhippie · Feb 28th, 2007, 23:34

It amazes me Cap'n the short sightedness of it all. The only thing that will get the ball moving is profit as others have said. Thing is I'm sure in the long run, someone can turn saving the planet, into a good money spinner.

Np one seems to have the balls to go after it though!!

Feb 27th, 2007, 16:37	#76
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 27,692	Scientific agreement would certainly help, but it is unlikely to ever happen! It may not be quite as bad as economics (more theories than there are economists) but there will always be different interpretations and prognoses. Perhaps (wild statement following...) the only scientists who don't agree that tobacco kills are the ones who are paid to think otherwise! The consumer, at least in Europe, largely won the war on product labelling and reduction of additives. There always seems to be a scientist to tell us that we are wasting our money if we spend more to buy organic rather than 'traditionally grown' (there's a spin for you; major use of chemical fertilizers only began a few decades ago; really organic is 'traditional') but the demand grows. The hippy fads of yesterday became the consumer choice of today. Next maybe we could start fighting to loose more of that packing around our chosen goods. We are the buyers; the market must listen to us. Even if it turns out we're wrong! It becomes a lot harder when it comes to (if we can't face doing without altogether) the choice of, say, a motor car. We may be able to specify that our furniture is mad from renewable-resource wood: how about our cars? Yes, I know I should be doing without a car . I read, in a BBC story recently, that a UK hospital was saving on it's electricity bills by removing a percentage of its lightbulbs. What shocked me was the response: people accusing the management of pettiness! They should have been praised, and told to ensure that corridors and offices unoccupied at night were kept entirely dark at night. How many empty office empty office blocks burn power every night? __________________ . Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

Feb 28th, 2007, 15:29	#82
Bigzero back to my old ways Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hyderabad Posts: 1,462	From the wikipedia page on Kyoto Protocol: Look at the change in GHG emissions over the last 15 years or so. May be interesting to find out what countries like Germany, UK have done to reduce it. Country Change in GHGEmissions (1990-2004) EU Assigned Objective for 2012 Treaty Obligation 2008-2012 Germany -17% -21% -8% Canada +27% N/A -6% Spain +49% +15% -8% USA +16% N/A N/A France -0.8% 0% -8% Greece +27% +25% -8% Ireland +23% +13% -8% Japan +6.5% N/A -6% UK -14% -12.5% -8% Portugal +41% +27% -8% EU-15 -0.8% N/A -8% If you look at total energy consumption, USA (24%), China ( 14%) Russia ( 6.9%), and Japan ( 5.3%) are the top 5 consumers of energy, and together they account for 50% of global energy consumption. India comes 6th at 3.9%. If the top 10 countries make an effort for reducing energy consumption, they will be able to make a significant impact. (Source - nationmaster.com.) However when it comes to per capita consumption, countries like India and China are way below in the list. ( at 60 and 52 respectively ). USA is at 8th, preceded by a clutch of some small, oil rich nations like Kuwait and Qatar, Norway etc, and some other developed countries like Canada, Singapore etc. __________________ miles to go.... Bigzero's Photo Gallery

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global warming shows up at Amarnath Yatra	arunchs	Chai and Chat	1	Jun 20th, 2006 13:20
Climate warming!??	cliff clavin	Chai and Chat	6	Jan 10th, 2006 11:16
Bangladesh: Boat service Hatiya Island - Sandwip Island - Chittagong.....	teeratiti	Crossing the Border	5	Sep 6th, 2005 18:17
sunderbans????	ricgabriel	West Bengal	9	Sep 6th, 2005 15:35

Feb 27th, 2007, 17:07	#77
cyberhippie Account Closed by User's Request Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 6,012	Before we go down the road of businesses and their impact on ""funny weather" We should all of us hold up our hands in honest appraisal. We with our LED's (10 percent of household energy is used keeping those little standbye lights burning in our homes. On the DVD player, Stereo, PC etc etc) garden hoses, dishwashers and cars. Indeed do the kids REALLY have to be driven to school? "We" that is to say myself also, tend to concentrate too keenly on big businesse's carbon foot print. The average consumer will have to think long and hard about how we live in the modern world. Do we have to have emerald green lawns in the hight of summer. Do we have to own 2 + cars. keep houses at a steady 24 degrees throughout the year. Unless there a massive turn around of new technologies, then the houshold of the future will have to a little more austere than the glitzy consumer show houses we now inhabit. Self sustatining houses are already a reality but few if any will support the kinds of energy use we regard as normal in the west. Same goes for wind/wave and other green alternatives. (nuclear being different) Also in terms of the way we live, the powering of industry might very well become a problem, so lots of goods we take for granted might not exist in the future because of spiraling costs in production. Industry emissions need to be cut fir sure and big business would be wise to make the leap sooner rather than later but remember lot's of emissions are produced on our behalf!!

Feb 28th, 2007, 13:39	#80
CliveG Maha Guru Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: PORTSMOUTH U.K. Posts: 701	"Unless the North comes to grips with its responsibility it will be difficult to come to an international consensus by which all of us can contribute to halting the degradation of the environment, and certainly stopping the development of developing countries is not the answer." So it looks like governments will only act when the shit hits the fan!!! Nothing new there then. While all countries should look seriously at its CO2 emissions it is true that emerging nations - even China still have comparatively low emissions if you calculate the emission on a per head basis. There is certainly an argument for the emerging countries to be allowed to increase their CO2 emisssions in the light of that fact but that they should take all possible measures to use new and less harmful technologies and where necesary be helped with new technology or finances to achieve that. The developed countries have had their chance to develop and now should pay the price but like nuclear power, a source of energy that has its problems but will still be an important energy in the future it is felt (wrongly in my view)that it is O.K. for some countries to have nuclear power to help their energy crisis but not others. In the same way it is alright for some countries to have polluted the atmosphere over the past 100 years but wrong for emerging countries. Some governments need a reality check. You cannot stop countries such as China from building power stations but you can help then develop cleaner ones. With such a potential crisis on our hands new technology should be nade freely available to all countries. We need a fair and sustainable global policy to not only cut emissions but also to look at global deforestation, air traffic and any other factor that either contributes to global warming or can assist in reducing it. However I do not think we have an organisation that is powerful enough to order countries to take the right measures. This is why I believe it will be the people who call for change. One further thought. Oil companies have known for years about global warming and the future global oil deficit. Do you not think that they have alternatives up their sleeve that they will pull out when oil is no longer able able to supply our energy requirements. Its a fair bet that their Researchand Development centres have for many years been looking at alternative fuels but when they do reveal all how much will it cost and how will that effect global politics?

Feb 28th, 2007, 14:56	#81
capt_mahajan (in charge of navel affairs) Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: India Posts: 10,509	Oil companies are meeting a demand, like druglords. As long as demand remains, we can't shoot the messenger. I have said this before, the US, with 5% of the world population, consumes 23% of its energy. And, the 5% of the world's population that lives in the U.S. has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other five largest countries. and From a consumption perspective, the developed countries have a bigger population growth problem than the developing countries! Next time you hear about a woman in India who has seven children, remember that she'd have to have more than 20 children to match the impact of an American woman with just one child. source: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.or...ergy/index.php Developing countries see a multiple whammy facing them, which, unless addressed, will not effectively include them in any fight against global catastrophe -that the environment has been largely degreaded by a handful of countries, thus far. -that most of these countries have prospered economically often at the expense of developing countries. -that most of these countries are trying to foist expensive technologies on the same developing countries without sufficient subsidy -that these developing countries are expected to slow down their own economic growth for environemntal reasons -that a few rich countries consider themselves above the law with respect to international protocols. That parts of the US are doing a lot regardless is moot. They have no international obligation to do so. Other countries have. -that one or two rich countries are making insufficient effort to reduce emissions at home I am afraid the first step has to be taken by countries like the US (and there is no evidence of that so far)... after that, they can at least claim moral high ground. Right now, its a deadlock.

Feb 28th, 2007, 15:36	#83
Bigzero back to my old ways Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hyderabad Posts: 1,462	Sorry about the bad formatting- somehow i cant get the columns aligned!

Feb 28th, 2007, 18:42	#84
CliveG Maha Guru Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: PORTSMOUTH U.K. Posts: 701	Capt. I don't disagree with you analysis but all the finger pointing in the world will not bring about a change in the US policies if they continue to dig their heels in. Somehow they have to be brought willingly on board. The people in the US who are doing something, despite their government, should be praised from the roof tops not put down as meaningless. If they continue to grow in numbers their government will have to listen (The Vietnam War was a good example of people power bringing about change). The people of the US can shame their government and we can help them to do so by showing solidarity with and for their efforts. You will never bully those countries that are polluting our planet into change but we can set a good example in our own countries. Why do we have to insist that the US makes the first move? I don't accept we are in a deadlock situation - we would be if those countries that are making an effort decide to stop and wait for the US to play catch up. Just because my neighbour drops his rubbish on the pavement doesn't mean I should or would do the same until he stops.

Feb 28th, 2007, 20:04	#85
capt_mahajan (in charge of navel affairs) Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: India Posts: 10,509	CliveG, the intention was not finger pointing, but just pointing out if the chicken or the egg has to come first I fear that public pressure is not going to do much here, whether in the US or India or wherever. Politicians have to show some leadership on this one, and they are not famous for that. Curious whether the California experience has been driven by public pressure or by legislation.

Feb 28th, 2007, 21:11	#86
kmalik Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 459	I'd say California initiatives are popular with a large number of people (majority?) - more so on the liberal side but not only so. Arnie, being a very astute politician, has positioned himself towards center-left on a number of issues, while being a Republican. This way, in the elections, Republicans face the Hobson's choice between Arnie and a democrat, while the democratic opponents have the air taken out of their 'issues' as Arnie has already taken away the punch line! If politicians doing the right thing is the answer, then look for another answer! In the US, there is an increasing awareness of the environmental issues, although I doubt that is very deep or broad. The politicians are starting to respond to it - to appeal to or at least not turn off this group of votes. At the same time - the economic interests rule - in politics as well as with the individual voters. The price of gasoline trumps more drilling / pipeline building in ANWR with individuals; it's hardly a secret what the oil company are pushing for. There is an interesting case study in environment versus money that features much maligned WalMart. WalMart has attempted to actively push for replacement of incandescent lighting with florescent lighting. In its efforts - it has got a lot of push back from the GE and others who have a lot of money tied up in the production of incandescent lighting. As an economic realist, I believe that the real momentum for environmentally responsible behavior will require circumstances where it is individually rational for people to do so. When the gasoline price tripled, no one needed to tell folks that driving a large SUV is a bad idea or that it was bad for the environment. Raise it a few more times, and people will start to reconsider whether even the share cars are a good idea

Feb 28th, 2007, 22:56	#88
cyberhippie Account Closed by User's Request Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 6,012	It is a bit of a catch 22 situation for India though. I'll add my voice to the throng who say we cannot stymie growth in India by unrealistic emission demands. However from my reading of the possible repercussions of the "funny weather" May well be glacial meltdown in the Himalaya and possible interruption of the very important monsoon cycle which is a very finely balanced phenomenon. India already has massive problems with water supplies, In contributing to the CO2 emissions you may just be stacking up problems for the future. This coupled with Chinese plans to dam rivers and you have a pretty uncertain future. Which may actually in itself harm growth! HHHmmmmmmmmm!

Feb 28th, 2007, 23:21	#89
capt_mahajan (in charge of navel affairs) Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: India Posts: 10,509	There is no doubt in my mind that most countries are shortsighted about the economic impact of climate change. India included. If they were not, they would be doing much more, because the economy is, unfortunately, everything these days. India has another problem. Awareness of the full impact of climate change, and consequently public pressure, is very limited, and very low priority for many citizens. Therefore I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the government to put this high on their agenda. I still feel that leadership has to come from the West, followed by increasing and pragmatic pressure on the rest of the world to quickly follow. That, to me, seems the best way. To quote Benjamin Franklin, we must hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang seperately. Unfortunately, I don't see a single country which is moving urgently to gather worldwide consensus on this danger, junkets for examining environmental impacts notwithstanding.

Feb 28th, 2007, 23:34	#90
cyberhippie Account Closed by User's Request Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 6,012	It amazes me Cap'n the short sightedness of it all. The only thing that will get the ball moving is profit as others have said. Thing is I'm sure in the long run, someone can turn saving the planet, into a good money spinner. Np one seems to have the balls to go after it though!!

User Name		Remember Me?
Password