WooHooo!!! Way to go Canada!!!

Just for the record, I am NOT against sound ecological policy, I am AGAINST bad science. I am against knee jerk reactionism in a scientific environment. I am against the new age touchy feely tree hugging philosophy that has taken the place of true science. Trees are nice plants and are not people, animals are cool critters but do not have constitutional rights, we as people have a responsibility as individuals not to torture or maim them for no good reason, but we as humans have no requirement to treat them as equals, they are food sources, and part of the ecology but NOT people no matter how badly you want the spottted owls to be citizens in good standing.

I agree we should impact nature as little as possible when gathering resources, but that does not mean that I support NOT using or gathering the resources. Conservatives are not FOR a dirty environment, we are FOR reasoned care when impacting the environment.

Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Way to go our brothers to the North! Stop the madness inspired by bad science, half formed theories and incomplete research!

yeah, I guess the research will only be complete when the polar ice caps have completely melted...[/QUOTE]Rokenn, are you aware that there were MANY many times before homo-sapiens were on the scene when there were NO polar Ice caps? Did you know that we are currently in an interglacial period and were you aware that there are theories that the melting of the fresh water ice of the polar caps that actually triggers ice ages? Gee if we ARE inter glacial..and we are DUE to have another Ice Age...wouldnt that theory actually fit the trends? The science for the accords is bad and is not worth the US or anyone else investing in preiod![/QUOTE]Even if This is true and even if the gas emitions don't cause the Global Warming
What right does that give us to go poplute the earth?
And further more What does that give countries the right to break treaties they made?
I hardly find any of this cheerful and i do think Magik that for once you should try to see things from a less egoïtic poit of view[/QUOTE]Hi Rikard, umm Im not sure where my point of view is egotistical, since my psyche is not part of the ecology.

What right do we have to utilize the world in any way we as humanity sees fit?? I believe it is called emminent domain. Being the TOP of the food chain is what it is all about. At every level in nature you will notice that the critters at the top eat the ones below (ie use the resoources they have available to them). Human beings have all the right they need to use the planet, it is what it is there for.

Should we use it wisely? sure, Im all for better efficiency and good science, but you know...as much as every one bitches about emmisions from cars, they are only 10 percent of what they were in the 1960's. I would say a 90% increase in efficiency is quite a good damn achievement. As for poluting the air, ALL of mans atmospheric emmisions for the last few decades don't even come close to equaling even a single major volcanic erruption. Humans are NOT as bad as the reactionaries would have the world believe. Unfortunatley those alarmist types who want government grants and cheritable donations KNOW they need to make everything SOUND like its going to hell in a handbasket.

Anyway, Im not knocking your right to believe what you wish Rikard, but I will say this to you...I ...that is ME personally I , have to live in the same world as you, I have to drink the same water, and breathe the same air. I can also see the advances and improvements we have made and I also know that most people alive and protesting today, do not remember the good old days when every house in the USA (practically not litterally) was burning coal or wood to heat with, or the clouds of coal smoke that would fill the valleys.....The country is better now than it was then as far as polution is concerned not worse. Is it a utopia. No, ill agree there, but lets get our heads out of the political propaganda that is environmentalism these days and stick to the facts. We are getting better, we can't change things overnight, and we do not need to get all radical and bent outta shape to do better.

[ 04-15-2002, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Rikard_OHF]

First of all i don't remember a time when any usa house was burning anything coz I'm not a American and as such i think it's a showing of disrespect to the rest of the world to say "Hey Kyoto was nice and all but that threaty we signed, well forget about we ain't doing that"

Second ofcourse you can continue to burn coal and oil to make engergy but why do that when you can use solar power and wind power aswell? or Wave energy which is one of the biggest sources of energy on this planet? WE should start the use of durable energy now so that WE won't get stuck with the problem of lack of fosil fuel sources.

And what you sayd about Emissions being lower then the 60's I'd wanna see where you got that from since there are a LOT more cars now then there were before and not to mention a lot of new countries who are just setting up their own industrial revolution

[/)eathKiller]

well I say **** Oil, petrolium, and natural recourses all together! Lets go to the REAL Kyoto, the one in Japan, and purchase us some Electric Hondas and Toyotas!

And don't give me any of that "But they give off nuclear waste and the stearing wheel is on the left side" gobbleedegük...

[Rikard_OHF]

Originally posted by /)eathKiller: well I say **** Oil, petrolium, and natural recourses all together! Lets go to the REAL Kyoto, the one in Japan, and purchase us some Electric Hondas and Toyotas! And don't give me any of that "But they give off nuclear waste and the stearing wheel is on the left side" gobbleedegük...

Isn;t it suppost to be on the left side [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: First of all i don't remember a time when any usa house was burning anything coz I'm not a American and as such i think it's a showing of disrespect to the rest of the world to say "Hey Kyoto was nice and all but that threaty we signed, well forget about we ain't doing that" Second ofcourse you can continue to burn coal and oil to make engergy but why do that when you can use solar power and wind power aswell? or Wave energy which is one of the biggest sources of energy on this planet? WE should start the use of durable energy now so that WE won't get stuck with the problem of lack of fosil fuel sources. And what you sayd about Emissions being lower then the 60's I'd wanna see where you got that from since there are a LOT more cars now then there were before and not to mention a lot of new countries who are just setting up their own industrial revolution

I agree with you that SOLAR, Fusion, Wind and Wave energy are all sources of potential energy, the problem is, at the current time, they are all too innefficient to supply a large amount of the worlds needs. Research is continueing to make these technologies better but it takes time. There are also probably SEVERE ecological impacts to Wind and Wave energy technologies. In a pilot program somewhere in Nova Scotia or New Foundland I believe, they found that harnessing the wave energy had terrible effects on the fish and marine life further up the bay, tide levels were lowered and all kinds of havoc ensued. Massive tapping of wind energy also bodes ill for weather patterns. Soalr and Fusion are probably our best bets for the future, right now though they are just too expensive or technicly unfeasable to implement. I say continue the research.

Rikard, I know you are not american, but you should have understood my point since all of europe and england were once even worse than the USA was with all of the coal smoke in the air. My point is, we have cleaned up our act by huge leaps and bounds since the 1800's. Yes there have been other types of polution but they are being addressed too.

Now about signing the Accords, the USA never agreed to the accords. Our political system requires that congress AND the president agree, to anything before we have a legal authority to sign and comit to a treaty. This did not happen, so pardon us if you all don't understand our political process, but I can assure you the representatives who were running the accord talks knew FULL well what the deal was.

As for cleaner air than in the 60's & 70's, not hard to document there
there are plenty of pictoral/photographic and research studies shopwing that the cars have lowered their emmisions to a fraction of what they once were. Yes the number of cars has increased, but each one is by far cleaner than ever in history. I remember once in the early 70's flying into Pittsburgh on a prop-job commuter plane, the air was so cruddy brown you could not see the runway from a thousand feet up, now days our air is much much clearer and cleaner.

Again please realize Im not saying don't work to develop newer sources of energy, but please be reasonble in how you impose your restrictions on everyone else. Maybe you can afford a $75,000 electric car but most peopple cannot....AND if you use the electric cars, remember you will have to generate the electricity to charge them..which requires energy plants which cause polution which.......well you get the gist... There isnt any free lunch. Solar and fusion some day will work, but as I said, the tech isnt there right now, don't believe everything you see coming out of holywood.

[ 04-16-2002, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Rikard_OHF]

Magik The reason Why amerika did not sign the Kyoto treaty was that the republicans didn't want the democrats to have signed an important threaty...
Partypolitics not logical thinking prevent signing...

Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: Magik The reason Why amerika did not sign the Kyoto treaty was that the republicans didn't want the democrats to have signed an important threaty... Partypolitics not logical thinking prevent signing...

That is your opinion, im afraid that I have another. I know the science behind those treaties is bad, it makes no economic or logical sense for the USA to sign them. You blame the Republicans alone and yet the deocrats did NOT have a unanimous vote to sign the treaty either, so while the charge may or may not have been lead by republicans, they were definately not alone. You like the accords for whatever reason, I can respect your point of view, at least allow me the same courtesy for my view and don't just shrug it off and say it is because of this politician or that. I didn't like the wording of the accords all on my own of my own volition not because a politician told me not to.