Toyota Prius Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
It was his failure to sign the Keyoto treaties that first turned me against that distinguished gentleman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
I'll erect the sign post atop Mt Dora tomorrow :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
What a load of crap. Kyoto was a joke.

The earth has gone through temperature cycles for millions of years, and
will continue to do so whether we are here or not. Mt. Saint Helen's
caused more emissions than we could ever produce, not to mention
forest fires and cow flatulence and... We should all stop exhaling to
protect the earth. Or better yet, close down the Kerry campaign. lol

W'04

By the way, what does this have to do with the Prius?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
faqsman said:
What a load of crap. Kyoto was a joke.

The earth has gone through temperature cycles for millions of years, and
will continue to do so whether we are here or not. Mt. Saint Helen's
caused more emissions than we could ever produce...
The Kyoto accord would only have put limits on the US, and not on the countries that actually produce more toxins, more pollution, more emissions than the US. It would have been downright naive and even dumb for the US to vote in favor of Kyoto without some sort of controls on other countries, too.

I like the Mount Saint Helen's example, and I think it's timely when taken in light of her rumblings of late. I read once that Mt. Saint Helen's eruption in 1980(?) actually released more pollution and emissions in a single event than mankind has released in all of mankind's existence.

I also heard just today on Paul Harvey's report that the Ozone "hole" has closed up a bit, and is now 20% smaller. As Faqsman says, these things are cycles.

It might be interesting to consider whether or not Mount Saint Helen's prior eruption 24 (or so) years ago may have had something to do with the widening of the ozone hole? Cause and effect in nature sometimes happens over extremely long periods of time, and sometimes, they take even longer to "heal." It's just a thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Could be worded better

melgish said:
It was his failure to sign the Keyoto treaties that first turned me against that 'tard
Like him or not it's not necessary to insult him. You could instead say "...turned me against him". That would be less...flamy, you know what I mean?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
The only connection to the Prius is that the Prius is an example of one kind of technology necessary to slow global warming.

Cimatologists and atmospheric physicists are in wide agreement that man-made global warming is happening and has been happening for about 200 years. They do disagree about how bad the consequences will be. They are better informed about the matter than is Paul Harvey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
brown cloud...

Yeah, I love those 'natural ' brown clouds in the city of Denver. Could it be from Mt. St. Helens still erupting every winter? Hmmm, enquiring minds want to know...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
The earth has gone through temperature cycles for millions of years, and will continue to do so whether we are here or not.
Yes, but the BIG difference is the time scale. Present global warming is immensely faster than any temperature fluctuations that happened in the past. When it's about millions of years, species can adapt. When it's about centuries, they can't. Ignoring this fact is just like driving at 80 mph towards a canyon while saying "So far, I'm OK."

So, considering that hybrid vehicles can reduce greenhouse gas emissions (along with sensible use of cars), this post was not off-topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
No, of course it's not off topic. But does anybody know how much pollution is caused by automobiles, and how much is caused by our manufacturing base and industrial transportation? I thought we only used about 3% of our oil consumption for "end-user" transportation needs, and the rest of it was for manufacturing and transportation of goods and raw materials.

If that is the case, then maybe it's also reasonable to assume that only 3% of our pollution can be blamed on you and me driving to our jobs in the city?

Maybe my numbers aren't exactly right, but I'm sure somebody will correct me. In any case, I do think we tend to be very very self-blaming all too quickly. It's almost a superstition. Kind of like ancient natives. When the crops were bad, they thought that their gods were mad at them.

Now, whenever we have hurricanes (which are natural), higher temperatures (caused by the sun burning bigger and hotter), and now earthquakes and volcanoes (which are happening because of forces deep inside the Earth, far outside of our control), where do we look to blame?

At ourselves. Why are we so self-flagellant at every turn?

Again, I think the pollution problem is self-fixing. Eventually, we will run out of obtainable oil. And wow....we'll stop polluting for sure, then. We won't need laws. We won't need Kyoto. We won't need environmentalists. It will be VERY automatic. No oil - no pollution. No smog. No brown haze. So honestly, I'm not worrried about pollution. It's a tiny tiny problem compared to the real one on the horizon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Saying this topic is relevant to the Prius is like saying we can talk about
an actor's latest movie because he drives a Prius once a year for the
camera people!

By the way, Clinton stopped the Kyoto treaty from being signed, just like
the economy tanked while he was in office. It is amazing how
chronologically challenged some people are. Soon people will be blaming
Bush for Oklahoma City!

Sheesh!! :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
Re: Could be worded better

Tharkun said:
melgish said:
It was his failure to sign the Keyoto treaties that first turned me against that 'tard
Like him or not it's not necessary to insult him. You could instead say "...turned me against him". That would be less...flamy, you know what I mean?
Edit applied. and I apologize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Global warming aside, doesn't anyone see that we, the first world, are setting an example for the rest of the planet? By rapidly and wastefully using all available resources as fast as possible JUST BECAUSE WE CAN, we tell China, and Eastern Europe, and Asia, and Brazil that they too can live the life and CONSUMECONSUMECONSUME.

Believe me, when China begins draining oil eastward out of Arabia, we will be left high and dry.... its already beginning.

We are like dividing bacteria in nice warm nutrient broth inside a test tube. Before long we will run out of food and choke on our own waste products.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
Saruman said:
...We are like dividing bacteria in nice warm nutrient broth inside a test tube. Before long we will run out of food and choke on our own waste products.
Strong words, but words that ring true. Scientific experiments show that at the point where 50% of a life-giving resource is gone, a culture of bacteria only has one more generation left to live the "good life". After that, massive-and sudden depopulation of 90% or more will ensue.

I think it can be argued that oil is the single "life-giving" resource (for our society, industry, technology, ability to feed each other, etcetera).

The $64,000 question is this: Have we depleted 50% of our "life-giving resource" yet? Tick-tock...

Discuss!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
faqsman said:
The earth has gone through temperature cycles for millions of years, and
will continue to do so whether we are here or not. Mt. Saint Helen's
caused more emissions than we could ever produce, not to mention
forest fires and cow flatulence and... We should all stop exhaling to
protect the earth. Or better yet, close down the Kerry campaign. lol
Why have some of those on the Right become so anti-science like this, saying things on such scientific topics that just ain't so? It makes people on the Right just look silly, much like those who talk about the healing power of crystals and magnets and all the other sorts of pseudoscience make those on the Left look silly (to the extent that those who embrace these things tend to be on the Left).

There is absolutely no credible scientific debate regarding the fact that the concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are rising in the atmosphere because of humans, primarily because of the burning of fossil fuels (which, unlike forest fires, that is recycling carbon into the atmosphere that was taken out when the trees grew, is introducing a new source of carbon in the atmosphere that has been locked away for millions upon millions of years). CO2 is already at the highest level its been in the last 420,000 years and likely the last 20 million years. [Methane is a lesser player but its levels have risen even more dramatically. Cow flatulence is a player, although I don't think it is the main one. And, while cows may be sort of "natural", the number of them and their diet is not.] What we are doing is embarking on a large uncontrolled experiment with the climate system of the only planet that we humans have.

It is always fun to read message boards like this where people are saying things that would get laughed right out of credible scientific journals like Science, Nature, or the more specialized journals in the field.

By the way, Clinton stopped the Kyoto treaty from being signed,
That is not true. Admittedly, he didn't expend a lot of political capital on trying to get it ratified. On the other hand, although the accord was reached in 1997, they were still working out the details at the end of Clinton's and the beginning of Bush's term...And, most of the countries, at least the ones with commitments under the treaty, did not ratify it until after the details had been worked out.

At any rate, what Bush has done is not only to back out of Kyoto but even to oppose much less stringent plans, like the bipartisan McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act that was voted on in the Senate last year. It got something like 42 votes in favor, despite strong lobbying from the White House and various other parties like the fossil fuel lobby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
BIF said:
The Kyoto accord would only have put limits on the US, and not on the countries that actually produce more toxins, more pollution, more emissions than the US. It would have been downright naive and even dumb for the US to vote in favor of Kyoto without some sort of controls on other countries, too.
The U.S. is the single biggest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions (and produces about 25% of the world's total with our ~4% of the world's population). It is true that greenhouse gas emissions from the developing countries are increasing...But, up until this point, most of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been due to the developed countries (and obviously the emissions per capita are still much higher in the developed countries than in the developing countries). This is why it was decided that the developed countries must take the first steps, with the other countries to have controls down the road. Also, the developed countries have the best capabilities in terms of our wealth and technology to take the steps with the idea that this technology will find its way to the developing countries. (It should also be noted that the final Kyoto agreement allows developed countries to get credits for helping reduce emissions in developing countries, I believe.)

By the way, it should be noted that Kyoto is not an end in itself but a first step. Basically, it is a way to make the markets realize that there is a cost associated with these emissions so that markets can do what they do best and find the least expensive ways to create the innovations (such as hybrid cars!!) that will help to bring about the solution. As Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense said in response to the news that Kyoto has been approved by the Russian cabinet (which means, if it is then ratified by the Parliament as expected, it will have enough ratifications to come into force): "What is significant is that it will be a market signal heard around the world, a signal that we are moving into a carbon-constrained future."

I like the Mount Saint Helen's example, and I think it's timely when taken in light of her rumblings of late. I read once that Mt. Saint Helen's eruption in 1980(?) actually released more pollution and emissions in a single event than mankind has released in all of mankind's existence.
Well, you seem to read a lot of things. But the veracity of some of what you read is questionable. Certainly, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, volcanoes are not a major player. In fact, they have a net cooling effect because of the particles they emit into the atmosphere. After a huge eruption in the 1800s over in the far east (Krakatoa?), much of the U.S. had what was called "the year without a summer." These cooling effects, however, tend to be fairly short-lived relative to greenhouse gas effects because the particles don't stay in the atmosphere as long.

I also heard just today on Paul Harvey's report that the Ozone "hole" has closed up a bit, and is now 20% smaller. As Faqsman says, these things are cycles.
It has long been known that the ozone hole is cyclical...There is a very strong annual cycle, for example. And scientists believe that they are now tstarting to detect the effects of the very successful international treaty to virtually eliminate the production of CFC's that were causing the destruction of the ozone layer. This is indeed a problem that will heal itself over the next 50 to 100 years now that we have taken action.

It might be interesting to consider whether or not Mount Saint Helen's prior eruption 24 (or so) years ago may have had something to do with the widening of the ozone hole? Cause and effect in nature sometimes happens over extremely long periods of time, and sometimes, they take even longer to "heal." It's just a thought.
Well, you can throw out lots of thoughts...But, most of these thoughts are not likely to be taken very seriously by scientists who have spent many years studying the problem and coming to an understanding of it. Believe it or not, lots of alternative explanations occur to them too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
BIF said:
No, of course it's not off topic. But does anybody know how much pollution is caused by automobiles, and how much is caused by our manufacturing base and industrial transportation? I thought we only used about 3% of our oil consumption for "end-user" transportation needs, and the rest of it was for manufacturing and transportation of goods and raw materials.
Here are the figures for the United States (from the site that the originator of this thread linked to):

Carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector, at 1,849.7 million metric tons, accounted for 32.3 percent of total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2002. Almost all (97.9 percent) of transportation sector emissions result from the consumption of petroleum products: motor gasoline, at 61.6 percent of total transportation sector emissions; middle distillates (diesel fuel) at 20.5 percent; jet fuel at 12.7 percent of the total; and residual oil (i.e., heavy fuel oil, largely for maritime use) at 2.7 percent of the sector’s total emissions. Motor gasoline is used primarily in automobiles and light trucks, and middle distillates are used in heavy trucks, locomotives, and ships.
So, you can see that transportation is a significant part of the problem.
Of course, this addresses the issue of the primary greenhouse gas and not of the "traditional" pollutants, like sulfur dioxide, NOx, and carbon monoxide. I don't know what the percentage is for that, but I do know that autos are significant particularly in certain geographic areas (e.g., in and near cities). [For these traditional pollutants, where the emission occurs is important. For greenhouse gases, it is really only the total emissions that are relevant.]

BIF said:
Now, whenever we have hurricanes (which are natural), higher temperatures (caused by the sun burning bigger and hotter), and now earthquakes and volcanoes (which are happening because of forces deep inside the Earth, far outside of our control), where do we look to blame?

At ourselves. Why are we so self-flagellant at every turn?
Not true. Plenty of scientists have considered alternative explanations for what is happening. It is also worth noting that the case for anthropogenic (human-caused) warming is not just based on what warming we have seen. It is also based, even more strongly, on a theoretical understanding of how these gases effect the earth's energy budget and on climate simulations incorporating these effects.

BIF said:
Again, I think the pollution problem is self-fixing. Eventually, we will run out of obtainable oil. And wow....we'll stop polluting for sure, then. We won't need laws. We won't need Kyoto. We won't need environmentalists. It will be VERY automatic. No oil - no pollution. No smog. No brown haze. So honestly, I'm not worrried about pollution. It's a tiny tiny problem compared to the real one on the horizon.
Well, as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. However, over the next 100 or several hundred years is what we might want to worry about at the moment. And, on that scale, there have been calculations made (in a paper published in Science in the last year or so) of how high the CO2 levels would rise if we exploited all the known fossil fuel resources, considering both only conventional ones and also both conventional and less conventional ones, and in either case the results are a really huge rise. The predictions of what such a rise would cause in terms of warming and the ancillary effects like melting of the land ice on Greenland and Antarctica and the resulting rise in sea levels is not pretty.

Just, by way of background, you can probably tell that this is a topic near-and-dear to my heart. I am a PhD physicist and although I was not trained and do not work in the area of climate change in my work, keeping up with the field at some reasonable level is something that I have devoted a considerable amount of time to. So, I get particularly worked up when I see the state of the science on the subject being misrepresented.

By the way, a good resource to learn more about the climate change issue is the IPPC website. Of course, some on the Right have been skeptical of the IPCC, but the fact is that their report is usually the one cited in any paper in a reputable scientific journal as representing the current state of the science in the field. Of course, you can also look at what the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has to say about climate change in several of their reports (including the one produced at the request of the Bush Administration) and the councils of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU).
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top