U.S. Rejects Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Cuts

Despite Scientists' Declaration And Senate Action, U.S. Official Wants No Mandatory Reductions

(CBS/AP)  The United States, participating with nearly 190 nations in a United Nations conference on climate change, is holding firm in its opposition to mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, despite mounting international and domestic pressure.

Top scientists at the two-week-long conference have jumped into the political battle over global warming at the international gathering on global warming, held on the Indonesian island of Bali.

They urged mankind to make deep cuts in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

More than 200 experts issued a declaration calling for a 50 percent reduction in such emissions by 2050 - a rare policy prescription by scientists who usually limit themselves to presenting evidence and leaving the politicians to choose which remedies to take.

The scientists aimed to spur talks here over launching negotiations, to extend over the next two years or so, on an emissions-cutting agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The current pact requires 36 industrial nations to reduce the gases by a modest 5 percent below 1990 levels. The United States is the only industrial nation to reject it.

"What this declaration is about is delivering a clear message. It's got the weight of the scientific community behind it," said Australian climatologist Matthew England, a group spokesman. "It means we have to have a radical change to the way we power this planet. We have to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions as soon as we possibly can."

Another petition spokesman, Andrew Pitman of Australia, said some scientists declined to sign the declaration, "on grounds that we need to cut much more deeply."

But top American negotiator Harlan Watson, the State Department's Senior Climate Negotiator, shrugged off the latest scientific declaration, without having read it.

Watson suggested the scientist's declaration lacked the weight of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, the scientific group that shared this year's Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

"There are thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC. This is the opinion of 200," he told reporters.

"I haven't seen the statement and its content, so, no, I can't endorse something that I haven't seen."

The United States, the world's largest producer of climate-warming gases, resisted calls for strict limits on emissions, even as the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a bill Wednesday to cut pollutants by 70 percent by 2050 from electric power plants, manufacturing and transportation.

The bill, introduced by Sen. John Warner, D-Va., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., also would create a "cap-and-trade" system whereby companies would have greenhouse gas pollution allowances that they could sell if they went below the emission limits, or buy if they found they could not meet the requirements.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the committee and a longtime denier of global warming, has promised a filibuster.

The U.S. Senate action cheered environmentalists and others in Bali clamoring for dramatic action to stop global warming. U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer led off his daily briefing Thursday by hailing the "encouraging sign" from the United States.

David Waskow, of the Oxfam humanitarian agency, said the Senate legislation suggested that many in the U.S. were eager to assume leadership in the fight against global warming.

"It does show the seriousness of the U.S. Congress in addressing these issues, and really sends a positive signal to developing nations in particular that the United States Congress is not going to sit idly by," he said. "That is quite distinct from ... the Bush administration."

But Bush administration officials at Bali said neither the Senate action nor the decision earlier this week by Australia's newly-elected Prime Minister to sign the Kyoto Protocol - after the country stood for years with the U.S. in opposition - would have an impact on Washington's stance at the conference.

The conference is marked by a tense standoff between two camps, with a majority supporting mandatory emissions cuts on one side, and opponents (such as the United States) on the other. Failure to act on greenhouse gas emissions, experts say, would allow rising temperatures to trigger devastating droughts, flooding and other environmental damage.

On Thursday, the Australian delegation said Canberra supported a U.N. document that mentioned cutting greenhouse gas emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The government has already proposed 60 percent cuts by 2050.

However, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd refused on Thursday to commit to the 2020 figures, saying it was premature to set firm targets before he receives a comprehensive report he has commissioned on the issue, due next year.

The United States and ally Japan are proposing that the post-Kyoto agreement favor voluntary emission targets, arguing that mandatory cuts would threaten economic growth which generates money needed to fund technology to effectively fight global warming.

Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar, the host of the conference, said the mood in the closed-door negotiations was "serious, apprehensive," but that there were hopes the U.S. would slowly change its stance.

"I think the United States will be judicious enough to accept the changes of atmosphere," said Witoelar, who took over as president of the U.N. climate change conference this year.

"I don't think we should pressure them, they will come by themselves," he said. "We should not demonize anyone. We still have another week."

[afmca]

Just another issue the Repubs will leave to our children and grandchildren. By then the deficit will have grown so huge that they cannot afford to fix it and America will fall just like other empires before it. Of course, by then the Bush and Cheney families will be firmly entrenched in Saudi Arabia and Dubai.

The Bush administration are the true terrorists!

[sbb2211]

jh6379

What are YOU willing to give up so that we can limit the emissions to the levels requested by the UN?

1. Are you willing to give up your car? Right now?
2. Are you willing to stop using your air conditioner in the summer and heater in the winter?
3. Are you willing to stop buying items that create excessive greenhouse gases during their manufacture?
4. Are you willing you quit your job if you work for a company that creates greenhouse gases? Right now?
5. Are you willing to give up beef so that we can eliminate those methane producing herds?
6. Are you willing to pay 50% or more of your wages as taxes so that we can afford to dismantle and replace all of the carbon producing factories? Right now?
7. Are you willing to travel the country in a non-polluting vehicle (even if you have to walk) to spread the word?

How far are you REALLY willing to go to do what the UN wants?

I, for one, am not willing to toe the line and drink the kool-aid that climate change is NECESSARILY a bad thing. The climate has been changing from one side of the pendulum to the other for earth''s ENTIRE history. Human beings are foolish if they beleive that they can stop the process.

CO2 increases attributed to man comprise less than one percent of the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

[hillaryin08]

Where you guys molested by a fat rich guy when you were children?

The democrats dont want this either. They will play like they do to get your vote though just like the Iraq Issue.

Taking sides with the enemy is never a good thing especially when you share the same enemy as your enemy.

[pghlady3]

according to dr neil, head meteroloist at the weather channel and ALL of MIT, THIS IS NORMAL. the earth warms and cools as it is needed. three weeks ago natl geographic had an article about the drop in the sperm whales because there is MORE ICE than usual in the mating areas. NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING

[grinder219]

hillaryin08

1. I am willing to drive my solar-powered electric car (free energy!).
2. I don''t use air conditioners and heat via solar collectors.
3. Please list those items so I can tell if I''ve missed any...
4. I don''t work for such a company.
5. I don''t eat beef, besides, natural gas extraction, delivery and use puts more methane into our atmosphere than anything else!
6. Why should we pay more in taxes? In product costs, perhaps, but, gee, that would cut some of our manufacturers out of the international money loop! Awww, my bad!
7. Of course! We have bicycles, too... But it''s easier to use my solar-powered computer.

Even more than CO2 is the huge problem caused by particulate matter emitted by our vehicles and our factories. Going solar -- despite its costs -- makes more sense. As with everything else, the more folks who use solar systems the costs will come down.

[hawksprings]

Meanwhile, in other news you will NEVER see on CBS because it contradicts The Consensus:

Maine and North Dakota record record snowfalls earlier this week.
Washington DC has 2 inches of snow fall while Congress passes a Greenhouse reduction bill.

[hawksprings]

Maybe to reduce greenhouse gas, we should ban UN Conferences on greenhouse gas emissions...

The delegates to the conference created as much CO2 as 20,000 cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=aPbfclqokwcw

Hypocrits.

[jon2012-2009]

What are YOU willing to give up so that we can limit the emissions to the levels requested by the UN?

1. Are you willing to give up your car? Right now?
2. Are you willing to stop using your air conditioner in the summer and heater in the winter?
...

The climate has been changing from one side of the pendulum to the other for earth''s ENTIRE history. Human beings are foolish if they beleive that they can stop the process.

Posted by SBB2211 at 12:46 PM : Dec 06, 2007

SBB2211, you are not a member of the scientific community that has organized to urge the cuts in greenhouse gases on a global basis. I don''t see that you have any standing to say anything on the subject, such as specific advice on what we as individuals might to do for our part or speculation about the true magnitude of the threat. As ordinary citizens, we can only do one of two things: heed the warning about global warming or not--support or reject the stand our political leaders take in response to this warning.

[jcr103]

Get ready bit** reality is calling! Global climate change is real, it''s driven by the burning of fossil fuels, and the industrialized countries, particularly the U.S., are responsible for the vast majority of carbon released into the atmosphere over the last 150 years. The industrialized countries along with China, moreover, will have to take significant steps to deal with this problem.

[hawksprings]

jcr103
Posts from Global Warming Sheep like yourself are often full of factual errors and don''t help your cause.

We humans ARE NOT responsible for the VAST MAJORITY of CO2 released in the atmosphere the last 150 years.

We''re responsible for maybe 25% of CO2, and the amount of CO2 as a percentage of atmosphere is less than 1%.

Go out and build a snowman.

[heartlight3]

To those of you using record snowfalls in some areas as justification that global warming does not exist, the evidence is not that there will be no snow. The change will be evidenced by increased intensity and frequency in extreme weather patterns, both droughts and storms. You just stay in denial until you can''t deny it any more. By then it will be too late.

[mennowoman]

China''s economic boom is fueled by unrepentent and rampant polluting of every type, and no one asks them to sign a greenhouse gas emissions agreement. Why? Is everyone afraid the world will lose the opportunity to buy strings of Christmas lights for $1?
In China, th epollution is so bad it looks like Pittsburgh of the 1960s, and no one seems to be after them to do anything about it.

[rheola-2009]

We must all be so very comfortable in the knowledge, that there are so many experts on these boards, who are far more knowledgable than the elite of the worlds scientists, and can quite confidentally dispute their findings.

We must also be so very comfortable, in the knowledge that these people here, are so much better informed than the representatives of the almost complete majority of countries at the Bali climate change meeting.

That of course does not include the representative of the most materialistic greedy and wasteful siciety of all.

I am overwhelmed by the depth of knowledge shown on these boards by so many well informed persons.

[jcr103]

--hey hawksprings--

Time to pull your head out of your a** homes. The scientific evidence that global climate change is driven by human activity is, to say the least, substantial. Give it a try dude, pull, pull, pull, pull...

[grinder219]

hillaryin08

1. I am willing to drive my solar-powered electric car (free energy!).
2. I don''t use air conditioners and heat via solar collectors.
3. Please list those items so I can tell if I''ve missed any...
4. I don''t work for such a company.
5. I don''t eat beef, besides, natural gas extraction, delivery and use puts more methane into our atmosphere than anything else!
6. Why should we pay more in taxes? In product costs, perhaps, but, gee, that would cut some of our manufacturers out of the international money loop! Awww, my bad!
7. Of course! We have bicycles, too... But it''s easier to use my solar-powered computer.

Even more than CO2 is the huge problem caused by particulate matter emitted by our vehicles and our factories. Going solar -- despite its costs -- makes more sense. As with everything else, the more folks who use solar systems the costs will come down.

[zoe20006]

It time to vote out the GREEDY CORRUPT Republicans, who don''t care about our health and well-being, especially the idiot Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Climate change is real. DROUGHT IN ALABAMA, GEORGIA AND KENTUCKY...they are fighting over water rights. ICEBERGS ARE MELTING...CAN''T MISS THAT ONE! I HOPE OKLAHOMA HAS A LOT OF HURRICANES AND TWISTERS...

[jcr103]

--hey hawksprings--

Time to pull your head out of your a** homes. The scientific evidence that global climate change is driven by human activity is, to say the least, substantial. Give it a try dude, pull, pull, pull, pull...

[displeased]

Go out and build a snowman.
Posted by hawksprings

We can''t. Global warming has melted all the snow.

[hawksprings]

Global Warming has melted all the snow?
Tell that to the people in Maine, North Dakota, Minnesota, etc. where snowfall records were broken earlier this week.

Also, it snowed 2 inches in DC whilst the Congress signed Global Warming legislation.

The "climate scientists" haven''t PROVEN anything.
All they''re doing is making PREDICTIONS, and most of them haven''t, and won''t, come anywhere near true.

But go ahead, all you Global Warming Sheep, keep handing over your money, rights, and everything else that the Government keeps asking from you in the name of the Church of Global Warming.

Then when the climate cools off again on it''s own like it has done many times in the past, and will do again, you can all congratulate yourselves for saving the planet.

[patrick493]

Global warming alarmists never mention that more than 16,000 American scientists, two-thirds of whom have an advanced degree in science,signed the following statement:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth''s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth''s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Skeptics are invited to read for themselves (http://www.oism.org/pproject or at http://www.sitewave.net /pproject). To date, no valid technical objections have been raised by alarmist scientists to these "deniers".

[patrick493]

Global warming alarmists never mention that more than 16,000 American scientists, two-thirds of whom have an advanced degree in science,signed the following statement:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth''s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth''s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Skeptics are invited to read for themselves (http://www.oism.org/pproject or at http://www.sitewave.net /pproject). To date, no valid technical objections have been raised by alarmist scientists to these "deniers".

[patrick493]

Global warming alarmists never mention that more than 16,000 American scientists, two-thirds of whom have an advanced degree in science,signed the following statement:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth''s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth''s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Skeptics are invited to read for themselves (http://www.oism.org/pproject or at http://www.sitewave.net /pproject). To date, no valid technical objections have been raised by alarmist scientists to these "deniers".

[patrick493]

Global warming alarmists never mention that more than 16,000 American scientists, two-thirds of whom have an advanced degree in science,signed the following statement:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth''s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth''s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Skeptics are invited to read for themselves (http://www.oism.org/pproject or at http://www.sitewave.net /pproject). To date, no valid technical objections have been raised by alarmist scientists to these "deniers".

[patrick493]

Global warming alarmists never mention that more than 16,000 American scientists, two-thirds of whom have an advanced degree in science,signed the following statement:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth''s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth''s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Skeptics are invited to read for themselves (http://www.oism.org/pproject or at http://www.sitewave.net /pproject). To date, no valid technical objections have been raised by alarmist scientists to these "deniers".

[patrick493]

Global warming alarmists never mention that more than 16,000 American scientists, two-thirds of whom have an advanced degree in science,signed the following statement:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth''s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth''s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Skeptics are invited to read for themselves (http://www.oism.org/pproject or at http://www.sitewave.net /pproject). To date, no valid technical objections have been raised by alarmist scientists to these "deniers".

[rheola-2009]

The "climate scientists" haven''''t PROVEN anything.
All they''''re doing is making PREDICTIONS, and most of them haven''''t, and won''''t, come anywhere near true.


Posted by hawksprings at 03:15 PM : Dec 06, 2007

I am overwhelmed by the depth of knowledge shown on these boards by so many well informed persons.

[patrick493]

Global warming alarmists never mention that more than 16,000 American scientists, two-thirds of whom have an advanced degree in science,signed the following statement:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth''s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth''s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Skeptics are invited to read for themselves (http://www.oism.org/pproject or at http://www.sitewave.net /pproject). To date, no valid technical objections have been raised by alarmist scientists to these "deniers".

[displeased]

Tell that to the people in Maine, North Dakota, Minnesota, etc. where snowfall records were broken earlier this week.

Also, it snowed 2 inches in DC whilst the Congress signed Global Warming legislation.
Posted by hawksprings

Wow, I didn''t realize it was so unusual for the North to get snow in December. And DC got 2 inches? Forget global warming, we''re in another ice age!

[rheola-2009]

apparently well informed Patrick wishes to be noticed.

[ubrew12]

Patrick493 said: "16,000 American scientists... urge[d]...reject[ion of] the global warming agreement [Kyoto]"

A friend of mine signed that statement. I would no more ask him about Global Warming than I would ask a climatologist about plant pathology (his specialty). Some people would, of course, namely people like yourself who are too lame to appreciate the difference between the two scientific disciplines. It''s all greek to you... eh??

[rheola-2009]

Wow, I didn''''t realize it was so unusual for the North to get snow in December. And DC got 2 inches? Forget global warming, we''''re in another ice age!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Displeased at 03:29 PM : Dec 06, 2007

It is only unusual, because it suits the well informed to make it appear so.

[gunownerdan]

Who needs science and understanding?
All the Bush administration has to do is have Bush look outside and when he says "It doesn''t look like there''s too much CO2 in the air to me.", that''s good enough for them.

[jcr103]

I agree. Who needs science and rational thought anyway? It just gets in the way in the most inconvenient ways. Besides, denial is so much easier as you don''t have to grapple with the hard issues affecting society if you go this route.

You listening hawksprings? Pull, pull, pull, pull, you can do it!

[rheola-2009]

You listening hawksprings? Pull, pull, pull, pull, you can do it!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jcr103 at 03:55 PM : Dec 06, 2007

Hawksprings has put his tail between his legs, and has run for cover.

[rickstas]

"The current pact requires 36 industrial nations to reduce the gases by a modest 5 percent below 1990 levels. The United States is the only industrial nation to reject it."

We need new leadership!

[scottyusa]

As I went out to start the car this morning I noted it was 17 degrees. As I tried to pry my car door open from inside a block of ice I wondered; where the heck is global warming! I need it now! I have lived here in the northeast for 57 years and you know something? Its usually like that up here at this time of year. Hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Some summers are hotter than others and some winters are colder than others. Maybe we could fix this by spreading the heat more uniformly? All we would have to do is tilt the earths axis a little bit or better yet; move the earth a bit farther away from the sun. You may laugh but I tell you the cure needs to be as exagerated as the danger.

[MacTrek777]

I wonder how well all those countries are doing cutting emissions that signed the treaty? From what I understand current compliance is spotty at best especially in China and Russia. What good is a treaty if you don''t follow it? It''s just another piece of paper much like all those treaties we signed with the indians. Think about it!

[rheola-2009]

What good is a treaty if you don''''t follow it? It''''s just another piece of paper much like all those treaties we signed with the indians. Think about it!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by macoo7 at 05:50 PM : Dec 06, 2007

You are so correct, however if the worst greenhouse gas producer would agree to lower its emissions, by signing a mandatory treaty in Bali, then maybe the remainder of the world could go ahead and do something concrete to ensure that those following us will have a habitable world to live in.

Hopwever it appears materialistic greed, and short term political opportunism will win out over sensibility.

[hawksprings]

Sorry I''ve been gone for a few hours, but some of us do have to work for a living. We can''t all be on welfare. There have to be some taxpayers too.


OK all you Global Warming Smarty pants, do some math for me, unless you went to Public Skool and don''t know how.

What percentage of the Earth''s atmosphere is CO2?
What percentage of the Earth''s atmosphere is man-made CO2?

Make sure you get your decimals in the right place, because you''re going to be dealing with hundreths and thousanths of a percent in your answers.

Then come back and tell us all how such a tiny fraction of a fraction of ONE Percent increase is gonna cause the Earth to become inhabitable.

Don''t be a Global Warming Sheep.

[rheola-2009]

Welcome back Hawksprings, as you can see your side of the debate is lacking in numbers, but then it always lacks in substance.

[usbrit-2009]

Hawksprings - pre automobile (1860) - 290 ppm CO2. Post auto (2000) - 420 ppm CO2. A rise of 40%. Yes we''re talking ppm (parts per million). If you don''t think ppm can be important, it only takes 75 ppb (pp billion) of sarin (nerve gas) to kill a human being.

[hawksprings]

As I prepare to head home the forecast calls for up to 10 inches of snow tonight, I''ll be thinking of you all as I burn firewood in my fireplace, and wondering when Global Warming will come to Wyoming.

USBrit, the problem with your comparison is that Sarin is poisonous gas, CO2 is not in the same category as Sarin.

Your little straw-man argument does not hold water, or water vapor, which is by far and away the largest greenhouse gas.


By the way, North Dakota and Maine broke snowfall records this week.
If things are so dire, why is that still happening??

All the doom and gloom predictions aren''t worth the cyberspace they are typed on.

[middleman8]

The world should not expect the US to do anything right, look at their record they have been feather bedding on the rest of the countries for 200 years and the people like hawkspring don''t seem to know the difference.It is impossible to reason with people that are brain washed all their lives.

[bobgee_1999]

I don''t much care about this, since it''s already too late for anything useful to be done concerning global warming. What I do care about is this spolied child attitude that Americans have and Republicans in particular perpetuate, that for Americans nothing should be mandatory. For all the prattle you hear about personal responsiblity, Americans sure don''t want to have to exercise any. A time is coming, in the not-too-distant future, when the world will no longer tolerate America''s selfish King of the Hill behavior. Peronally, I look forward to it. That will be the next important phase in American history: maturity.

[patrick493]

As a first time poster I apologize for the previous multiple posting as I was confused by a note to the effect that Publish was closed and would return later to allow others to comment. It won''t happen again.

[rheola-2009]

Patrick493

Not a problem, we none of us can claim not to have done similar.

[jimfinster]

My theory is that space aliens are warming the planet with giant invisible heat rays.

One unfortunate side effect of the ray is that it preferentially broils the brains of neocons, thereby causing them to deny global warming and have gay sexx in public restrooms.

[lloydbest1]

Most of the recent methane and CO2 loading in our atmosphere is the result of our rampant fossil fuel extraction practices and America''s thirst for oil and natural gas. Bush''s opposition to even the modest cuts in greenhous gas emissions proposed at the Kyoto conference is rooted in his fear the 3rd world will have an unfair economic advantage and his belief in the possible (highly likely) hit in living standards our middle and upper classes would have to take.

I''ve got some bad news, folks:

Those lifestyles are unsustainable anyway. Even if rising methane and CO2 levels have no climate impact whatsoever it is still prudent to limit fossil fuel use and limit spewing waste combustion products. The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens as well as Canadians, Western Europeans, Australians, New Zealanders and a round 750 to 1500 million others will have to live more austerely that they are accustomed to doing now no matter what. Better they learn how sooner while we still have some gas and oil left and time to adjust than later when we run out.
(end of part 1)

[lloydbest1]

(Part 2)
In case anyone is wondering how much money I''m putting where my mouth is:
1. Any errand I run that''s less than about 8-10 miles, I use my bicycle or I walk. I do not use my rig any more than absolutely necessary.
2. I keep my thermostat at 65 during the day; around 60 or a tad less at night. I do not air condition during the summer.
3. I buy local (not necessarily organic). This is a biggie. Fuel use transporting stuff from long distances to the store is a big factor in our oil use.
4. Most of my lighting is fluorescent. And I''m careful about how to dispose of them after use.
5. Whenever possible I buy used clothing, furniture and tools. Manufacturing new uses a lot of energy; much of it from fossil fuel.
I do this mostly because I am low income anyway and can save a ton of money. I am not virtuous. But you don''t have to be poor to do any or all of these and other "climate friendly" things I haven''t mentioned..

[erasmus6]

"To those of you using record snowfalls in some areas as justification that global warming does not exist, the evidence is not that there will be no snow. The change will be evidenced by increased intensity and frequency in extreme weather patterns, both droughts and storms. You just stay in denial until you can''''t deny it any more. By then it will be too late." posted by heartlight3

I have tried to tell this to hawksprings before but he don''t get it. He obviously has not read any real information on global warming, he just keeps denying that it is happening because he doesn''t WANT it to be happening.