The Kyoto Protocol on the greenhouse effect

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby legolas the elf » Thu May 10, 2001 5:10 pm

It's evolution, baby!!<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
legolas the elf
Mariner

 
Posts: 8768
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 5:12 pm
Location: In the forest
Top

Postby Denethor » Thu May 10, 2001 5:13 pm

There is more than enough proof that human beings are seriously messing up the environment. This part of the world (New Zealand) is affected by a gigantic ozone hole which makes going out in the sun nowadays a very risky business. To put it simply: if humans destroy the environment then we end up destroying ourselves. I certainly hope that the EU implements the agreement.<BR><BR>As for the perception of Bush, there is indeed a general consenus here that Bush is a moron who has all the power money can buy. From what I've read there are alot of people involved in the Bush administration who still haven't forgiven New Zealand for becoming a nuclear-free zone in the 1980s.
User avatar
Denethor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 9:33 pm
Location: New Zealand
Top

Postby peregin2k » Thu May 10, 2001 5:25 pm

<i>It's evolution, baby!</i><BR><BR>Wrongo!<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> Evolution means the process of gradual, progressive, peaceful change and development. It doesn't say <u>drastic</u> change.
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby ElfStar » Thu May 10, 2001 7:25 pm

"The concensus is Bush is a moron"<BR><BR>The concensus used to be that the world was flat. It doesn't change the truth at all. <BR><BR>Are you really saying it's impossible to drill in Alaska? Why would it be so hard to let them drill in a small area. The negative impact= none. Positive= Lots.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby peregin2k » Thu May 10, 2001 7:47 pm

Oh boy, release the hounds! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Negative impact, drilling an airport size land in Alaska might be just area for you but it will disrupt the ecosystem up there. A serene protected enviroment introduced to modern technology, wow, harmony indeed. Why do you think the Inuits/First Nations are againts this if this something positive. Yeah, lots of positive stuff my foot, of course it is, to those who are greedy and looking for a new money making machine.<BR><BR>It's like drilling a hole in a dike, if you know what I mean. The hole gets bigger and bigger.
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby ElfStar » Thu May 10, 2001 7:58 pm

Who says it will disrupt anything? The liberal enviromentalists? What else would they say? In some places where drilling is allowed the caribou come right up next to the factories undisturbed.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 10, 2001 8:06 pm

Why drill in Alaska to begin with?????? There is NO need!!! All we have to do is make our cars a BIT more efficient ( I don't think that will shake anyone up too much who isn't invested in oil ). Please explain to me WHY we have to use up EVERY bit of ANY resource as though we were the only things this planet must support???? What right do we have??? But, no matter. We'll take ourselves out as well as everything else if we don't wise up. As to thissee here global warming thing, every class I have taken, from chemistry, where we studied the reaction of the emissions of refrigerators on the ozone layer, to the effects of excess radiation and the particle emissions from coal refining plants generally leads me to the conclusion that it is pretty well accepted!!!!
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 10, 2001 8:13 pm

Thanks for all the responses about Bush. I am glad to know that other countries see him for what he is. If people only had looked at his state of Texas and saw what shape it is in now, (not to mention all the executions), well, I don't know, maybe most people knew about it and disregarded it (environment, health care) as unimportant as they figured it couldn't possibly affect them. I just don't know what to make of it. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif"border=0>
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby ElfStar » Thu May 10, 2001 8:18 pm

Who ever said drill everywhere? We do not advocate drilling of all natural resources. You ae overstating the impact this would have, which is very,very small. You underestimate the markets ability to naturally produce cleaner and more efficient products.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby peregin2k » Thu May 10, 2001 8:19 pm

<i>In some places where drilling is allowed the caribou come right up next to the factories undisturbed.</i><BR><BR>I think you answered your own question, there. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> That's the best example so far of disturbed ecosystem. Thank you very much, I didn't have explain it to you! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0> It doesn't mean it kills the animals but it has changed it's habitat's landscape. Next time, it won't be the caribou coming right up next the the factories, well, maybe a polar bear or come to think of it, the sasquatch. Scary, eh! Next time, they will be knocking on your door too around dinner time. <BR><BR>
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby peregin2k » Thu May 10, 2001 8:26 pm

My example of the dike is self explanatory, first there was a small hole then it got bigger and bigger. See, I didn't say you are going to drill everywhere. Do you need a better example, then?
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby ElfStar » Thu May 10, 2001 8:28 pm

What do you want? Complete moratorium on drilling? You seem to have missed my point about markets, and I cannot emphasize enough how incredibly small an area we're talking about.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 10, 2001 8:33 pm

I don't think I said I thought we would drill everywhere. I simply don't understand why we need to drill in Alaska at all. But, by the way, our consumption for oil does hit many spots over the globe, so in a way, it does feel like it is everywhere!!! Hear about Ecuador??? (there's no q in that???) Their rain forest system is about to be sacraficed for oil. Many indigenous cultures will go extinct as well as animals and plants. No effect or little, huh. I think more than anything, Alaska is a symbol of excess. We don't need to drill there, but the White House wants to. We don't NEED our TVs, but imagine life without them!!!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby ElfStar » Thu May 10, 2001 8:39 pm

Yeah, energy crisis, who cares about that. Let em go without energy.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 10, 2001 8:47 pm

That's not what I said. There are far better responses to the "energy crisis" than drilling for oil in one of the last remaining preserves!!!! We are an intelligent life form are we not?? There ARE alternatives are there not???? (And yes, there are, from slightly modifying car emissions, to modifying air conditioners, there are ways of doing these things ). Drilling for oil in an area that I am sure will START OUT small, for an amount of oil easily extracted through some simple conservation, will only fatten the wallets of a few and delay our problems that we should deal with now.
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby peregin2k » Thu May 10, 2001 8:48 pm

Small area!!! The dike, man! The dike, man! (dike, doesn't mean lesbian <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>) Do I have to tell you the whole story so you would understand. This time you are making me chuckle, sorry, but I can't help it.<BR><BR><i>You seem to have missed my point about markets, and I cannot emphasize enough how incredibly small an area we're talking about.</i><BR>I think I said that quite clearly when I said it's a "green" machine (not to be confused with natural green <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>), of course, I know that. So you're telling me we should sacrifice something protected so that some sectors of the industry will get rich. That's what I call greed, you don't need to get a business degree to know that.<BR>
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby ElfStar » Thu May 10, 2001 8:53 pm

You think I want to drill to make the oil industry rich? Don't be rediculous. Drilling could lead to a temporary solution for our energy problems. And why would they drill through the whole reserve? There's not oil in the whole reserve. <BR><BR>I agree there are better energy sources. But they arn't economically feasible yet. That will change. It always does.
User avatar
ElfStar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:25 pm
Top

Postby Witchwench » Thu May 10, 2001 8:56 pm

Elfstar, yes the actual platform may only be the size of an airport, but if oil is pulled out of the sight then roads, traffic and all the personell that are needed for such an operation will certainly increase the demands on the ecosystem. Ice roads are the big thing that the oil companies talk about when doing exploratory drilling, but they dont work year around and once oil is found a more permanent roadway is needed...they have to get that oil out. Next they have to refine the oil...when all is said and done, they are doing alot of damage for a short term pay off. Our nation will never be an independant oil producer, we will always depend on other countries for our petroleum needs as long as that remains our source of fuel. As I see it, the oil companies are looking for new sights, to fatten thier pockets for short term gain. Refining of this oil will not change our dependancy and takes quite a bit of time. <BR> I was watching a broadcast of Bush talking out of both sides of his mouth last week. He was explaining his take on the oil crunch in our country...he explained it by saying..not an exact quote but generally "~there is plenty of oil, we are not in a crisis situation, the problem lies w/not enough refineries to transform it into a useable source of fuel..so what we end up with is a bottle neck effect". Then a few days later he is talking about our need as a nation to open up the ANWR for exploratory drilling..d'oh! Anyone notice this discrepancy in logic?
User avatar
Witchwench
Mariner

 
Posts: 6928
Joined: Mon May 22, 2000 4:13 am
Top

Postby Denethor » Thu May 10, 2001 8:58 pm

Elfstar: Pollution is what is called a negative externality. Markets which are based purely on the principle of supply and demand do not take into account externalities. In this respect markets are said to fail, and the government must intervene. Indeed, a market economy will only yield a 'perfect' situation under certain conditions. These conditions are NEVER met in practice, and so those people who think that the 'market is always right' are somewhat mistaken.<BR><BR>As for energy, there are all sorts of ways of producing energy (hydroelectric, solar power, wind power etc) without resorting to oil drilling. The major source of electricity in this country (New Zealand) is hydroelectric dams. The world should be devoting its time to developing alternative energy sources, rather than relying on a resource (i.e. oil) which will almost certainly run out some time this century.
User avatar
Denethor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 9:33 pm
Location: New Zealand
Top

Postby peregin2k » Thu May 10, 2001 9:00 pm

<i>Yeah, energy crisis, who cares about that. Let em go without energy.</i><BR><BR>Energy crisis? Is there really one? Or this is just a ploy of the OPEC to keep their oil prices high. Of course, it's all about supply and demand, produce less, so you can keep the prices high. Who wants to pay high prices, right? We better start drilling in Alaska so we don't need to buy from the cartel and protect the refineries in Texas when the time comes oil runs out or a war brokes out in the Middle East, hey, we're the supply chain. <BR><BR>
User avatar
peregin2k
Mariner

 
Posts: 7147
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:53 pm
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 10, 2001 9:00 pm

I don't think it is as expensive or difficult as you think to employ alternative means. The idea of drilling in Alaska is so ridiculous, as there is no good reason, (even a group of scientists have come out in the newspapers, denouncing the drilling, saying that there are other ways to achieve the same result without punching holes and sucking up toxic liquid in a pristine area. Opening Alaska to drilling means no space is safe. That's why the only reason we can think of for drilling in Alaska is that it will enrich a few powerful individuals ( vice-prez for one????).
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 10, 2001 9:04 pm

A discrepancy in logic coming from Bush???? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif"border=0> Surely you jest!!!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Thu May 10, 2001 9:29 pm

I thought i heard that Christy Whitman was no longer going to recommend to Bush that they drill in Alaska, due to public pressure. I read that in an internet article that was mainly about Bush's decision to reinstate some sort of arsenic standard in the future, once again due to public pressure.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 10, 2001 9:34 pm

What??!! Really??? Where did you hear this???? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif"border=0>
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby Telemachos » Thu May 10, 2001 9:36 pm

Going back to the whole "CO2 helps plants grow" thing --<BR><BR>I recently visited the Biosphere 2 Project in Arizona. Among other things on the tour (it's a very cool place, btw) the guide explained that although it's no longer inhabited, the main eco-systems are still closed off to the outside and are used now to conduct experiments. One of the most recent experiments involved testing to see how much more CO2 the rainforests could take. So they cranked up CO2 levels to predicted levels in 20 years and then 50 years (I may be off on the exact # of years, but they did two different experiments, projecting farther and farther into the future). Basically, the rainforests of the world can accept more CO2 for a while, but then they max out and the increased CO2 actually makes the eco-system start declining.
User avatar
Telemachos
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 13789
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 11:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Thu May 10, 2001 9:37 pm

AOL news<BR><BR>i have aol instant messenger, and it was one of those news articles (if you've got that option) that scrolls across the top<BR><BR>the article was mostly about the arsenic decision, so i'm almost sure that's true, the other thing was a side comment Whitman made, but let's hope it's true
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 10, 2001 9:43 pm

Thanks for the info!! I will start hunting for more pronto!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Thu May 10, 2001 9:46 pm

no prob
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby Kelannar » Thu May 10, 2001 10:58 pm

More left wing looney wacko environmentalist scare tactics here? Please. Drilling in Alaska is a great idea. The less oil dependent we are on OPEC, the better. <BR><BR>As for the foreigners - you don't own Alaska. It's not your land. So worry about your own country. I don't give a crap what Europe wants to do or what they want America to do. They can go party with those human-rights abusers on their little committees at the UN, while America does its own thing. And the next time Europe comes crying to the US because of more ridiculious ethnic problems, you can take care of it yourself.<BR><BR>We also should build more nuclear power plants, to reduce dependency on oil as a fuel source in the future. Nuclear energy is much more efficient and environmentally friendly than oil-burning power plants.<BR><BR>There IS a power crisis in America, especially California, but also one slowly building in New York City, and Long Island NY. The reason is because not enough power plants are around. And why is that? Because every time they try to build a power plant, the wacko environmentalists protest and it never gets built. And if it DOES get built, they usually riot or camp out over the building site and engage in destruction of property to stop construction. <BR><BR>The same goes for oil refineries. One hasn't been built in 15 years. The reason? Because environmentalists unilaterally block construction of them, through legal action or through political blackmail.<BR><BR>Thus, I'm not surprised that the environmentalists here don't seem to care about power crises, and dismiss drilling in Alaska. Short-sighted they always are, it seems.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 10, 2001 11:10 pm

Short-sighted!!!! What are you talking about??? That's the whole point. Oil from Alaska won't get us anywhere except in the short term. We still have a major problem. Nothing you've said justifies sucking up oil in a protected area. An environmentalist or scientist is naturally long-term oriented because that is the way nature works. Anything from the planning of dams to the construction of power plants should be done with this in mind. The only gain short term that I can see is monetary.<BR><BR>I'll leave your other comments to the folks across the mighty sea...
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest