KYOTO = BULLSHITO

[Caid Ivik]

Electrical train uses more energy, but it's pure, ecological power from nuclear plant. Anyway, oil resources are for no more than half-century.

[Anathema]

Current recources, yes. But we may discover others, so we can't be sure. But uranium is in limited supplies as well.

[Terror]

limited, but not quite as limited as gas or oil. Sun and wind may be a sollution, but right now they just don't provide enough energy

[Razorox]

Let's consider our facts here:

1) The kyoto accord focuses ONLY on greenhouse gases, as in gases that are theorized to be high absorbers of infrared radiant energy.

2) The two biggest greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and methane.

3) Scientists know that the Earth is warming.

4) Scientists directly know that it is sun cycles causing the Earth to warm and cool (we're still comeing out of our last ice age)

5) Scientists do not know and cannot possibly prove that the greenhouse gas THEORY (and I use the term loosely) accelorates global warming. They can hypothesize, and make assumptions, but unfortuneately we just don't know. Greenhouse gases may or may not effect climate trends.

Believe it or not, you're right - the Kyoto isn't going to do crap. But not for the reasons you stated, that's for sure...It seems to me like you're just going off on a tanjent and don't really have all the info you need...

About the cars thing, the "BIG WHOOP" you speak of is pretty damn big to me. If gasoline cars are outlawed, my dad, who's a chemical engineer working as a consultant in marketing for the third-largest energy (oil & nat gas mostly) company in the world, would lose his job and my family would lose our primary source of income. We'd have to sell 2 of our 3 cars, sell our house, and buy something smaller, cheaper, in a worse neighbourhood that's closer to the inner city. I'd have to switch schools as a result, and the school I switch to would amost undoubtedly be worse. Since my parents are smart with their money and have saved, my sister and I can always count on a great post-secondary, but that won't be the case all around. Once the economy had recovered to a degree we would move to wherever my dad could find work. I'd probably have to hold at leat a part-time job all year, if I could which is unlikely because the economy will be in such a rut. Big whoop? Yeah. It is. Millions and millions losing their jobs is a pretty big whoop.

You say we should ban public transportation AND cars? Is there something wrong with you? You've just eliminated the only two effective and reliable ways of transporting yourself. Very, VERY few people live within walking distance of their jobs. I could bike places I guess but what happens during the 8 months of the year when there's snow on the ground?

Transit in my city is ok until winter hits. The buses either don't show up or show up almost an hour late. Even from that, driving like 15-20 km takes them AGES, because they're big, giant hogs. The LRT train, surprisingly, isn't as effected.

Someone said that buses are efficient??? They're hogs! They're, big, unmanouverable, pigs! They puff out worse than several cars put together! Trains are, by FAR, more effective. They're WAY more reliable, much more timely, a lot faster, and use electricity, which, no matter how it is obtained, is MUCH less polluting than several buses.

Thank you for expanding on my post ace. However, I think it's time we all realized that nav is the most narrow-minded of narrow-minded. He is the most self-centered of the self-centered. He is the most ignorant of the ignorant. I have learned to take his comments for what their worth (which is basically nothing)

[Razorox]

Someone said that buses are efficient??? They're hogs! They're, big, unmanouverable, pigs! They puff out worse than several cars put together! Trains are, by FAR, more effective. They're WAY more reliable, much more timely, a lot faster, and use electricity, which, no matter how it is obtained, is MUCH less polluting than several buses.

Buses may not be efficient in a sense that they meet your personal schedule and requirements for reliable transportation. But Although they guzzle gas like it's going out of style, you fail to take in consideration how many people they are carrying when compared to cars. The gas:people ratio is WAY WAY WAY more efficient then if all the people on that bus were to each go in their own cars...

Trains may be effective in some ways, but they are stuck to the tracks which doesn't allow for much leeway in where the terminals are. If you had to take the train every day, you may end up walking several kilometers to your work from the train station, which can be a major pain in the a$$, especially considering we live in such a harsh climate during winter. Oh and one more thing ace; do not assume that all, or even most trains are electric. In the large cities like Calgary where you live, yes there are these advanced trains and monorails. But the vast majority of trains are run on conventional fossil fuels, and they hack out the remnants of it like a chain-smoker who doesn't know when to quit.

[SurlyPIG]

Razor, I'm not comparing buses to cars, I'm comparing them to trains. If everyone rode buses of COURSE it'd be more efficient than everyone driving a car, but I was repsonding to someone who said that buses were way more energy efficient than trains.

And I was talking about municipal transit trains...not the "chugga-chugga"s that go across the country pulling hundreds of cars of cargo. I mean the ones that go through the streets and underground in cities. It's much more energy efficient, and WAY faster too. No traffic to worry about, just a straight track to go forward on. In the winter, at least where I live, the train is way, way, WAY faster than driving. Unfortuneately, the train doesn't extend very fire, so the time spent transferring from buses, walking through the terminals, and waiting for buses and trains ends up being a big waste. Transit trains average a much, MUCH higher speed than cars, but where I live it's a bitch 'cause in my daily commute I have to walk a kilo to the bus stop, wait like 3-10 minutes for the bus, (this is when I KNOW the scheduled time, that's how cooky the times can be) get off the bus at the LRT station, across an overpass, wait another 3-10 minutes for the train, take it ONE stop, across another overpass, walk another kilo to get to school. It ends up taking like an hour. In the summer I can bike faster. They run special buses that go directly to the school at a set time, but you can't always catch them if you have to go in early or stay late if you're on a team or in a club or whatever you do.

[Acriku]

Can't we all just drive cars all we want and colonize some other planet when Earth is dead? No? OK. SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

[SurlyPIG]

LMAO. The Earth is far more likely to be destroyed from nuclear warfare than it is from these "greenhouse gases". Global warming due to greenhouse gases is a theory, one that has not a shred of proof supporting it, no less. From the '40s into the 70s, when there was a lapse in the warming trend due to a minor change in sun activity, scientists were up in arms about global cooling. The Earth has been warming for the last ten thousand years. A sheet of ice covered a huge fraction of the currently populated world. Nothing we have done, or can do, is possibly going to change it. Our pathetic perception of time is irrelevant in a wide scale like this. We're only making this accord to alleviate our fears, so we can feel good that we're doing something.

Show me a shred of proof you have that greenhouse emmissions make the world get warmer and I'll show you proof that it's because of sun cycles. We have only been recording global averages for slightly more than three quarters of a century. During those years, the trend has been warming, except during 1940-1975. The cooling was directly attributed to sun activity. The activity returned to it's current standard and the world warmed. These are FACTS, by the way, not assumptions. Here's something that might proove the opposite of what you think: 80% of all man-made emmissions came after 1940, but from '40 to '75, the world was COOLING.

Trust me on this, I've done my research. I've done several projects on this very subject for school. I think some of you are speaking without truly knowing all the facts. I bet half of you reduction supporters can't even exlain the scientific concept behind the greenhouse gas theory. There is an obvious bias in the information available about this subject. The average environmentalist will say, "Look ,the world is warming because of pollution, just ask this scientist. He'll tell you it's warming" Well no SHIT it's warming, we're still coming out of something called the "ice age". It's appalling how far these cooks will go to cover up the information about how climate trends are directly linked with solar cycles, but it isn't surprising. These are the same types of environmentalists who spike trees so that some unfortuneate lumberjack can have his chainsaw recoil in his face. I wonder what his family would think of these people...

Sure, the Earth is warming. What compells us to be so arrogant that we think that we are causing it.

That said about the greenhouse gas theory, no, the kyoto wouldn't even fix it if it existed. Developing nations don't have to ratify it, and there's several other flaws in the plan.

I'm not saying "smog, smog, smog, there's no consequence", rather the opposite. I think, instead of trying to cut back emmissions, that we should channel more resources into developing more environmentally friendly energy sources, and to develop new ones. The best cure for a bad product is invention and innovation. Perhaps government subsidies will encourage alternative power development. Perhaps they should step in and remove the patent rights from these big oil companies that are halting the development of existing alternative energy sources. Maybe one day you'll have hydrogen running into your home, not natural gas. Maybe your car will be fuel cell electric instead of gasoline. We just have to make these maybe's into should be's, and then into will be's.

[Dunenewt]

[quote author=ExAtreides

[Razorox]

[quote author=ExAtreides

[Razorox]

Razor, I'm not comparing buses to cars, I'm comparing them to trains. If everyone rode buses of COURSE it'd be more efficient than everyone driving a car, but I was repsonding to someone who said that buses were way more energy efficient than trains.

And I was talking about municipal transit trains...not the "chugga-chugga"s that go across the country pulling hundreds of cars of cargo. I mean the ones that go through the streets and underground in cities. It's much more energy efficient, and WAY faster too. No traffic to worry about, just a straight track to go forward on. In the winter, at least where I live, the train is way, way, WAY faster than driving. Unfortuneately, the train doesn't extend very fire, so the time spent transferring from buses, walking through the terminals, and waiting for buses and trains ends up being a big waste. Transit trains average a much, MUCH higher speed than cars, but where I live it's a bitch 'cause in my daily commute I have to walk a kilo to the bus stop, wait like 3-10 minutes for the bus, (this is when I KNOW the scheduled time, that's how cooky the times can be) get off the bus at the LRT station, across an overpass, wait another 3-10 minutes for the train, take it ONE stop, across another overpass, walk another kilo to get to school. It ends up taking like an hour. In the summer I can bike faster. They run special buses that go directly to the school at a set time, but you can't always catch them if you have to go in early or stay late if you're on a team or in a club or whatever you do.

Ah sorry bout that misconception ace. I was under the impression you were comparing buses to conventional cars. My bad. :-X

[SurlyPIG]

No worries, I should have quoted the post I was responging to.

[Razorox]

No worries, I should have quoted the post I was responging to.

non problemo, amigo! ;)

[Acriku]

Rax I hope that whole post was not to my post...Becuase I never said Earth dying of global warming, etc, or whatnot. I just said when it's dead.

[Razorox]

[quote author=Acriku

[Acriku]

Sorry, meant ace :-

[SurlyPIG]

Hmm...my dad went to a multi-company meeting on the Kyoto today, and he just told me about what was discussed.

The most supported theory is that the Kyoto accord is an anti-North American conspiracy. As some of you know, current emissions must be reduced to what was emitted during 1990. Also, nations can sell their "right to pollute" in the form of carbon credis. The question they were asking was, why 1990? Why not just make a percentage based reduction based on current emmissions? There are several reasons why this time would be beneficial to Europe (and Japan as well). First, the UK was still in the process of switching from coal to natural gas heating. The much cleaner burning nat gas created a huge drop in pollution. They would only have to meet a target that existed when they were guzzling heavy polluting coal, not the cleaner natural gas. Second, 1990 was before France had developed the majority of its nuclear power plants. Currently france runs 90% of it's energy off nuclear power. In 1990 that figure would have been almost the other way around. Like the UK, they are going back to a time when they polluted like mad and hadn't reformed to modernized technology. Since they're mor efficient now, they can sell off their "carbon credits" to kick-start their economy to something of what it was in the 50s and 60s. Last, in 1990, the USSR was extremely energy inefficient because of industrial blunders. Right there you have 3 major economic benefiters of the Kyoto accord. They all signed the accord. The rest of europe is much the same.

The accord doesn't take into account the geography and the current state of different parts of the world. In europe, you can take trains and walk to wherever you need to go. Same with Japan. People at this convention/meeting figured out that if my country were to meet the standards, we'd have to park more than our cars 50 weeks of the year. That just isn't doable, where you have some of the coldest average temperatures and longest average commutes. Same kind of thing for the US and in Austrailia, but to a lesser degree because of a milder climate.

Also, population changes have not been taken into account. Europe and Japan have average negative population changes. The areas are pretty full and people are averaging 2 kids per family instead of previous numbers. Also, since it's full, much fewer are immigrating to these areas. North America and Aus is the opposite. For example, since 1990, my country has grown in population by 8% from immigration. In 1990, we had 28 million people living and consuming resources. Now we have 31 million. There is no per capita system that would accomodate such a change. We would be expected to consume even LESS than we did in 1990, further killing our economy, but not Europe because of its net population reduction, though it is very slight. The same can be said for the USA and Australia, again. We would inevitably have to purchase carbon credits from the countries on the good end of this accord, further benefiting them, and further hurting us.

You might as well call it the "Bring the Western colonies to their knees" accord. For these reasons, the USA and Australia have NOT signed the accord. The only reason Canada has is because our government based in Eastern Canada, with nearly no supporters in the west. The province I live in has one tenth of the nation's population, but is the largest positive economic contributer. Because of our population difference we have little say in elections, and there is a concern of "western alienation" among us. If the kyoto accord is ratified, we'd be even more at the mercy of the Eastern provinces.

[Navaros]

hahah ACE is just admitting the he is Toronto's, hence, ---*MY*--- Bi- ah well you know the story ;D

[SurlyPIG]

Unless you are a liberal politician elected in an Eastern riding that works in Ottawa and just lives in Toronto then, no. Just, no. And me being your bitch? Then how come my money is being used to feed and house you and your neighbours? ;D

If the idiotic accord goes through, I'd support any separation proposal 100%. Why should my parents' tax dollars go to giving frenchies and newfies pogi just so they can elect whoever the f*** they want and totally ignore us? Bah, screw that. Even KLEIN is better than that (man, I never thought I'd say that...)