• Registered: 2009-11-05
  • Posts: 61
  • User Karma: 6

Topic: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

This article excatly reflects my personal opinion.

1/ Attempts at reducing global temperatures will be without visible effect. I'll add that we are not able to change weather globaly with the current state of our technology and finances.

2/ Funds to fight global warming will divert, not add to, funds for third world aid where it will be more useful.

3/ Emerging countries think only about the money they expect us to give them. Won't happen.
But the worse is that emerging countries didn't get to the principle of reducing CO2 emissions. Only to the principle of getting cash from western countries.
Again 2/3 of the world is not in the bandwagon.

4/ Environementalist are way off the realities and way of the boundaries of reason whit their requests.

TBS, I don't agree with the pseudo-scientific argument that we don't have to do anything because anyway we had x cold period and y heat periods in the last z years.

IMO one should create a new word: Palinism

A meaningless phrase uttered by an intellectualy inept person in an attempt to give an answer or make a comment.

Sarah Palin wrote:

"a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it."

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-11-10
  • Posts: 139
  • User Karma: -93

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

I for one, am glad for global warming.....record cold and record snows here....a -5 wind chill today......I dread to think what it would be if the globe wasn't getting warmer.

Thumbs up −1 Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 70
  • User Karma: -30

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

My thought is that the people who are arguing "man-made global warming" and the people who are arguing against it are so bothered by the other that they aren't seeing the bigger picture.

Copenhagen fails because of one logical fallacy.  There are far too many people that believe that the only way to stop global warming is to change our lifestyles.  Indeed, many believe the answer is to change American lifestyles specifically. 

I disagree.  Instead, we should BOTH be trying to find a common ground.  I don't know what to think of global warming, and you know what - it doesn't matter.  I do however know that pumping crap into the air, polluting the water and the soil, and destroying vast amounts of rainforest are all bad things.  If we can all agree on that, let's try to find a way to fix it.

The answer isn't that we drive less or stop eating meat.  The answer is to find a way to harness the innovative power of people to start a new business on clean, affordable, and renewable energy.  There are environmental benefits, we can build a whole new economic engine in this country, and no more money or care for the Middle East!  I am 100% for that!  Sounds like a win, win, win situation!

Stop taxing us for doing what "we shouldn't be doing" and start rewarding us for what "we should be doing".  I am OK with federal money being used to beef up technological programs at Universities so that we can train a generation of thinkers - kids who will have the next great idea that moves us away from fossil fuels and to better alternatives.  Give them scholarships and student-loan forgiveness.  Give tax credits to the auto manufacturers if they meet certain efficiency standards for their vehicles.  But make those standards count for something.  30 MPG?  No, no, no.  How about 40% tax credit if half of the cars manufactured by a company get 60 MPG?  3 years tops and you'll see 60 MPG everywhere.  10 years and we could cut the automotive gas use in this country by half I bet.  Better battery technology, power aware computing, and efficiency improvements in our electronics - all winners, all require innovation, and all could be big cash-cows on the world market.

It is time to forget about global warming and time to start thinking about renewable, cheap, and cleaner energy.  Stop trying to frighten people and start trying to encourage them.  If we play our cards right, it could be seen by our posterity as the most innovative grand-strategy ever conceived of by government.  We could literally solve 3 major problems by focusing on a single goal.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-12-03
  • Posts: 79
  • User Karma: 0

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

To take NO action on environmentalism is just plain negligent.

We must take steps to become energy independent not for the environment but for our own security. PLus lets face it, wouldn't the world be much more pleasant if the air tasted better?

There is nothing wrong with the world. Its the people. Get rid of them and it would be an alright place.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 70
  • User Karma: -30

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

Opmod wrote:

To take NO action on environmentalism is just plain negligent.

We must take steps to become energy independent not for the environment but for our own security. PLus lets face it, wouldn't the world be much more pleasant if the air tasted better?

That was sort of my point - though you were much more concise!

Part of the reason Copenhagen fails is because there is too much focus on what we disagree over rather than what actually makes sense for all of humanity.  And, this need not be a global issue as far as I'm concerned.  If Obama went on TV and talked about how a "Manhattan Project" for clean, cheap, renewable energy would:
1) bring America enormous wealth (as it would make our economy unstoppable for at least the next half-century),
2) make the country's air and water cleaner,
3) create a new workforce of highly skilled engineers and scientists and
4) remove our involvement and money from the Middle East...........

Who wouldn't get on board with that?  I'd be speechless if that were to happen. 

If global warming is man-made, those steps would be good ones in reducing it and everyone is happy.  If it is not man-made, there wasn't much we could do about it anyway, but look at all of the benefits we would enjoy for trying.

Win-win situation.  Everyone agrees, America prospers.................Let's get to work!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-11-05
  • Posts: 61
  • User Karma: 6

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

Very good! Crypto! wink
I agree, the poeple are too negativists. They want to disagree more than to agree.
If the US can do something significant, the whole world will follow the US because the US is at the top of the global civilisation.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 70
  • User Karma: -30

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

Fredledingue wrote:

Very good! Crypto! wink
I agree, the poeple are too negativists. They want to disagree more than to agree.
If the US can do something significant, the whole world will follow the US because the US is at the top of the global civilisation.

I happen to agree that if the US takes the lead, many others will follow.  It can't hurt.  The point of the matter is that we need to do whatever we can to stop polluting our air and water, we need to be the leaders in new energy technologies, and we need to get our money out of the Middle East forever. 

I don't care if global warming is real or if it is the biggest hoax in human history.  Nobody should care.  Everyone should however agree that clean, renewable, cheap energy can fix a lot of our problems.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-11-30
  • Posts: 331
  • User Karma: 49

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

Cryptomaniac wrote:
Fredledingue wrote:

Very good! Crypto! wink
I agree, the poeple are too negativists. They want to disagree more than to agree.
If the US can do something significant, the whole world will follow the US because the US is at the top of the global civilisation.

I happen to agree that if the US takes the lead, many others will follow.  It can't hurt.  The point of the matter is that we need to do whatever we can to stop polluting our air and water, we need to be the leaders in new energy technologies, and we need to get our money out of the Middle East forever. 

I don't care if global warming is real or if it is the biggest hoax in human history.  Nobody should care.  Everyone should however agree that clean, renewable, cheap energy can fix a lot of our problems.

OK, however and whyever it happens, I agree. There is a lot of money in it, especially since this country only makes money from money anymore and that stuff is dead for the foreseeable. Honestly, legalize weed and go full tilt on the environmental tech and that will put gas in the economic tank, if you will, for the next 30 years. The irony is, build an economy of scale on these things and so many conservatives will be invested that they will have to support it. But, hate to tell ya, though, it needs an initial push by government money.

Hell is a place where there is no reason.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 70
  • User Karma: -30

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

cybert wrote:

OK, however and whyever it happens, I agree.

Doesn't it feel good to agree on something?  I have warm fuzzies........

cybert wrote:

There is a lot of money in it, especially since this country only makes money from money anymore and that stuff is dead for the foreseeable.

There is a lot of money in it, and profit can be a powerful motivator.  But more than that, we don't want to be late to the party because our competitors are not going to pass up an opportunity to strengthen their economies.  It is paramount that we use our resources to take the initiative and be in the lead on this.

cybert wrote:

Honestly, legalize weed and go full tilt on the environmental tech and that will put gas in the economic tank, if you will, for the next 30 years.

Well, I don't know what weed has to do with it, but environmental tech is tech nonetheless.  Encouraging growth there can only be beneficial.

cybert wrote:

The irony is, build an economy of scale on these things and so many conservatives will be invested that they will have to support it. But, hate to tell ya, though, it needs an initial push by government money.

No real irony here (I assume you are comparing to health care).  I see them as two different things.  Without getting off-topic, suffice to say that I think government has a role to use taxpayer money to advance national policy, especially in regards to maintaining our role as world leaders.  I would support money for AIDS research, cancer research, clean/renewable energy, advanced propulsion systems (for military and commercial purposes), and a bunch of other things.  The government is good for organizing things like that.  They give rise to new industries, employ our best and brightest, and advance our economic and military capabilities.  Unfortunately, I feel like the countless social programs that our government supports are poor investments.  I wish it weren't that way.  I am not against helping people.  But I want to help people to get back on their feet.  I don't want to help people who have no intention on helping themselves.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-11-24
  • Posts: 78
  • User Karma: 11

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

Cryptomaniac wrote:

3) create a new workforce of highly skilled engineers and scientists...

I don't feel like people understand the significance of this. Alternative energy could be the next moon landing. It's the next great hurdle that could inspire young people to become engineers and scientists.

Crypto wrote:

Win-win situation.  Everyone agrees, America prospers.................Let's get to work!

Both parties have obligations that do not coincide with letting America prosper. Too many are only concerned with how they or their associates prosper... or they're too interested in making a polarizing decision that even sane critics can't support.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2009-11-16
  • Posts: 70
  • User Karma: -30

Re: Why the Copenhagen's conferrence was bound to fail

Abraxas wrote:

I don't feel like people understand the significance of this. Alternative energy could be the next moon landing. It's the next great hurdle that could inspire young people to become engineers and scientists.

You are absolutely right.  We know it is in demand already and that the world will require more and more energy as population grows and technology becomes ubiquitous.  Not going full-throttle would be akin to someone from 1954 travelling into the future (say, 2010) and going back and saying, "well, I don't think computers are the way to go.........typewriters - that is where the money is!"  We've always been very good at leading technological innovation and marketing products that people want.  Why stop now?

Abraxas wrote:

Both parties have obligations that do not coincide with letting America prosper. Too many are only concerned with how they or their associates prosper... or they're too interested in making a polarizing decision that even sane critics can't support.

It sure seems that way.  And most of America sees it and is rather mad about it.  I think last night's election in Massachusetts was clear indication that Washington better shape up.  Democrats AND Republicans better take notice.  The independent movement is starting to find itself. 

And isn't it beautiful how history rhymes sometimes?  The state that gave us Lexington and Concord, indeed the first breath of our fight for independence is doing the same thing again.  It appears that John Adams' fellow "countrymen" still have a knack for sending notice to governments that are overreaching.  And the fact that we have had this "Tea-Party" movement going along for a year in this country, culminating in a surprise electoral result in Massachusetts.............Boston Harbor - the gift that keeps on giving.

I love it!

Thumbs up Thumbs down