http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyhete...657228,00.html
(sorry, its in swedish, but a reliable news-paper)
I guess the title speaks for itself, ill try and find a english article!
:bow:
Printable View
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyhete...657228,00.html
(sorry, its in swedish, but a reliable news-paper)
I guess the title speaks for itself, ill try and find a english article!
:bow:
It's common knowledge that great industrial companies fund the presidential electoral campaign. Bush has made promises to these groups and now can't back away and I doubt that among them, only Exxon is against Kyoto Protocol.Quote:
Och påtryckningar från Exxon Mobil bidrog till att president Bush sade nej till Kyoto-protokollet.
EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...501632,00.html
It should be much easier to read ~D
The documents you posted say Exxon was consulted and offered their opinions through the GCC. While they were disingenuous to the House of Lords & other groups claiming they had played no role, that's not the same thing as Bush picking up the phone to them and saying "Yes, master?" as this article would have it.
I'd like to see some evidence of quid pro quo before we accept it as fact. I'd also like to know who else was on that GCC and in what percentages. It's an interesting start, and certainly doesn't look great, but there's a lot more homework to be done yet.
Perhaps it's not the "Yes, Master?" but it's not far behind. This case set aside, do you think it's normal to ask industrials if measures concerning the environment fit their plans? Maybe it's acceptable in the USA, but certainly not here.
As long as you don't ask them exclusively. That's why I want to know who else was on the GCC.
In America, typically when something like this comes up that has the potential to impact a lot of different people, in a lot of different ways, we don't just go to the environmentalist loonies and ask them what they think we should do. We do ask them, but we ask (or at least supposed to) a wide swath of people, from all walks of life. The idea being that all impacts can be put out on the table and relative gains/losses (in all spheres) can be evaluated. Now if Bush stacked the deck and had all oil & automotive industry represetatives on this advisory panel, then yeah, I'm going to be pretty peeved. But if for every Exxon guy, there was a Sierra Club or Audobon Society guy, then the process was at least set up properly.
P.S. Don't for one minute think that Thales, Michelin & Alcatel have more to do with your policies then you think they do. They might be better at hiding it, but wherever you have open campaigns, you have corporate influence (and I would argue, again, as long as it's balanced, you should).
Oh, yes. They certainly find a means to voice their concerns about many subjects, but I doubt they're heard concerning environmental issues. The reason for this is simple: it's the EU that set environmental policies and the measures are quite drastic (many companies complain but that doesn't make the EU change its policy). I can think of only one consortium being powerful enough to influence the European decisions: EADS (AIRBUS is part of it). The firms you quoted have an influence on France's policies but they aren't yet big enough to be able to do the same with the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Ldvs, do you understand Swedish? I mean you quated the swedish article.
well anyway, it doesnt really matter how much Exxon influanced Bush's "no"... any degree is to much.
Companies should adjust to the state, the state shouldnt adjust to the companies. :bow:
more on the same: http://gnn.tv/headlines/3280/G8_scie...ct_now_or_else
Companies should be consulted to an extent, but they shouldn't be the ones behind the main policy decisions. Why? Because their loyalty is to their shareholders and financial gain, whilst the government's is to the people. It doesn't help the people who's houses are sinking underwater if a couple of companies' shareholders are rolling in it because they have been given free reign to pollute as much as they want.
If I told you I did it would be a pure boast (and lie) ~D I tried to learn Swedish two years ago (I like the Scandinavian way of life ~;) ). I was doing pretty well but the "name system" blocked me. Perhaps it was only because I was beginning but I found the German system easier (der das die and so on)! Due to a lack of time I had to give up learning Swedish. I haven't been able to restart anew since then. I guess I'm too lazy ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Nonetheless, thanks to my (very) small skills in Swedish I can roughly understand the general meaning of a text, provided it's not too hard nor too long (same if it's Norwegian). Don't expect me to be able to discuss with you in Swedish, though ~;)
well ill try not to write in swedish to you then, hehe :bow:
btw, very of topic here, whats the "scandinavian way of life", ive never heard that before. ~:)
I may be wrong, I've only known Swedish people through IRC and some CS (Counter Strike) and DoD (Day of Defeat also a HL mod) servers and from what we can hear about the vaunted "Scandinavian life" (welfare State, equity, high living standards, tranquility, at least compared to our countries ~D ). Still, among those I "met", they were all willing to help me learn their language, they seemed far more tolerant, convivial, polite (I've never actually seen a Scandinavian insult someone else one a server) and open than the average. I know my explanation is a bit awkward but it's always hard to describe a feeling by rational reasons ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Most kind words there, thanks! Scandinavian way of life would allso include to much drinking, supressed anger over politicians and so on. But mostly we are a nice people whom are very social and open I like to believe. :bow:
well, lets return to the main topic shall we? hehe
It seems that some twits never tire of trying to paint Bush as someone stupidly evil or ingeniously evil, but, particularly, evil.
Just so you'll know what you obviously will not Google for, Bill Clinton signed onto the Kyoto agreement and sent it to the US Senate, which MUST agree to any treaty. It was rejected there by a vote of 98-0. Get that? NOT ONE Senator voted to support Kyoto!
Now, do you want to know why Bush rescinded the presidential signature on that treaty? Because he knew it would NEVER be approved here. Want to know why he bothered to discuss the treaty with Exxon or any other company? He got brownie points with them simply by offering them an ear, and then doing what was inevitable, anyway. :book:
Here's another news flash- millions of Bush voters also behind "no" on Kyoto. Myself and most other republicans (and many democrats) think the Kyoto treaty is worthless and counter-productive.
Also, ShaiHulud, well said. :bow:
A nicely written essay on the subject of the Kyoto Accords - I highlighted certain items for impact.
Quote:
The Kyoto Push
I know it's not popular to say this, but I have to. The KYOTO ACCORDS are a bad idea, propagated on bad science and will serve to be a destructive force for the world.
What? Wait a minute Jason, what are you saying? How can you be against the environment, how can you rant against the Kyoto Accords?
The examination of Kyoto has to start at the question "Why Kyoto?"
The Accords were suggested, obstensibily, in the hopes that the industrialized nations could establish an "industrial status quo" with regard to the emmission of so called "greenhouse gasses." The next step is the reduction of gas emmissions worldwide. While this is a noble effort and certainly one worth considering, the true motives and reasons are more complex.
If the true goal were the reduction of greenhouse gasses, the accords would have addressed the unfettered slash and burn practices of the rainforests. Only lip service is given to this issue in the accords. tens of thousands of acres of rainforest in equatorial regions are decimated daily in the third world. The forest is removed to create pastureland that remains fertile for a brief time then the thin topsoil washes away creating landscapes that resemble the surface of the moon. NOTE: The rainforests are the #1 converter of the most evil of the greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide, into oxygen, which is considered to be a "safe" gas. Rather than keep the ecological scrubbers natural to the planet, the Kyoto accords simply blame the industrialized nations for the problem, and create ticking time bombs of pollution in the third world.
While the industrialized nations are ordered to reduce emissions, third world nations are allowed, even encouraged to up their emission levels. A step further allows developing nations to "sell" their surplus emission allotments to other nations so they can remain inside the agreed upon levels. This is a bad idea on it's face, and even more insidious when you look behind the curtain.
The Kyoto Accords are condemning developing nations to pre-idustrialized status. Emission brokering will become the next "oil-for-food" fiasco, as third world potentates and dictators will sell off the economic future of their countries to larger nations who will in turn promise hard currency, manufactured goods and perhaps even kickbacks and military/economic development scenarios.
To top it all off? The science is bad. There's no concusive evidence that the planet is warming. In fact, for every scientific and anecdotal study that says the planet is warming, there's a counter study that says it's cooling.
The fact is that we don't know enough about what's going on with the world. Most of the data used to support global warming is coming from data collected in relative proximity to population centers. Put 10 people in a small room for an hour without any outside source of air conditioning, wait an hour and see what the temperature does. Or you could lay an acre of bright white cement and then put a thermometer in the center and locate another 50 ft from the slab and compare the temperature readings. In both cases you'll see that population and development increases local temperature.
Now get on a boat and travel to the center of any ocean. Drop a bouy with a thermometer on it and study those results. Yep, you've guessed it, the temperatures away from population centers are actually going down decade after decade.
The simple common sense truth is that we have no idea what's really going on with the warming and cooling of the earth. The Earth has been around longer than most people can conceive of. We have lots of theory and conjecture and even some sound scientific hypothesis about the mechanics of our environment, but we don't have anything that we can look at as fact. We're playing a whole new game with mother nature and given the size and scope of the playground, it's doubtful at this juncture that we're able to even field a team that can play with the old mother, let alone beat her at her own game.
I'm proud of the Clinton administration's initial obstructionist tactics when Kyoto started to turn into pop science. I'm even more proud of the Bush administrations' refusal to continue with the process in Kyoto. The popular opinion influences were turning against the demonstrated science. Any suggestion from NASA or any other scientific body that the Earth was actually cooling in some studies was met with jeers and attacks on the presenters, howling protests from eco-warriors and vicious personal attacks on the presenters.
Faced with the opposition science, the Kyoto group attacked the US, saying that "of course the world's largest polluter would present such 'manipulation' of commonly held opinion." Yes, the Kyoto signatories agreed that the Accords were based on "OPINION" not fact. The group looked at a political situation without regard to the science.
Of course cars are bad, but so is burning the rainforest, of course polluting coal fired electric plants are bad, but so are volcanos (which actually cool the planet btw). The simple truth is that all the money being poured into Kyoto based programs aren't being supported by scientific discoveries, they are based on pop science and politics. The Kyoto Accords are more about the redistribution of wealth on a global scale than they are about "fixing" the planet. A planet I add, that may not need fixing.
Rather than pouring money into an unknown "green hole", I suggest that we continue to fund and even increase funding for "true" scientific study of the history of the global climate. Lets get the ball rolling on Arctic and Antarctic ice core projects, lets get some more satellites into space to conduct a detailed planetary temperature study, lets approach the problem with common sense solutions that address the real issues rather than slapping band-aids on non-existant cuts and saying that we cured cancer.
Pollution is bad, we need to continue the development of hybrid vechicles of all types (here's a hybrid SUV), we need to help the developing nations meet their ecologic and energy needs without having to pass through the dark-ages of our own industrial revolution. We need to actively work with the third world to exploit, solar, wind, wave, water and geotherm energy production so they don't have to cut down rainforests for firewood, or burn noxious coal. We need to let industrialized nation's agribusiness interests enter into emerging markets to bring effective soil management practices worldwide. And we need to bring a new "Global Corps of Engineers" into being to work to correct and manage many of the worlds largest ecosystems for their effective long term stability.
For milenia, mankind has worked in harmony with nature, and nature has worked with mankind to provide for the development of the most successful species ever to move across the planet. We've integrated ourselves into every corner of the planets ecosphere, we've harnessed the resources and found the logical extentions of what the planet has to offer us; we moved from buring dung to burning wood, from wood to coal, coal to oil, oil to nuclear, then with this surplus, we've explored solar, wind, water, wave and geotherm technology. All of these sources of energy are a continuum of process. We'll continue to harness new and less polluting sources of energy as we progress.
Throw money at this process! Don't throw money toward hamstringing the economic drivers of the world economy; don't throw money to encourage development of "dirty" technology in the third world so they can "live up to" their quotas. Finally, throw money at those efforts that will give us a deeper understanding of what's actually going on, so we can have scientific fact on our side as we move forward rather than protests and propaganda that only assert that the sky is falling.
The Earth is not a political play-toy, it's our home. It's been around longer than we have, and will be around long after we're gone. We've certainly had our effect on it, but the ecosystem has the ability to shrug us off any any time if it so sees fit. We're going to have ice ages and periods of global warming again, and again, and again, it's better that we try to understand what these processes are rather than try to think we somehow have the ability to control it. Lets concentrate on getting off the rock before it shrugs us off before we try to start figuring out how to reverse ice ages or air condition the planet.
It's just common sense.
The idea being that all impacts can be put out on the table and relative gains/losses (in all spheres) can be evaluated.
But Don the issue here is that a person with no scientific training altered a scientific paper before it was put on the table to be evaluated .
By deleting sections of any paper wholesale and by adding words like "fundamental , uncertain , extremely" to other parts you can change the meaning of the paper entirely .
So should a non scientist with links to a industry that is a major polluter be altering science based papers on pollution ?
Like Tribesman said, the editing of that document is the main issue.
Ofcourse, I could go on to tell you all what I think about the US and their enviromental politics and the senate etc etc. But id like to keep my warning level at 0! ~;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaiHulud
That's even worse than I feared, then. The Americans are the worst polluters in the world and the majority of them don't give a damn. Oh, wait. They do care about environment, but only as long as there are absolutely no risks that the necessary measures will endanger the USA's economy. I can only think about one word: irresponsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Ldvs...
" The Americans are the worst polluters in the world and the majority of them don't give a damn. Oh, wait. They do care about environment, but only as long as there are absolutely no risks that the necessary measures will endanger the USA's economy. I can only think about one word: irresponsibility."
Thanks for the info on the "worst polluters". No need for me to Google that little datum, I'm sure.
I have to take issue with you. Americans may not give a damn about what you think, but, they, often, do give a damn.
Your final statement seems to be a reach for great irony. Let's sustitute for the word 'environment' and, instead, put Darfur, weapons for China, or Zimbabwe. Then we substitute 'Europe's economy' for 'USA's economy. That would read,
"They do care about (Darfur, weapons for China, Zimbabwe), but only as long as there are absolutely no risks that the necessary measures will endanger the (Europe's) economy. I can only think about one word: irresponsibility."
Gotta admit it... you're really good at irony. ~D
Depends on how you mean "worst" I guess. We produce more CO2 and municipal waste, true, but if you want to talk about nuclear waste or water pollution, the French have us beat there by a longshot. Also, the US spends more money than any other country on cleaning up its environment and has air and water that is, compared to many other nations, quite clean.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaiHulud
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldvs
What the hell? Americans are the worst polluters? I almost spat wine on my keyboard reading this. Ever heard of China or India?
What the hell? Americans are the worst polluters? I almost spat wine on my keyboard reading this. Ever heard of China or India?
Do China and India each produce more than 25% of the worlds pollution in the form of emmisions ?
If not then don't feign shock and for gods sake don't waste good wine , your keyboard has no appreciation of nice drink .
Depends on how you mean "worst" I guess. We produce more CO2 and municipal waste, true, but if you want to talk about nuclear waste or water pollution, the French have us beat there by a longshot.
Xiahou , If you have the French beaten by a "long shot" then could you explain Dick Cheneys' statement ?
In a May 8 interview with CNN on the Bush administration's proposed energy policy, the Vice-President said: "Right now we've got waste piling up at reactors all over the country. Eventually, there ought to be a permanent repository. The French do this very successfully and very safely in an environmentally sound, sane manner. We need to be able to do the same thing."
What's to explain? I guess they have more experience burying nuclear waste about their country.
What's to explain?
Well you said they are worse , and your government wants to be more like them .
So is your government trying to get worse or are the French actually better ?
I guess they have more experience burying nuclear waste about their country.
But since your Atomic programs precede French ones by a good few years and are bigger than those of France surely you should have more experience than them , you even have a bigger area to bury it in or more coastline to dump it off ~;)
Darfur, Zimbabwe? Explain why Europe is to blame, please. We'll see whether your point is valid, or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaiHulud
As for "weapons for China", before trying to give moral lessons, make sure your position is better :laugh4:
Read this and this. You can google many more if you want to.
You see, if I make ironic statements, without my knowing, at my expense, you're handling sarcasm at yours.
Sure. The qoute wasn't limited to emissions, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You guys keep throwing around that 'Exxon changed documents and conclusions drawn'. Has anybody other than the NY Times claimed that? If you guys want to believe that spiffed up version of the National Enquirer, be my guest, but I don't believe a word I read in it. If somebody can show me some independent verification of this story, I might actually start believing you. Until then, this has about as much credibility as an episode of the X-files.
You know, I'm seeing a trend here.
You guys post a story that Exxon was allowed to join an advisory committee to the White House on the Kyoto Accords (something Clinton didn't sign us up for either btw). You claim that's evidence that Exxon is directly writing our foreign policies. I ask you for 1) some proof that this comittee dictated policy to the White House verbatim and 2) a membership list of the committee.
On item #2, I think it's pretty clear it was a representative group, as you have thus far failed to respond. Must not have liked the answer to it.
On item #1, you guys respond with a typical, and frankly, tiring anti-American screech that we're the worst polluters in the world and don't give a damn about anyone or anything and that even India and China are more enivornmentally concious then we are (I've been to both places Tribesman. Before you go making such an assanine statement again, I suggest you might want to as well).
Look, nobody's arguing that controlling CO2 emissions isn't a good idea. But is it even the worst thing to worry about in the environmental sense? Go ahead and pour as much heavy metal into the rivers and release Hydrogen Sulfide directly into the atmosphere.... but God forbid you release some CO2, which actually is already a substantial part of our atmosphere?
Honestly, is it any wonder that I see this all as an effort to hamstring America? 1) Let's look for the #1 pollution problem for America 2) let's claim it's the worst problem ever facing the planet and 3) let's force America to shut down a bunch of it's industry, but give a pass to the rest of the world?
Yeah, Kyoto's a great idea.
One calls that paranoia, no? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Seriously, though. To answer your first question, I doubt any of us is enquiring closely on Exxon's case and will be able to lay out proofs of what this unreliable newspaper advances.
Personally, I know how much the rest of the world's economy depends on the USA's (unfortunately), thus I'm not stupid enough to want its economy to crash. The only thing that annoys me is that most of the Americans seem to swear solely by it, which gives (perhaps a deceptive) impression that you care about nothing else. In no way, though, do I wish the failure of the USA's economy.
Fair enough LVDS. I didn't mean that statement as directed at you guys, believe it or not. I have every faith that you, Lazul & Tribesman believe that CO2 emission is the #1 problem facing the planet right now. I'm just wondering if any of you have ever stopped to question if it really is the worst, and if not, why does it receive the attention that it does, over other more dangerous forms of pollution.
I was frankly shocked by the difference in culture between Europe and America in one asepct, the first time I visited as an adult (Ireland, 1997). I learned, enoying some good craigh and many Guinnesses (or was it Beamish) that in Europe, it's actually considered rude to mix politics and economics. That the 'what should we do' should never be be blended with the 'how will we pay for it'. I find that to be a very noble, but very limited and frankly, naive view of the way the world works. Yes, in an ideal world, we would go forth and always approach a problem with 100% of the resouces the problem demands. But quite frankly, and I don't mean this to be insulting, there's a reason we have the world's largest economy. It wasn't handed to us and it wasn't magic.
CO2 emissions are certainly not the worst threat, I'd rather say it's water pollution but its effects are less obvious to non-informed people, while CO2 emissions effects can be noticed in our every day life (dryness, higher temperatures...). I assume that's why it gets so much attention and virtually drown the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Go tell my fellow compatriots that money isn't found by magic and we can't fund their, hundred or so, costly social plans... they won't hear it. I suppose if we can blame Americans for their focus on economy, we can do the same for the blindness too many display here. I suggest we merge, perhaps a good compromise would come up out of it ~DQuote:
That the 'what should we do' should never be be blended with the 'how will we pay for it'. I find that to be a very noble, but very limited and frankly, naive view of the way the world works. Yes, in an ideal world, we would go forth and always approach a problem with 100% of the resouces the problem demands.
[QUOTE=Ldvs]Darfur, Zimbabwe? Explain why Europe is to blame, please. We'll see whether your point is valid, or not.
Why, who said anyone is to blame? I thought you were talking about 'irresponsibility'. Turning the blind eye to these problems is Europe's forte, it seems. Lionize Mugabe in Paris, pretend there isn't genocide in Darfur.
As for China, I'll leave it to folks like you to explain to the democratic nation of Taiwan when they get blown away with French/German whatevers by the benevolent mainland Chinese.
We should refer to the Bible about seeing the mote in the eye of another, while ignoring the beam in one's own. :book:
Sure. The qoute wasn't limited to emissions, though.
True , but the Kyoto thing is mainly about them .
I have every faith that you, Lazul & Tribesman believe that CO2 emission is the #1 problem facing the planet right now.
Do I believe that emissions are the #1 problem in the world Don ?
Thats news to me ~D
On item #1, you guys respond with a typical, and frankly, tiring anti-American screech that we're the worst polluters in the world and don't give a damn about anyone or anything and that even India and China are more enivornmentally concious then we are
Where ? someone posted that India and china were worse polluters , since this topic is about emissions then what problem do you have with the fact that as far as emissions go that is clearly false ?
Though China is desperately trying to catch up , even planning ahead by getting a british businessman to secure them oil exploration rights in Dharfur to help fuel their recent massive surge in oil products . If you want to talk about other pollution problems go ahead , if you want to talk about China feel free , their "recycling" program for computer and electronic components would be a good topic . Who would have thought that "recycling" the worlds waste could cause such levels of pollution , but hey who needs to drink water anyway ~;)
On item #2, I think it's pretty clear it was a representative group
Yes , but is there any evidence that other members of the group altered the report . The White House have only mentioned the alterations made by this individual .
You guys keep throwing around that 'Exxon changed documents and conclusions drawn'. Has anybody other than the NY Times claimed that?
A person with links to the petro-chemical industry who has no scientific training has altered a scientific paper that could have had serious implications for the industry to which he is linked .
That is not just a "claim" made by a newspaper , it has been confirmed by your government . It was confirmed on the day the story broke , the confirmation was repeated at a White House press conference the next day .
I will repeat
So should a non scientist with links to a industry that is a major polluter be altering science based papers on pollution ?
That is the issue Don .
Would you have a problem if some tree hugger with no scientific training had altered the report ? I would , so why shouldn't I have a problem with this case ?
There is a clear conflict of interest in this episode .