quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

Without their car, they loose their job. And they don't have the money to go out and buy a fuel-efficient car.
smaller efficient cars and car share costs less than owning large gas guzzler. set incentives to invest in fuel efficient vehicle - doubling pprice of gas in next three years would be an example - spend additional tax on health care and reducing other taxes for middle and low earners.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
If you were to ever major in any field of science, the first thing that will be taught is that a hypothesis is never proven or disproven. It is either supported or not supported.
That is the most fundamental part of the scientific method. Yet it appears scientists claim to be absolutely certain that global warming is man-made.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

Without their car, they loose their job. And they don't have the money to go out and buy a fuel-efficient car.
smaller efficient cars and car share costs less than owning large gas guzzler. set incentives to invest in fuel efficient vehicle - doubling pprice of gas in next three years would be an example - spend additional tax on health care and reducing other taxes for middle and low earners.

It will be 30 years at least before the world is able to switch to alternative energy. It took Brazil over 30 years to get off oil dependance. So by the time the world makes the changes that this climate report is demanding, it will be well past the point of no return. Reducing use rather than alternative use seems ...........quicker.

This should have been done when Jimmy Carter was talking about it in the 1970s. The governments around the world dropped the ball. Climate chanhge science in the 70s - well in the 80s absorbtion by the oceans was going to solve the proble. Once the problem has been identified and quantified then you can act. - thats the last 5 years
 
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: starshineowned

We could make up a bumper sticker that says something like:  Global Warming in progress..please remain at a safe distance, and run around tagging all the gas guzzlers we see. Make them glow in the dark letters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

New cars are NOT environmentaly friendly on a dust to dust basis, any other way of measuring eco-friendly is deceptive.

My large, 12 year old SUV cost me less to buy and run than even the newest cheapest small car. Doubling price of gas would just move money around. Double gas prices means no more buying "luxury" goods, so no income from hi-def tvs, swimming pools, large motor vehicles, eating out, trips to the cinema etc. add in the resultant loss of imports and jobs and I suspect that would actually reduce tax income and increase social financial commitments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

Without their car, they loose their job. And they don't have the money to go out and buy a fuel-efficient car.
smaller efficient cars and car share costs less than owning large gas guzzler. set incentives to invest in fuel efficient vehicle - doubling pprice of gas in next three years would be an example - spend additional tax on health care and reducing other taxes for middle and low earners.

New cars are NOT environmentaly friendly on a dust to dust basis, any other way of measuring eco-friendly is deceptive.

My large, 12 year old SUV cost me less to buy and run than even the newest cheapest small car. Doubling price of gas would just move money around. Double gas prices means no more buying "luxury" goods, so no income from hi-def tvs, swimming pools, large motor vehicles, eating out, trips to the cinema etc. add in the resultant loss of imports and jobs and I suspect that would actually reduce tax income and increase social financial commitments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

New cars are NOT environmentaly friendly on a dust to dust basis, any other way of measuring eco-friendly is deceptive.

My large, 12 year old SUV cost me less to buy and run than even the newest cheapest small car.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

New cars are NOT environmentaly friendly on a dust to dust basis, any other way of measuring eco-friendly is deceptive.

My large, 12 year old SUV cost me less to buy and run than even the newest cheapest small car. Doubling price of gas would just move money around. Double gas prices means no more buying "luxury" goods, so no income from hi-def tvs, swimming pools, large motor vehicles, eating out, trips to the cinema etc. add in the resultant loss of imports and jobs and I suspect that would actually reduce tax income and increase social financial commitments.

All these luxury products and pursuits cause greenhouse gas emissions, if not in their use then at their point of manufacture.

There is no evidence that moving to a more eco-friendly economy will result in the a decline in the economy. A change, yes. The report the Labour party's commissioned on the economic effects of global warming estimated that doing nothing or delaying action until a crisis forced change would reduce the global economy by 20%, while doing the necessary now on global warming would cost the global economy 1%. A decline that could be made up in one year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Hey, sleazy, you don't measure the environmental impact of a car by how much it costs you to buy and run.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

New cars are NOT environmentaly friendly on a dust to dust basis, any other way of measuring eco-friendly is deceptive.

My large, 12 year old SUV cost me less to buy and run than even the newest cheapest small car.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
sleazy:
I can understand why it would be cheaper to buy a 12 year old suv since they are somewhat of a glut on the market at present.  I do not understand how it is cheaper to operate than something new that gets on the order of 50 mpg...my experience is that the larger suv get about 6 to 8 mpg.  Of course if you are talking about the difference in price of say  $30,000  and applying that difference to the price of fuel over the next ten years or so but that really is not operating cost.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

The only way to get anywhere close to TRUE carbon neutrality is a return to agriculture, small plots and cottage industry, thanks but no thanks, life in the 1700s was not an easy one, nor would it reasonably support the current world population. Anything else is a myth and does not take into account dust to dust which is the only true measure of how economical anything is in an environmental sense

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

The only way to get anywhere close to TRUE carbon neutrality is a return to agriculture, small plots and cottage industry, thanks but no thanks, life in the 1700s was not an easy one, nor would it reasonably support the current world population. Anything else is a myth and does not take into account dust to dust which is the only true measure of how economical anything is in an environmental sense

No it isn't. There have been many suggestions as to how carbon emissions could be cut by up to 60% without any pain at all. The problem is that special interest groups have politicians in their pockets which is why it is impossible to get change.

Take the EU that was going to make car manufacturers cut CO2 emissions to 120mlg per kilometer. The German industry minister objected because Germans produce big polluting cars and it would put up the price of cars by 4,000 euro and Japan would have an inbuilt advantage. Well now the EU politicians have failed at the first hurdle because they compromised instead of telling the Germans to make less polluting cars!

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

The only way to get anywhere close to TRUE carbon neutrality is a return to agriculture, small plots and cottage industry, thanks but no thanks, life in the 1700s was not an easy one, nor would it reasonably support the current world population. Anything else is a myth and does not take into account dust to dust which is the only true measure of how economical anything is in an environmental sense

No it isn't. There have been many suggestions as to how carbon emissions could be cut by up to 60% without any pain at all. The problem is that special interest groups have politicians in their pockets which is why it is impossible to get change.

Take the EU that was going to make car manufacturers cut CO2 emissions to 120mlg per kilometer. The German industry minister objected because Germans produce big polluting cars and it would put up the price of cars by 4,000 euro and Japan would have an inbuilt advantage. Well now the EU politicians have failed at the first hurdle because they compromised instead of telling the Germans to make less polluting cars!

You are going to have to find ways to cut emissions in a way that doesn't damage or threaten the economy. That's the reality. If you can't find a way, then the emissions will not be cut.
You can put out all the science you want. But when it comes down to it, like always, money is the deciding factor of government's decisions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change

But it's all just a lot of bullshit concocted by scientists in need of material for their research grants...