Even if he did, bfd. It would still need Senate approval and the Democrats are scared enough over health care. They would never sign something like this in the same election cycle.

Oh no, not the economy, anything but the economy! I'll gladly destroy the human race's chances of survival if only it saves the economy!

7of7: Oh no, not the economy, anything but the economy! I'll gladly destroy the human race's chances of survival if only it saves the economy!

Really? Is it at that point now?

The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment.

unyon: The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment.

heh. yeah.

Ender's: Really? Is it at that point now?

Certainly for the people of the Maldives. Africa isn't looking well either. And let's not forget that at current pace the billion people in India will be facing serious drought.

7of7: Ender's: Really? Is it at that point now?

Certainly for the people of the Maldives. Africa isn't looking well either. And let's not forget that at current pace the billion people in India will be facing serious drought.

But those people are all brown.

I love how the Republicans love trumpeting that American's don't have the smarts and know-how to make money off converting to less-harmful standards and that it will immediately cause our economy to collapse. I'd imagine the technology required would require the creation of a metric assload of high paying jobs and would open huge windows for developers and businessmen looking for new and profitable investments.

I had always thought the universe was a dynamic, changing system. Now I can see that the climate had not changed one bit until humans started walking on two legs.

By the way...what should be the correct global temperature?

One degree cooler? five? Ten?

Skail: I'd imagine the technology required would require the creation of a metric assload of high paying jobs and would open huge windows for developers and businessmen looking for new and profitable investments.

Or you could imagine that limiting energy use in the US while not doing so in developing countries would open huge windows for developers and businessmen to move all those jobs offshore.

Elvis_Bogart: By the way...what should be the correct global temperature?

There is no absolute "correct" temperature. The worry is that we will kill off a majority of species on the Earth including ourselves if the temperature varies by even a few degrees.

pandabear: doing so in develop

Manufacturing? I'd almost expect it. But are you claiming that's not already happening at a ridiculous pace? But the engineering, design, and logistical work would almost certainly be performed domestically because I doubt they'd trust Beijing University grads to do all of THAT stuff for them, when we have great minds here in the States. Additionally, it may end up that it's easier to manufacture some sophisticated apparatus (that's a "doohickey" to you and me) stateside, at least until any design kinks are worked out, and could result in the creation of some high-tech jobs.

7of7: The worry is that we will kill off a majority of species on the Earth including ourselves if the temperature varies by even a few degrees.

Do you really believe this? Because... um... Ice ages... and... um... extremely warm inter-glacial periods.

Amazingly enough, life, and even our ancestors have lived through multiples of both.

People seem to want a static earth that we can control. Not only will we never achieve this goal, but even if we did, the consequences would be far worse than if we just let shiat run it's course.

Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL climate treaty!

Well either way we are in for a big show...maybe.

I mean if this treaty President Obama is getting ready to sign does cause economic collapse in America, which I doubt, cool. It might be a contributing factor to a number of other boneheaded moves made by major economic shakers, but I doubt it will single-handedly do diddly to the economy. But if economic collapse happens well then we have this wonderful show to watch as the nation reverts to chaos and violence before becoming a theocracy in the aftermath. Hopefully though the chaos and violence chapter lasts a while.

If we don't sign the treaty, or Congress does not pass it, and climate change does indeed turn out to be massive global warming then we will again reach the chaos and violence stage as weather patterns worsen globally. So we get another big show that might end with the collapse of humankind from the stage. Another whopping cool point.

This is kind of a win-win situation when you look at it from a certain perspective.

it's not like we wanted to continue manufacturing stuff anyway.

Elvis_Bogart: I had always thought the universe was a dynamic, changing system. Now I can see that the climate had not changed one bit until humans started walking on two legs.

By the way...what should be the correct global temperature?

One degree cooler? five? Ten?

shut your rational mouth!

Skail: But are you claiming that's not already happening at a ridiculous pace?

Why accelerate it? Plus, the economy requires a manufacturing sector. It's not enough just to think up great doohickies--especially with Beijing U turning out engineers who can copy your work in a matter of days, not pay any patent licenses, and manufacture the resulting products using cheap labor, cheap energy, and without the EPA and OSHA breathing down their necks.

You want high-tech jobs here, a reduction in carbon, and no damage to the economy? There is one way to do it that a) provides sufficient energy, b) is sustainable, c) doesn't emit carbon dioxide, and d) can be done economically with existing technology.

Ender's: 7of7: Oh no, not the economy, anything but the economy! I'll gladly destroy the human race's chances of survival if only it saves the economy!

Really? Is it at that point now?

Do you REALLY want to wait until it is? Why is it that the same people who are crying over "how much debt we're leaving for our grandchildren" are the same people who don't really care about leaving an inhabitable planet for them to live on?

benlonghair: Do you really believe this? Because... um... Ice ages... and... um... extremely warm inter-glacial periods.

Do you really want to live during a period of temperature extremes brought on by our own negligence? Do you want other people to?

So climate change is alarmist fantasy, but the Kyoto treaty will destroy us all?

Is that right?

Skail: I'd imagine the technology required would require the creation of a metric assload of high paying jobs and would open huge windows for developers and businessmen looking for new and profitable investments.

A *metric* assload? What are you, some euro-commie Satan lover? Here in 'Merika we use imperial units, just like Jesus did.

7of7: Do you really want to live during a period of temperature extremes brought on by our own negligence? Do you want other people to?

No, but I'm a realist that understands that we have no control over the earth. We have a grand illusion that we're a big deal, and we're not.

If something changes that brings about global warming/cooling on a scale massive enough to melt all the icecaps/cause another ice age, there ain't shiat we can do about it.

People don't think about unintended consequences enough. Do you honestly believe that we can 'fix' climate change? Do you really think we should try? I don't. The Earth takes care of itself.

The first step we need to take is realizing we don't give a shait about the Earth, we care about ourselves. It's not about saving the planet, it's about saving the humans.

I think George Carlin said it best when he said:

"...[T]here is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are farked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!"

benlonghair: I'm a realist that understands that we have no control over the earth.

How is that realism when we have fairly conclusive evidence that we can indeed have an impact on the climate?

benlonghair: it's not about saving the planet, it's about saving the humans.

Yeah, it's about saving the humans and, if you're a generous person, all the other species that we're in the process of killing accidentally or on purpose.

There's no need to be contrarian about it.

benlonghair: We have a grand illusion that we're a big deal, and we're not.

Your whole post was awesome. But THIS.

I am so totally in agreement with you there.

7of7: How is that realism when we have fairly conclusive evidence that we can indeed have an impact on the climate?

There's also conclusive evidence that, even without our little genetic cul-de-sac, the earth's climate changes on a regular basis. In the past ten thousand years (a blink of the eye in terms of geological time) we've gone from a full-blown ice age to what we have today.

Do you really believe that we are smarter than nature? That's pure hubris. We can't even live with each other without killing and torturing others, and yet we think we know what is right for the planet? We belong to the earth, not the other way around.

7of7: Yeah, it's about saving the humans and, if you're a generous person, all the other species that we're in the process of killing accidentally or on purpose.

Somewhere around 95% of species that ever lived are extinct. Think about that for a minute.

The earth is going to change. It's going to evolve climatologically, geologically and genetically. If it doesn't it's a dead planet. That's bad.

You know what? Mother Nature really truly doesn't care.

She's survived the K-T Boundary, she's survived the impact they think formed the moon, she'll survive some putzy humans and their 500 year plastic degradable bottles.

And us? We have some brains, lets put them to work. But not legislating moral behavior. That has failed time and time and time again. The whole I know whats best do what I tell you schtick is so proven not to work.

All you kids panicking over the environment would do well to understand that 30 years ago, coming off of two very extremely cold winters, there were really books out warning of the "Coming Global Cooling." Yes really.

So pardon us if we don't jump on every bandwagon that comes down just cause some nobel prize winning politician wrote a nice persuasive essay about it.

Climate models have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. Graphs prove that you can draw. Facts in isolation prove that anyone with a computer can make up stories. YES the climate is "changing" .. THAT IS WHAT CLIMATE DOES. Make plans and act accordingly. Don't live under that tall tree that might blow over in a windstorm and kill someone. Don't live on the coast if you worry a lot about hurricanes. Don't live in a volcano lahar flow zone if you think the mountain 40 miles away is going to blow.

Attempting to get the world to stop what its doing and bow to your wishes on your understanding of the climate is going to fail, every time, just the same as fighting wars of attrition over religious and economic systems will fail. Especially in Asia.

Generation_D: So pardon us if we don't jump on every bandwagon that comes down just cause some nobel prize winning politician wrote a nice persuasive essay about it.

A+++ would read again.

And for heavens sake don't be the guy at work nagging everyone to put the used coffee filters in the right recycling. Just don't.

For you have I have a nice badge:

Generation_D: For you have I have a nice badge:

I'd say that's going one step too far. But that's just me.

Recycling isn't bad, it reduces energy consumption, which is a good thing, since we will eventually run out of fossil fuels.

Generation_D: For you have I have a nice badge:

I am so going to print that on adhesive and put it on my recycle bins.

benlonghair: I'd say that's going one step too far. But that's just me.

Recycling isn't bad, it reduces energy consumption, which is a good thing, since we will eventually run out of fossil fuels.

Recycling is a good thing, but some folks do take it a bit too far and become the recycle police. It is a good thing, do it yourself but I don't feel we need to impose this on others or belittle them for not doing it, or for doing it but sometimes getting it wrong.

jwa007: do it yourself but I don't feel we need to impose this on others or belittle them for not doing it, or for doing it but sometimes getting it wrong.

Ok, ya, I'll agree with this.

How is that headline in the middle of that PITA meter thing?

Yeah, fark the planet and humanity's future, some CEO might not get fabulously rich today, so let's just not do anything.

We need to start massively changing ourselves now if we want to secure a planet that is anything close to livable for our children. Well, my children. I know why anyone above Gen Y doesn't care, and that's because you'll die before it happens and God forbid you make yourself uncomfortable. Our future rests in the decision making power of the Baby Boomers and Gen X, and since when did any of you worthless bastards make a hard decision? You've always taken the easy way out and left it for us, and now you won't let us save our future.

Generation_D: And for heavens sake don't be the guy at work nagging everyone to put the used coffee filters in the right recycling. Just don't.

For you have I have a nice badge:

Right Click -> Save Image As

Here's a handy map of the countries who have signed Kyoto.

Predictably, all of their economies have already been destroyed.



/hot, like the climate

GAT_00: Yeah, fark the planet and humanity's future, some CEO might not get fabulously rich today, so let's just not do anything.

We need to start massively changing ourselves now if we want to secure a planet that is anything close to livable for our children. Well, my children. I know why anyone above Gen Y doesn't care, and that's because you'll die before it happens and God forbid you make yourself uncomfortable. Our future rests in the decision making power of the Baby Boomers and Gen X, and since when did any of you worthless bastards make a hard decision? You've always taken the easy way out and left it for us, and now you won't let us save our future.

What, exactly, do you want to do?

GAT_00: Gen X, and since when did any of you worthless bastards make a hard decision?

Personally, and I am a GenX-er, I handle 18-20 cords of wood a year to heat my house because it's the environmentally, socially and economically responsible thing to do.

I do not like going out at 11pm when it's -15f with the wind blowing, but I do it.

But for the most part you're right.

7of7: Ender's: Really? Is it at that point now?

Certainly for the people of the Maldives. Africa isn't looking well either. And let's not forget that at current pace the billion people in India will be facing serious drought.

I'm not sure we can blame all of that on climate change. India has always been dry, the Maldives make a nice summer cottage but I wouldn't want to live on a sandbar, and Africa hasn't been a nice place since Mali and Egypt were world powers.

jwa007: What, exactly, do you want to do?

To start? 80% CO2 emission cuts by 2050.

Generation_D: And for heavens sake don't be the guy at work nagging everyone to put the used coffee filters in the right recycling. Just don't.

For you have I have a nice badge:

That's awesome...I'll get plenty of use out of that...

GAT_00: To start? 80% CO2 emission cuts by 2050.

Hahahahaha. That's pretty funny.

benlonghair: Hahahahaha. That's pretty funny.

Absolutely necessary to give a planet that comes close to resembling today's in temperatures to my grandkids. But yeah, fark the future because it would be hard.

GAT_00: To start? 80% CO2 emission cuts by 2050.

How? I'm asking because I think that like most people who are alarmed at the prospects of global warming/climate change, you are eager to fix some of the symptoms rather than look beyond that and find permanent solutions to the underlying causes.

When you say let's cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80% in the next forty years how will that be achieved? We still need fuel and most fuels, petroleum productc and coal, emit CO₂ into the atmosphere. Where will you get the power from to run the machinery that makes it possible for 6 billion people to live and eat and work on this planet? I could give a fark about CEO's and their bonuses, I'm more interested in how you plan on achieving your goals and who will have to sacrifice for those goals to be met? It sure as hell will not be the upper-class American society that shoulders this burden.

GAT_00: Absolutely necessary to give a planet that comes close to resembling today's in temperatures to my grandkids. But yeah, fark the future because it would be hard.

Do you really believe that it's smart to try to mess with the climate? Your grand kids will inherit a climate that is different than when you were a kid, just like you inherited a climate that was different than your grandparents and their grandparents before them.

The earth is a self-correcting system. It's been working for billions of years. If we really start farking with it, we stand to make that system really break.

Now I'm not saying don't reduce impact, but don't start getting the idea we can change it for the better. We can not (and should not try to) stave off climate change.

Humans make systems that last a couple thousand years, max. Nature makes systems that last billions of years.

Which do you trust? (Hint: It's nature.)

Dear farkmitter, what do you think those corporates are going to give you for defending their right to continue polluting the planet? A cut of their multi-billion dollar salaries? An executive position of your own? Those assholes are making millions and millions of dollars. If they refrained from taking bonuses for even a couple of years, they could easily put the money into their infrastructure to clean up their operations. Even without the threat of global warming, is it really necessary to pollute the Earth in order to make a profit? Why the hell should everyone have to put up with the consequences of that kind of greedy, infantile behavior? All for a couple of bucks? All so these whining, bloated shiatbags can continue to do things the same, incorrect way? Blackmail economics is the new hotness, apparently.

jwa007: When you say let's cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80% in the next forty years how will that be achieved?

50% in 36 years is doable, while quadrupling electrical generating capacity and developing hydrogen separation capacity. Probably only cost about $50 B or so in public money, too. But you are going to have to make some plutonium. A plus is that you won't have to dig under Yucca Mountain, because all of those "spent" fuel assemblies sitting in cooling ponds next to every reactor in the country could actually be used as fuel, and that fuel would not be useable for weapons.

That's $50 B per annum.

pandabear: 50% in 36 years is doable, while quadrupling electrical generating capacity and developing hydrogen separation capacity. Probably only cost about $50 B or so in public money, too. But you are going to have to make some plutonium. A plus is that you won't have to dig under Yucca Mountain, because all of those "spent" fuel assemblies sitting in cooling ponds next to every reactor in the country could actually be used as fuel, and that fuel would not be useable for weapons.

Cool. So what is stopping this idea from being implemented?