Close Topic Options

Fuel For Thought - Page 2

Of course it won't be resolved overnight. But, being such a serious matter, I think a concentrated action is needed to resolve it, even if that means sacrifices. So I marvel at the blindness of US (its people and/or government, doesn't really matter) regarding this.

Thought Fuel

The problem with much of this discussion, is that most people fail to take into account the tradeoffs necessary to attain their ideals.

For example, the Kyoto Treaty. It is designed specifically to penalize the industrialized countries, because of their success, while giving preferences to the industrializing countries, so that they can BECOME successes.

In order for the US to meet the Kyoto requirements, we would have to drastically reduce our productivity, which would have a ripple effect throughout the world. It would also require draconian governmental actions to meet those requirements, making the US government into the despotic monster that some like to claim that it is.

The people of the US overwhelmingly do not want to even attempt to meet those protocols, as it would mean bankruptcy for everyone.

However, the Kyoto Treaty cleverly allowed for that, with the provision that the industrialized countries would pay lots and lots of money to other countries for the privelege of being able to be productive and wealth-producing. Of course, this is what the architects of the treaty wanted, since it is a purely socialist attempt to cut the US down to size.

The problem with this is that the industrialized countries have significantly reduced pollution, while the industrializing countries (China, India, etc) are significantly increasing pollution.

As for fuel consumption specifically, FBC makes a great point. Most people don't realize just how large the US really is. For example, the entire United Kingdom (pop 60.5 million) could fit comfortably within the single state of Oregon in the US. Likewise Germany (over 84 million) is smaller than Montana. So, basically, you could probably fit all of Europe into just the Eastern half of the US, with many, many more people. Having lived there, I can assure you that transportation is a HUGE difference.

Just trucking food and other supplies throughout the US is far more difficult, and significantly more energy intensive. Again, in order to reduce this fuel usage would require that the US essentially become a starving nation, rather than provide food to others.

The tradeoffs are absolutely HUGE!

Finally, many of us really want to see nuclear power plants in use. Nuclear power would make it much more possible for us to implement electric powered cars, would reduce emissions by a very large amount, and even provide the means to develop and implement hydrogen power solutions. However, the socialistic environmentalists have completely stopped this alternative. So, they have contributed greatly to the huge fuel appetite of the US, much more than they could ever reduce it.

IMHO.

Fuel For Thought History & Civil Business Politics

I don't believe accepting Kyoto would have such drastic consequences for US as you make it sound. But even if it did, global warming is such a threat that something must be done about it, whatever the cost. And it might already be too late to prevent catastrophes like rising ocean levels and stopping the Gulf stream.

I agree about nuclear power, it is perhaps the cleanest energy production, if no accidents happen, and waste is stored properly. But additionally, I'm very glad of the news that decision has finally been made a few days ago to start building the first nuclear fusion reactor (in France, but internationally financed).

Page 2 Thought Fuel

I think the US must ratify the Kyoto protocol especially as it pollutes more than any other nation. We are getting to a stage in human history where we can not afford to ignore environmental issues. Global warming is an extremely serious problem, many of the top scientists around the world are singing the same tune on this.

I fail to see how the Kyoto Protocol is a socialist attempt to cut the US down to size, you will need to clarify this as every other industrialised nation that has ratified has the same requirements. Can I just add that Australia hasn't ratified as well for "similar" reasons officially.

I don't believe the US cutting down on emissions would be catastrophic for their economy. The US government is short on detail about the economic impact of Kyoto, maybe some of the people in this forum know some useful links where I can read up on this.

China is a worry and I think Kyoto Protocol should be reviewed ever five years at the most to adjust for polluting developing nations.

I don't think you guys realise just how much development there is going on in China. It is phenomenal. My parents recently visited China, they've travelled to every continent in the world. They said they have never seen anything like it. China would come very close to having as many cars as the US, combined with India and Japan, there is no comparison. It can't be individual car owners that are solely causing the carbon dioxide problem here. I would still like to know where those stats are sourced from because it is hard to believe.

I get the impression everyone here at least agrees that nuclear energy is the only hope.

Thought Fuel

This is a very old discussion, but there are a couple of statistics that I would like to add. In the first message on this topic, it was noted that the US uses about 25% of the world's energy, per year. What is ignored is the fact that the US also produces over 30% of the world's annual production. What that means is that despite the fact that the US is the biggest polluter, it is also the most efficient user of energy.

I think that if you were to start looking at a production vs. pollution ratio, you would find that the US is far lower than anyone else in the world.

What was most ridiculous in the first message here was the complaint about how much paper and other wood products that the US uses. The problem with that complaint is that the US has over 30% MORE trees in it than there were in 1900. In terms of actual tonnage of wood, we are increasing, not decreasing available resources every year.

Fuel For Thought

What exactly is 30 per cent of the world's production? Wat does that mean? The bottom line is the US, and my home country Australia, are using much more energy than they actually need. But so are other countries around the world. What really pisses me off is that developing countries seem to be given an exemption when it comes to energy wastage. Surely what applies to the US should also apply to China, Indonesia and Australia.

We should work towards all these countries cutting down for all of us to enjoy the future.

Fuel Thought - Page 2

What that 30% means is that approximately 30% of the entire Gross Global Product (Gross National Product, but concerning the entire world) comes from the US, alone. Other highly developed countries, such as Australia and Canada also have similar statistics - that is, that their GNP exceeds their relative energy usage. That is because while these nations use a lot of energy, they are far above average in the efficiency of their use.