Politiscience....Global Warming

Best case scenario is that humans contribute to it only a little bit. Worse case is that between our greenhouse gas emissions and our deforestation etc. that we've caused much more harm. Many people only look at our role in producing the gasses vs. volcanoes, etc. And ignore what effect we may have had on the plantlife which supposedly could keep things in check.

Either way, there *is* a role played by us, whether it be large or small. No one is denying that these days (I hope..). The argument has now turned into a 'so what?' argument instead. That yeah, we cause 'harm', but not as much as volcanoes so we shouldn't bother to reign in our output. This is an arrogant stance if I've ever seen one.

My view is that regardless of how much harm we are doing, we should make a reasonable effort to limit it. Over time it can matter, and if we don't, then we are just going through resources (non-renewable mostly) faster than we could if we didn't take the greedy/easy way out. Innovation with regards to energy efficiency etc. lead to alternative energies which leads to a lessened dependency on oil. Sounds like a good enough 'push' in that direction to me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Sure things get exagerated sometimes. But 5 degrees would make a huge difference (not killing the world) no matter who you ask.

As for it being used 'against America' is a perception that I can't share. Where things get shaky is the sterotypical American stance that they shouldn't bother to control things like pollution. Due to the dismissive attitude of the large corporations and government, it gives a "screw 'em, we'll do what we want no matter how bad it may be. We'll take that chance." impression.

If you really want to see yourself as a hapless victim of the internation community, then go ahead. But you aren't nearly as persecuted as you think yourself to be, nor as much as you would be if consideration was shown on global matters such as global warming etc. /tangent.

How ya doing, buddy?

"From what I know, it seems as though the US has very strict emissions laws comparative to other countries."

How can you argue against strict polution control when it only brings you back to an example of why strict controls are good?

I hear that emission laws vary quite a bit from region to region in the US as well, such as California and Florida having considerably more strict regulations. I'd be most interested to hear what you learn about how it stacks up to other similar nations. I've always been given the impression that they lag behind places like Britain, France, Canada, Germany, etc. But if this is exageration or propaganda, that'd sure be interesting.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Within a few years? I don't understand the reasoning behind the arbirary time frames people come up with for changes. It doesn't have to happen by date X or all is lost. Where does this point of no return come from? Unfortunately efforts to make changes are often attacked on the basis of being 'too much too soon' etc. And since no one wants to make drastic changes right away, they instead drop the entire premise based on a flaw in the proposed timeline instead of a flaw in the goal or acheivability of the goal.

See the disdain for Kyoto for one. Sure it's got some good ideas, but since it called for big changes relatively quickly, the entire notion of polution control is attacked and undermined to the point that we've reached today with advertisements like the one posted by Schandmaul.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

My point was that these things can only work if they are given a chance. And that is not what has happened, and I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

An authority couldn't work and it isn't needed. It all comes down to what people really prioritize, and that is why 'nothing' is done. If it cuts into margins, it, and any possible permutation of it is blackballed.

Unless you mean to say that nothing could have been accomplished if those who did, and did not sign up for such things had done so, and followed through. In which case, that doesn't make much sense. The only argument against it that I've heard, and seems rather fair, is that it would be too little return for too much sacrifice.

The only reason pollution control has no chance is because it is given no chance. A self fullfilling profecy if I've ever seen one. "This can't work because I won't do it!" "Um.. You could do it y'know?" "Yep, but won't. Haha showed you. Stupid hippies with their environment and shit." "Ok, you win."

I was speaking idiomatically.