"Inconvenient Truth" and incovenient fallacy?

[Shagz]

Thats a rather broad generalization though. First, the USA and China are neck and neck for who is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases. But thats where the similarities end. China has over 3x the amount of people and their economies are decades if not centries behind the USA when it comes to efficiency of converting energy to products. If all effieciencies in energy usage are left unchecked, within 25 years, China will put more toxins into our ecology then all the industrialized nations put together.

All the more reason for North America to show the rest of the world how to live on the planet with a smaller footprint, create a more sustainable society and innovate in alternative energy technology, right?

Just because *they're* doing it badly doesn't give us permission to do likewise.

Sorry, I'm a little late in responding to some of these...

Either way, I don't believe they're melting because of global warming. It's still well below 32 degrees there, so how is it possible for them to melt because of that? The easiest guess I could make would be from the sunlight, not from the environment.

There's also the pollution in the water that's washing around up there, which can have an effect on freezing/melting temperatures, raising and lowering them. Whether it's sunlight, a hole in the ozone (which is just *more* sunlight), global warming, or something else, the fact remains that they *are* melting. The North-West Passage was completely free of ice for the first time in recorded history this past summer.

Climatic change is definitely happening, but as already mentioned here in this thread, we seem to be disagreeing on what the sources of this change are and what should be done about it.

---

One thing that irks me about people's response to climate change or going green is the use of the "cost" argument. It's going to cost too much to change our ways, we can't weaken the economy for the sake of the planet, we can't justify the extra $ on a hybrid, etc. Why are North Americans (generally) unwilling to sacrifice anything, economically?

Don't take my comment into the extreme, that we should be sending our economies into tail spins for the greater good, or I'm expecting poor people to stop shopping at Wal Mart and start wearing bamboo t-shirts. But there are those of us who have the good fortune of being able to make a choice.

In the future, I believe those of us in NA (the "haves" on the global scale of things), are going to learn to sacrifice some things, either a sacrifice in spending less (in money or in resources) so our surplus can be donated to the poor (be they down the street or in Africa) or spend more for a product (because it's locally produced/manufactured or has greener technology). We're already doing the latter thanks to the recent popularity in buying local and organic food.

There are only so many resources to go around in the world, and we can't raise everybody else's living standards to those of NAs. Could you imagine what would happen if every person in the world had 3 cars for a family of 4?

Either we reduce our footprint, live simply, and try and get the rest of the world to follow, or we figure out how to have it both ways by making our vehicles, swimming pools, cell phones, fondue makers consume less energy and resources.

Hmmmmm...think that was slightly off topic, but hopefully there's something useful in there.

PS...

You are partially correct in saying some American cars are assembled elsewhere, such as Canada and Mexico... but those are the 51st and 52nd states.

(sigh) I *hope* that was a joke?

 

[Odale]

All the more reason for North America to show the rest of the world how to live on the planet with a smaller footprint, create a more sustainable society and innovate in alternative energy technology, right?

Just because *they're* doing it badly doesn't give us permission to do likewise.

PS...



(sigh) I *hope* that was a joke?

Yes it was a joke . And I am glad you got my point.