Yes my original comment was for intelligent people - i thought you might understand it better if i made it much simpler for the Gc crowd.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Mar 11 2017 11:39pm

Both cared more about money. Donations from the energy sector ftw to destroy the earth.

1998: wiki
"Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto treaty, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification."

from 2001: bbc news
"George Bush has never made any secret that he doesn't like the Kyoto agreement, which seeks to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in order to combat the rapid change in the planet's climate some scientists argue is now taking place. He thinks it unfair on the United States, as it leaves out developing countries. He fears that it would lead to higher energy prices in the United States and, at heart, he probably doesn't think it would do much good anyway." (personal note: what if we all work together Bush?)

"By January 2004, several countries had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, including Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and most European signatories. Collectively, these ratifying countries represented approximately 44 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions produced in 1990 – only 11 percent shy of the 55 percent target cited in the Protocol’s terms."

"As of 2016, the US is the only signatory that has not ratified the Protocol."

From what I've read about the Kyoto protocol, global warming has not officially been denied (until Trump ?). There is gross negligence in doing something about it.
This time around the negligence has grown into victims having a face and we can't deny using the kids, whom it is all about, in this typical US pursue for justice.

Just sew it guys !

This post was edited by Knaapie on Mar 12 2017 08:12am

The difference is the policies they advocate which would have greater impact than any individual effort not enforced on everybody.

And individuals need guidance....socialization is hard to unlearn. Also, some people here believe that a personal god created the universe for them to exploit and they have no moral qualms in destroying it. God put oil here for us to use, etc.

Proof that God created oil or that it's a product of the underworld....

God also said to be good stewards. The thing is both polar positions are wrong in my opinion. Pillaging all the resources of the earth without thinking of the consequences is wrong but at the same time the extreme enviro perspectives can be argued are equally as bad. You complain about oil but do you understand the economics and demand side of this topic? Yes, pumping oil on all cylinders out of the ground sucks but what doesn't suck is paying 2.40 a gallon instead of 4 dollars. The ripple benefits of cheap oil are far reaching and an economist can probably pen a book on this with relative ease. Also it's easy for me and you to point the finger in the first world driving our nice, efficient cars, sitting talking about lofty ideas on our iPhones but we have to realize how hypocritical this is. Emerging consumers in places like Chine, India, Brazil are finally reaching a point where they can afford some of the luxuries that we've had for a very long time. We're pumping more oil because more and more people in those places want cars, electronics, etc. Are you prepared to give up your car & other luxuries and practice what you preach? Are you willing to pay 4 dollars or more a gallon ( the natural consequence of limiting oil output)? Are you that selfish to deny billions of poorer people around the globe the luxuries that you've enjoyed for so long?

Personally, i think the answer is advancement and promotion of other forms of energy in the form of tax breaks. I don't disagree that deforestation, over fishing, mining, fracking, waste etc. are harmful but at the same time we need to be thoughtful of the people who depend on jobs in such industries and offer some incentives for them to move towards a enviro-friendly way of doing what they do.

It is literally the River Styx, the pathway to hell.

So paying 2.40 for a gallon of gas is good for civilization? Great argument to keep you distracted from the real argument of why we are burning oil at all when we can use radio waves to burn salt water?



you mean Highway?





This post was edited by card_sultan on Mar 12 2017 02:15pm

The poorest people are usually the first ones to feel it when the price of oil goes up. Lets say the average family has 2 cars and is spending 60 dollars/week on gas for both @ 2.40. If gas is 4.00 dollars that's an increase of 40% that family has to spend an extra $24 per week on gas. Now apply that per month/year/10 years, the resources going for the price difference for gas can be invested/spent on something else (vacation, kids college fund, healthier food, gym membership, etc). Now understand that this is how it impacts the consumer directly at the pump, but gas being $4/gallon will also increase the amount you pay at the store for food, clothing & frankly any good that needs to be transported to the store. I could keep going but people need to understand the impact is far reaching when it comes to something as the price of oil being 2.40 compared to 4.00.

lol I like how 4 is being used for the high

been plenty over that in cali over the years