Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on August 12, 2002, 06:43:11 AM
-
Actually this is much worse.
So, can you ignorant americans understand this one? Or are you going to deny its existence too?
Thrawn...any reference on the urban legends page?
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze/index.html)
-
Read it before posted here and this is NO surprise to me.
We have yet to pay consequences.
Masher
-
It is kinda screwed that we all should have to pay for all the moronic 3rd world countries and their complete disregard for the environment though.
India, China, Indonesia...
-
Agree bro! 100% Here's a beer for ya!
Masher
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It is kinda screwed that we all should have to pay for all the moronic 3rd world countries and their complete disregard for the environment though.
India, China, Indonesia...
And of course Europe & America never cut down and burnt any of their forests or had smog, pollution or a complete disregard for the environment. :rolleyes:
Seems to me the problem isn't Asia or Europe or Africa or America but humans. Lots of humans=lots of pollution.
-
Not really since Europe and (amazingly) the US has some really strict environment laws in place now, asia doesnt.
-
Lots of humans = Asia
Kind of Ironic that -dead- from Hong Kong posted that. Prepping for the future?
Masher
PS - The US didn't sign that treaty because THEY would bear the brunt of replacing all the equipment, while the rest of the world sat on their bellybutton and slowly made the changes.
-
Gee... I wonder why they have those strict laws in place, Hortlund?
Could it be because they totally screwed up the environment before they had them in place?
You know, the kind of problems only "moronic 3rd World countries with a complete disregard for the environment" would have: like acid rain, smog, nuclear fallout, oil spills etc. etc.
But I suppose you'll argue that unlike these current ones, those problems never spread over the world, so we didn't "all have to pay for them". Sure, there's no data to support that theory because no one in the West cared about pollution at all then. :rolleyes:
Asia for the most part is too damn poor to care about pollution yet, which is eerily like the West used to be.
And unfortunately, unlike the West, the 3rd World doesn't have a 3rd World to move all the really nasty polluting industries to.
-
Hortlund, the US produces something like 25% of all the air pollution in the world.
Daff
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Gee... I wonder why they have those strict laws in place, Hortlund?
Could it be because they totally screwed up the environment before they had them in place?
You know, the kind of problems only "moronic 3rd World countries with a complete disregard for the environment" would have: like acid rain, smog, nuclear fallout, oil spills etc. etc.
But I suppose you'll argue that unlike these current ones, those problems never spread over the world, so we didn't "all have to pay for them". Sure, there's no data to support that theory because no one in the West cared about pollution at all then. :rolleyes:
Asia for the most part is too damn poor to care about pollution yet, which is eerily like the West used to be.
And unfortunately, unlike the West, the 3rd World doesn't have a 3rd World to move all the really nasty polluting industries to.
Actually, what Im saying is more along the lines of "We should force the backwards 3rd world countries to stop polluting the way they are doing now". If asia or the rest of the third world doesnt see fit to cease spreading filth, we should make them stop.
Sure we had problems with pollutions before, but now we have very strict environmental laws in place.
All first world countries are having problems with acid rain, oil spills, etc too. Pollutions is a global problem, that is why we cant have moronic short sighted regimes buring down rainforest in Indonesia to clear land for agriculture (just one example).
-
sorry - had beans last night :)
-
damn it Eagler, I smell that toejam up here :p
Masher
-
A large part of the aerosol cloud comes from inefficient cookers, where fuels such as cowdung and kerosene are used to cook food in many parts of Asia, says Mitra.
They use toejam to cook food?! I wonder if that enhances the taste...
-
The problem seems to be aerosol from forest fires, vegetation clearing and fossil fuel. Could the recent enourmous fires in Indonesia have something to do with it?
US is being re-forested now - actually finishing the process, not de-forrested. And aerosols were never among the pollutants we were accused of producing. Where do they come from?
A large part of the aerosol cloud comes from inefficient cookers, where fuels such as cowdung and kerosene are used to cook food in many parts of Asia - oh, right. We, americans do our cooking on clean natural gas, electicity, propane or at least efficiently burning charcoal on weekends - no aerosols here. And there are 300 mil of us and dropping (but for constant immigrant's inflow) - not 2 billion and growing.
So this particular problem can be hardly blamed on americans.
miko
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Pollutions is a global problem, that is why we cant have moronic short sighted regimes buring down rainforest in Indonesia to clear land for agriculture (just one example).
Well the fires in Indonesia aren't actually government enforced - rather the opposite. They're started by farmers to clear land and then they get out of control and burn the odd million hectares. Obvious Solution: stop the farmers, but if you stop the farmers doing it, the farmers get poor/starve. So for some moronic short-sighted reason, the farmers keep on burning trees.
http://www.haze-online.or.id (http://www.haze-online.or.id)
The US & Canada are no strangers to forest fires burning out of control, and their farmers don't generally persue a slash and burn agriculture anymore. However all these fires kick out smoke, with no regard to whether they are "accidental" or "on purpose".
Here's a link for comparison:http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Fires/ (http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Fires/)
And with the US giving such a bad example over the Kyoto treaty (ie saying "Sorry it's too expensive to save the planet" - another moronic short-sighted regime perhaps?!?) why should we expect a poor country like Indonesia to clear up their mess if even the richest nations think it's too expensive to.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Lots of humans = Asia
Kind of Ironic that -dead- from Hong Kong posted that. Prepping for the future?
Masher
Hmmm...
Filthy old Asia!
Current API for Hong Kong:
http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/e/api/current/cur_api.htm (http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/e/api/current/cur_api.htm)
Air Pollution Index Forecast at 22:47 HKT , Mon , 12 Aug 2002
API Air Pollution Level
Forecast for Tonight and Tomorrow's Highest
General Station 20 to 45 Low to Medium
Roadside Station 40 to 60 Medium to High
http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/e/api/forecast/forecast.htm (http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/e/api/forecast/forecast.htm)
API ratings explained:
http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/E/api/advice/advicef.htm (http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/E/api/advice/advicef.htm)
Versus
Clean-living USA
Today's Air Pollution Forecast for Detroit (sorry closest I got to Redford)
Air Quality: Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups Pollutant: Ozone
http://www.wunderground.com/forecasts/DTW.html (http://www.wunderground.com/forecasts/DTW.html)
And
Detroit Today's Forecast
OZONE
Health message : Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/airnow.cgi?MapDisplay=WHEREILIVE&MapDomain=mi#detroit (http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/airnow.cgi?MapDisplay=WHEREILIVE&MapDomain=mi#detroit)
Strange, you guys in the clean USA are worse off than us today. Some mistake, surely!?! :eek: Or maybe it's you that are prepping us for the future... :D
BTW where in the West is Kyoto? - doesn't seem to be in the US :D
-
A number of solutions to this problem are available:
1. Population control; China has policies in place, but violates the rights of its own citizens to enforce them. India has no policies that I know of.
2. Modernization of their factories: The purpose of this would be to reduce the level of pollutants. A big dollar project.
3. Hiring and training personnel and purchasing equipment to fight their forest fires. New policies of timber harvest to reduce the likelihood of new fires breaking out.
It is going to take a big financial commitment on the part of these countries to implement the changes that are needed. Even if they have the money they are going to be unwilling to spend it.
Who do you think they're going to turn to for financial aid to make these changes? Are you, as an American taxpayer, willing to shoulder the burden?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Blame asia, right...:rolleyes:
Who's the biggest petroleum consumer out there ? :)
More here http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/OCDST/asian_dust.html
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It is kinda screwed that we all should have to pay for all the moronic 3rd world countries and their complete disregard for the environment though.
India, China, Indonesia...
Well, that is a good idea, unfortunately, a response to that is this thought
We (the U.S., Europe, etc) all got to cut down our trees, pollute the air during the 1800's early 1900's while we were developing. Now that our countries are deleloped and prospering, we can afford to say "Geez, maybe we shouldn't be polluting the air like this, especially now that we know about the harm that is being done."
Why shouldn't the developing countries have that same right??
I'm all for protecting the air, cleaning stuff up etc, but I'm not a tree hugger for sure. We can't impose regulations on pollution on developing countries when we've done the exact same thing 100 or so years ago and expect them to accept it with open arms
-
I'd like to see trade restrictions where we are not allowed to import any products from countrys who don't meet minimum pollution controle standards.
as it is not only do we have countrys who freely polute water and air (that the whole world ends up sharing) with no restrictions. but our own american companys find that cheap option so apealing that they close down their factorys here and ship the jobs overseas.
you'd also find more americans willing to vote for higher standards on ourselves if we knew the playing feild would be leveled and we wouldn't have to compete for our job with somebody who has no restrictions adding to the cost of manufacturing.
as it is most manufacturing jobs happen out of sight of the average consumer and they have no idea the volume of waste that can be generated in a manufacturing plant.(you should see the amount of chemicals released here, inspite of our regulations. they need to be much stronger)
-
Modas: Why shouldn't the developing countries have that same right?
It is supposed to be for their own good. Arguably, the developed countries can very well deal with drastic climate changes, raise in the ocean level, etc.
It gets 20 degrees colder? There is no problem in Canada or scandinavia. It gets 20 degrees cooler? Texas and Florida may be not the most convenient places to live climate-wise, but people are migrating there, not leaving those places. Western civilisation can apparently prosper in quite a range of climates.
We work/live mostly indoor and breeze filtered level most of the time - no big deal doing it all the time with even more efficient filtering.
Holland is mostly below sea level - and we can all protect our shorelines by 4-foot high concrete walls. Or 40-foot high. Same with river floods - we will just build more dams and retaining walls.
Same Holland has extremely productive hydroponic/hothouse agriculture. Israel has been using very advanced irrigation systems for years. We can all do the same.
If it gets hotter or cooler, we can make our houses more efficient and continue heat/aircondition them.
Our water is purified anyway. Our disease control is decent and can be made better.
It just takes some money - and we have plenty of that. The whole thing can even be beneficial to our economy - like war of highway building was - by generating new jobs, industries and technologies.
Now, the third world countries - those will just die out in droughts, floods, famines, epidemics, massacres, etc.
View it like that - we (developed countries) had to cut down our forests and poison our people with coal smoke, etc. for 200 years untill technology developed to do things cleaner and more efficiently.
Thirld world countries do not have to suffer through that - they can adopt our tested technology. It may be a bit longer and more expencive for them in the beginning - but nowhere as long as 200 years. Or even 20.
miko
-
"It gets 20 degrees cooler? Texas and Florida may be not the most convenient places to live climate-wise"
I'll take 20 cooler now
and maybe 20 cooler will reduce the flow of invading senile ppl from the great north Oct through Apr
:)
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Blame asia, right...:rolleyes:
Yeah, but who's got the funky brown cloud?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze/index.html
-Sikboy
-
I was refering to the general effects of greenhouse(that was not clear, I know, srry), this one is aerial, but check out the sea polution paterns near US and Europe.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
I was refering to the general effects of greenhouse(that was not clear, I know, srry), this one is aerial, but check out the sea polution paterns near US and Europe.
Yeah, I knew that, and I didn't mean to imply that this was evidence of greenhouse hoodoo, I had just ready this article and was itching to post it :)
-Sikboy
-
Hortland, nothing to indicate it's an Urban Legend. ;)
I believe this is just beginning. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better...alot worse.
But I think that by us pointing fingers at each other on this, we are making the first positive steps in dealing with what's happening to OUR atmosphere.
-
Question: who owns these factories in the third world and where do they originate from?
Where are the factory/power station construction companies based?
I'll give you a hint. It's not the third world.:rolleyes:
-
Question: who owns these factories in the third world and where do they
Maybe the governments of these countries should inact tough new pollution laws to deal with these problem? Or are these countries really just slave labor camps owned by the factories owners?
Gy
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Question: who owns these factories in the third world and where do they originate from?
Dowding,
Do you have any experience with regards to this issue? I mean real-life, not reading stats about it, experience.
I do.
I worked for a Fortune 100 Company and was responsible for Factory Demand Planning for our factories in US, Europe, and yes HK and China. And for sourcing overseas.
I used to visit HK and China every 3 months for a few years.
Answer: Who owns these factories....Chinese...in some instances to be more specific the PLA of the PRC (unofficially of course).
We had our factory there and it was leased through the Chinese, who are very happy to do this. There is no arm-twisting involved at all....hell it's backed by the PRC government and encouraged.
Did you know that even to import goods into China you have to show documented proof that you intend to use PRC labor to convert that good into another product and export it back out of the PRC within 6 months (at least in the industries I worked in). You see, China stipulates that it will be a nation of exporters and to do that, you need factories and lots of em. Visit Shenzhen (and surrounding provinces) and you'll know that to true.
Sorry, can't entirely blame the West on this one. Not once you've actually been involved in it.
As far as that cloud....I've seen it, or more to the point, tasted it....and -dead-'s little air quality snippet above....Both cities are equally as bad, but in HK when I've visited, the summer is the worst, and many days you can't see beyond the harbor it's so bad.
Cobra
-
you can however blame us for not requiring all products sold here to meet minimum environmental statndards, regardless of where they are made
-
Yes Capt. Apathy,
You can blame the world's consumers for this, I agree.
The fact that Wal-Mart is as big as it is speaks volumes of the will of all of us to pay a little more for these type of assurances.
But to entirely lay it at the feet of the "fat-cat" corporations is being dishonest. They chase the money, and if we make it profitable (i.e. more sales, market share, etc.) for them to become environmentally conscience, then they will.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"It gets 20 degrees cooler? Texas and Florida may be not the most convenient places to live climate-wise"
I'll take 20 cooler now
and maybe 20 cooler will reduce the flow of invading senile ppl from the great north Oct through Apr
:)
No doubt man! 20 deg cooler would make this place even more of a paradise!! :D
-
Originally posted by Udie
No doubt man! 20 deg cooler would make this place even more of a paradise!! :D
And would probably kill all the fish.
-
Cobra, I agree, and don't blame corporations at all. They are in the business of making money and if it's more profitable to make products in other countries (or contract for products to be made for them in by people from these countries) where they can dump their waste into the sky and water freely, it would be stupid to think they would consider doing anything else.
I just think we should pass legislation taxing goods from these countries and making it more profitable to be more responsible environmentally, and as a nice sideline I would imagine this could save some domestic jobs.
-
Anyone remember that environmental treaty that would have restricted modern indusatrialized countries but have left less developed parts of the world like, lets hmm say India and China and so forth, free to pollute at high levels. What a great idea!!! :D
-
I just think we should pass legislation taxing goods from these countries and
Ahhhh, Sounds like another job for the American tax payer. Why would it be out of line for these same countries to adopt their own tough pollution laws?
Gy
-
I'm just glad that the pollution will stay in asian airspace, whew!:eek:
-
Capt. Apathy,
With China's acceptance into the WTO, it will get worse not better (for the record, I think they should be allowed in, but made to play by all the rules).
Here's why: Right now, the US imposes tariffs, sometimes hefty tariffs, on certain classes of goods imported in from the PRC. Those tariffs currently help other countries like Thailand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, Phillipines, etc. compete with China from a cost perspective. Now once China enters the WTO, the fear is, with those tariffs gone, the other countries cannot compete. That will tempt them to lower already low standards (including environmental and wage standards) just to keep some share of that business. It's well-known, and a given, that none of these countries can compete with China, period.
As you can see, we already had China paying high tariffs comparitively to these other countries, and still they could beat us and those countries at this.
As for the domestic jobs, consider this. In the early, mid, and latter part of the 1900's, the shoe and textile industry boomed in New England. But then all those jobs moved to the south, not south as in Mexico (as of then) but the southern US states.
Why? A few of the reasons (but by no means the full, comprehensive list) were stricter environmental laws coming into play up north, but more importantly, the workforce to do these jobs was drying up. Folks improved their standard of living for themselves and their children, and it was those very children that chose NOT to work at the jobs their parents did. Even higher wages sometimes wasn't enough. The job itself wasn't intincing enough. So the factories and the jobs moved south.
The consumer was unwilling to pay higher prices for products, when cheaper alternatives were available. So to stay alive, the companies moved.
Like I said, many other issues came into play such as state-sponsored Corporate welfare which played a huge role. Hell in Mass. in the late '90's the state government gave Raytheon huge tax incentives to stay put, when Raytheon threatened to move it's Andover plant to Texas. Raytheon had to promise to keep the same number of jobs on the payroll......they didn't, but by then Mass had already given the tax breaks.
Cobra
-
F-15 or CF-18 pilot: "Brown cloud approaching North American airspace, this is the fighter to your left. What are your intentions?"
Brown cloud: "..."
F-15 or CF-18 pilot: *Hold up a card board placard that says "121.5"*
Brown cloud: "..."
F-15 or CF-18 pilot: "Uhh...the could isn't responding...do we have permission to fire?"
Brown cloud: "...!"
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
F-15 or CF-18 pilot: "Brown cloud approaching North American airspace, this is the fighter to your left. What are your intentions?"
Brown cloud: "..."
F-15 or CF-18 pilot: *Hold up a card board placard that says "121.5"*
Brown cloud: "..."
F-15 or CF-18 pilot: "Uhh...the could isn't responding...do we have permission to fire?"
Brown cloud: "...!"
I'm sorry Yawn, were you saying that it's the US's fault, or the US is in danger, or both?
-Sikboy
-
Where have I said it was the US's fault?
I do think, it could become a Canadian and US problem.
Yawn? HA HA hey look! Sikboy took the "Th" out of Thrwan and replaced it with a "Y". Making the word yawn! Way to go toejamboy!
LOL!!:D
-
I say we blame it on the canadians eh
-
Drop the nukes or we light the rest of it on fire!
Edit: I mean put down the nukes, put down the nukes!!:eek:
-
WTO will be no help. it only seems to protect the rights of big business to exploit there people and rescorces without interferance
-
The whole thing is my fault.
I take personal total responsibility.
Me and my Excursion.
-
Do you really own an Excursion? If so why?
-
Answer A: Yup, cause my Suburban was in the shop.
Answer 2: No I do not own one, I ride a bicycle, eat tofu and attend PETA meetings.
Your choice which answer you like.:)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Actually this is much worse.
So, can you ignorant americans understand this one? Or are you going to deny its existence too?
Thrawn...any reference on the urban legends page?
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze/index.html)
Ann Coltier told me that these so-called 'global environmental disasters' are lies spread by the liberal media because they want to take away our SUVs.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yawn? HA HA hey look! Sikboy took the "Th" out of Thrwan and replaced it with a "Y". Making the word yawn!
I took the "R" out too Einstein.
-Shitboy
-
I say we pass legislation to restrict breathing to every other breathe.
Only you Hortlund could take an environmental disaster and couch it as some kind of ethnic slur... amazing!
Damn those heathen asian types! Why can't they be more like us? Hey wait! They are like us, just behind by 20 years. Looks like we should assist them with the means to clean this watermelon up...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Only you Hortlund could take an environmental disaster and couch it as some kind of ethnic slur... amazing!
Damn those heathen asian types! Why can't they be more like us? Hey wait! They are like us, just behind by 20 years. Looks like we should assist them with the means to clean this watermelon up...
20 years?
Well I dont know about you Midnight, or your living standards, but here in Sweden we didnt use cow dung to cook our food 20 years ago.
Its more like they are 100 years behind us (but on the other hand we didnt use cow dung back then either...hint, try wood, if for no other reason, it smells better).
What means do you propose to clean this toejam up? The only way to do that is to stop producing those pollutions.
My theory on what should be done:
Step 1
Economic embargo against anyone who fails to comply with stricter environmental laws.
Step 2
Remove sources of pollution in any country failing to meet the demands in step 1.
-
Hortlund: 20 years?
Well I dont know about you Midnight, or your living standards, but here in Sweden we didnt use cow dung to cook our food 20 years ago.
I bet you wasted a lot of time and effort on laying down all that copper wire before switching to wireless phone system. And using steam engines instead of electricity. And you had to use abacus and sliding rule to calculate things rather than cheap computers and existing libraries of designs. And you fertilised your fields with your fecal matter rather than cheap industrially-made fertilisers. And you did not have genetically-modified virus- and pest-resistant crops.
Its more like they are 100 years behind us (but on the other hand we didnt use cow dung back then either...hint, try wood, if for no other reason, it smells better).
Besides having no wood to burn - and cow dung being mostly grass and burning quite nicely and with less smell than coal - they are where you were 100 years ago, true - but they do not have to spend 100 years achieving the current level.
Not that I believe that will ever happen - but not for technological reasons.
miko
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
20 years?
...snip...
What means do you propose to clean this toejam up? The only way to do that is to stop producing those pollutions.
My theory on what should be done:
Step 1
Economic embargo against anyone who fails to comply with stricter environmental laws.
Step 2
Remove sources of pollution in any country failing to meet the demands in step 1.
OK 150!
Step 1 and 2 should result in a vast reduction in pollutants as it results in a vast reduction in population. In step 2, when we remove the sources, can we deliver the cow chips to Sweden for safe keeping?
Or we could just speed up the process and nuke em! Nah. Then there's that darn "other" cloud.
I don't know the solution.....but here is a try.
We use natural gas power plants and hydroelectric power. We have clean burning fossil fuel plants. We have added numerous devices to our cars to clean them up as well. Why don't we share this technology with these folks? Maybe instead of a Peace Corps we could establish an Environmental Corps. These would be scientists and engineers with the ability to assist these 3rd world Countries in developing cleaner forms of power and heat. Give them incentives for cleaning up their act.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I bet you wasted a lot of time and effort on laying down all that copper wire before switching to wireless phone system. And using steam engines instead of electricity. And you had to use abacus and sliding rule to calculate things rather than cheap computers and existing libraries of designs. And you fertilised your fields with your fecal matter rather than cheap industrially-made fertilisers. And you did not have genetically-modified virus- and pest-resistant crops.
20 years ago? Steam engines? Come on.
We are still using copper wire in 90% of our phone network though. But it works, and it works well.
Fiber optics are coming along nicely, but it takes alot of time and money. In the big cities roughly 50% of the households have access to broadband via fiber optic cables, and about 85% of all citizens regardless of where they live have access to broadband via the telephone lines (yup the old copper ones) via ADSL.
And actually I wish our farmers would use the same fertilizers they used 100 years ago. And I wish they would use the same crops as then too...but thats just me.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK 150!
Step 1 and 2 should result in a vast reduction in pollutants as it results in a vast reduction in population. In step 2, when we remove the sources, can we deliver the cow chips to Sweden for safe keeping?
Or we could just speed up the process and nuke em! Nah. Then there's that darn "other" cloud.
I don't know the solution.....but here is a try.
We use natural gas power plants and hydroelectric power. We have clean burning fossil fuel plants. We have added numerous devices to our cars to clean them up as well. Why don't we share this technology with these folks? Maybe instead of a Peace Corps we could establish an Environmental Corps. These would be scientists and engineers with the ability to assist these 3rd world Countries in developing cleaner forms of power and heat. Give them incentives for cleaning up their act.
I dont see the connection between reducing pollutions and a reduction in population. (hint: this is where foreign aid comes in)
Hydroelectric power is hardly a state secret Midnight. And (for example) the Chinese have taken their own (very bizarre) way to implement it..you know that project where they will build the mother of all dams.
We are spending oh so much money in foreign aid to various countries every year. How about we start attaching some serious demands to that money.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I took the "R" out too Einstein.
-Shitboy
:p
-Yrawn
-
Greenhouse effect?
Well, in my experience it generally drives property values down in almost any neighborhood. Especially that bright "swimming pool green". Uck! Every house looks bad in that color!
Some of the "earthtone" greens are not too bad, but you're still better off just staying away from green unless it's as a trim color.
Just my .02.
-
Hortlund: 20 years ago? Steam engines? Come on.
??? I am obviously talking about the state of your technology 100 years ago - which a reasonably-run third-world country would take about 20 years to achieve.
miko
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I dont see the connection between reducing pollutions and a reduction in population. (hint: this is where foreign aid comes in)
Hydroelectric power is hardly a state secret Midnight. And (for example) the Chinese have taken their own (very bizarre) way to implement it..you know that project where they will build the mother of all dams.
We are spending oh so much money in foreign aid to various countries every year. How about we start attaching some serious demands to that money.
Your punitive measures would probably do more harm than good. You did add foreign aid to your last post, so we probably are closer to agreement on this issue than you think.
Step 1
Economic embargo against anyone who fails to comply with stricter environmental laws.
Step 2
Remove sources of pollution in any country failing to meet the demands in step 1.
Don't you think that providing them with the means to produce clean energy would be better?
I never said hydroelectric power was a State secret (hint: placing 'hint' in parenthesis is semi condecending). You did seem to ignore the remainder of my post again.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
:p
-Yrawn
lol
-
midnight Target: Your punitive measures would probably do more harm than good. You did add foreign aid to your last post, so we probably are closer to agreement on this issue than you think.
Peter Bauer - a noted economist and foremost expert - also a winner of Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty - explains very well in his book how foreign aid is the root of most of the problems plaguing the third world countries.
miko
-
Step 1
Economic embargo against anyone who fails to comply with stricter environmental laws.
So presumably no-one's going to be allowed to trade with the US - the world's No. 1 Greenhouse gas producer?
Step 2
Remove sources of pollution in any country failing to meet the demands in step 1.
And presumably the US can kiss their cars & factories goodbye too under Hortlund's scheme...
Oh yes, after the Kyoto fiasco the world is really going to be able to get the US to agree to this idea :rolleyes: