 | | Quick Poll - Kyoto —Scott Arthur
|
| | | Quick Poll - Kyoto What is the feeling in the US/elsewhere regarding W's back tracking on Kyoto? The line taken by the "green" lobby in the UK is that he is not brave enough to shoulder the economics of the situation. Is it as simple as that? A UK (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Simpler. Kyoto is a bad idea. The one who wasn't brave was Clinton for not saying so. And I'll happily take my lumps from greens for that view. (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I am not sure I agree. Kyoto provided a framework for the worlds biggest polluters to reduce their polluting output. If you think it is not as good as it could be as it focuses on 40 or so industrialised economies - but ignores the developing (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) That's the wrong question, because it begs the answer. I would suggest that a different line of questioning may be more fruitful. - Is the specific problem that Kyoto purports to solve really a problem? If so, how bad? If we're not sure, what (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | (...) Probably. Apologies for the glib answers here -- I'm more interested in the logic behind them. (...) Worst case scenario -- global catastrophe. Even if Greenhouse _itself_ isn't catastrophic, it might be in combination with other ecological (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Long term. Unfortunately, most corporations, and (maybe more importantly) most governments only think short term. ROSCO (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) The consensus view is that it is. I’m sure the oil companies have a few scientists or academics who can show otherwise. But, I also hear that there are academics how feel the whole concept evolution is bunkum. ;-) (...) ~5% increase in (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Oops. That should be 0.4-1.2 increase in CO2 - that results in a 3-7% rise in yearly rainfall. Scott A (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | | (...) I disagree. I've asked a similar question in the course that I teach (non-majors intro to biology). My question was along the lines of 'What does the environment do for us?' I've had students give answers that range from 'nothing' to (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | (...) Wow. Bush continues to suprise me in how easily he can lower my opinion of him. Jeff (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
