Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[C1ay]

I doubt that Clapstyx was telling Bush to plant tropical forest in the US alone, but certainly there has been deforestation in North America and Europe too and these were largely responsible for that which has been done elsewhere.

 

What he literally said though:

 

The benefits to humanity will surely be much greater to spend the money on expanding the size of the global forest and so buying us some time to work out an equitable way to reign in the level of economic output (and the consequential emissions).

 

implies that Bush should be doing something somewhere that he has no control. The greatest damage to global forestation is in regions beyond U.S. control so advocating that we spend our money there is pointless and calling Bush a moron because he hasn't done this is calling Bush a moron for not doing something he couldn't do if he wanted. My point was mainly to illustrate that juvenile name calling and senseless finger pointing is not a productive approach and ends up with ideas like "we'll just have to force them to do it" which are not answers to the problem.

 

As we grow from 6 toward 10 billion, problems will certainly increase by the hour. So, you propose to terraform Mars and the figure out how to cart a substantial fraction of the global population over there? Do you believe in Star Trek's teletransport system?

There really isn't a realistic solution to the problems created by an exploding population on a planet that can't support it other than an eventual control of population. This planet can only support so many and once we go beyond that point it could be the beginning of our own extinction.

 

Tell Bush and Clinton they should have upheld Kyoto instead of playing with toys. Colonizing Mars won't solve our troubles down here. Plant trees and waste less fuel, instead of setting bad example to the 3rd world populations.

 

Not until someone rewrites Kyoto with "NO EXEMPTIONS". As long as businesses can move carbon emmissions around the globe for financial gain they will and that's what Kyoto enables. Kyoto could actually increase CO2 emmissions by causing companies to close down cleaner operations using newer, more expensive technologies in countries like the U.S. and moving them to countries using older, cheaper, dirtier processes to produce the same product because all of the sudden that newer, more expensive technology in use now is just not clean enough.

[Qfwfq]

What he literally said though:

...........

implies that Bush should be doing something somewhere that he has no control.

Many European and American gov'ts have done plenty of things where they "have no control".

 

 

There really isn't a realistic solution to the problems created by an exploding population on a planet that can't support it other than an eventual control of population.

Exactly.

 

My point was that going to Mars isn't an alternative. The limits on supportable population also depend on care of the environment.

 

Not until someone rewrites Kyoto with "NO EXEMPTIONS". As long as businesses can move carbon emmissions around the globe for financial gain they will and that's what Kyoto enables. Kyoto could actually increase CO2 emmissions by causing companies to close down cleaner operations using newer, more expensive technologies in countries like the U.S. and moving them to countries using older, cheaper, dirtier processes to produce the same product because all of the sudden that newer, more expensive technology in use now is just not clean enough.

:cocktail: And I thought it was the US, now backed by some Asians, that have been calling for carbon emission quota tradeability. IOW, legally buying and selling the right to pollute.

 

I agree that Kyoto was insufficient but it was better than schmuck. It was irresponsible of Clinton to call it a thing of the past.

[TheFaithfulStone]

My point was that going to Mars isn't an alternative. The limits on supportable population also depend on care of the environment.

 

Very true. There is no alternative solution to taking care of the environment. We have to do it, and we're not. It's damning to be sure.

 

But saying - "We can't go to Mars until we clean up the environment!" is equivalent to saying "We can't do astronomy or mathematics or physics, or any 'pure' science, until we get engineering down perfect!"

 

We need to do BOTH.

 

I have an idea how we can afford it too. Are you ready...

 

Government Cheese

 

That's right, get rid of fraud ridden food stamps and bring back government commodities.

 

Get rid of Welfare and bring back the CCC, only instead of building bridges and parks, they build space shuttles, clean out landfills, etc, etc - you know good public works. They get paid, work gets done. Don't depend on private industry to hire ex-welfare moms - get the government to put these folks to work on "public works" projects. Hell, start "AmericanWagon" plant that manufactures electric cars.

 

Let the military get involved in the space program. It's only a matter of time anyway - and it's never been a pure science program. China will do this if we don't, so why not beat them to the punch?

 

There ya go. Problem solved, easy as pie. :cocktail:

 

TFS

[questor]

what difference does it make as to Bush's IQ? is he in charge of the whole world forever? his term is over shortly. who thinks these problems will be solved by whoever comes after him, or in our lifetime? we can't even agree on this site what the best alternatives are. for those that love the Democrats and Gore, what have they proposed or accomplished for saving the earth?

why is Bush the only moron? if you really want to save the earth, you would have to curb population drastically and go back to agrarian societies.

the USA is the biggest offender now, but in a few years it will be China and India. what will you do then?

[Qfwfq]

If someone said "We can't go to Mars until we clean up the environment!" it wasn't me! But I do agree about priorities and I especially think it's currently pointless to put humans on Mars missions.

 

Surprisingly, China already seems to be getting less eco-arrogant, not more.

[InfiniteNow]

Not until someone rewrites Kyoto with "NO EXEMPTIONS". As long as businesses can move carbon emmissions around the globe for financial gain they will and that's what Kyoto enables. Kyoto could actually increase CO2 emmissions by causing companies to close down cleaner operations using newer, more expensive technologies in countries like the U.S. and moving them to countries using older, cheaper, dirtier processes to produce the same product because all of the sudden that newer, more expensive technology in use now is just not clean enough.

 

I am completely in line with your points here C1ay, and feel they were well articulated too. However, the US has been doing emissions trading since the 1970s (Emissions Trading). :dog: :( :) :( :(

 

 

This is all well outside the scope of Bush, his presidency, and his ability. China is really the major player in this now.

 

More info:

http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-70073.html

http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202111003557

 

 

From that first article from the Clean Air Initiative:

There's little doubt that India and China will be big sources of credits. Both are industrializing at a breakneck pace with little regard for the environmental consequences, so there's no shortage of areas where pollution can be reined in. India has already negotiated dozens of carbon credit sales in projects ranging from hydro stations to harnessing methane gas released by decomposing garbage. China, on the other hand, has been a relative laggard, with just three such deals so far. But many others are in the works. "China has a huge potential to become one of the largest markets" for pollution credits, says Kishan Khoday, team leader for energy and the environment at the U.N. Development Program in Beijing.

 

 

http://www.globalsolutions.org/programs/glob_engage/Treaties/kyoto.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948520.htm

 

 

How long is going to take for the global community to band together on this one and implement changes? Will it be a massive evolutionary event?... That would be unfortunate.

[InfiniteNow]

Just to be clear, my intention above was not to imply that China is the only party involved in these issues. It's global, and we all play a part.

[InfiniteNow]

If someone said "We can't go to Mars until we clean up the environment!" it wasn't me! But I do agree about priorities and I especially think it's currently pointless to put humans on Mars missions.

Let's say you just got out of college. You and your girlfriend get married and get a cozy little cottage-style house. You have a kid. The house gets more cramped. You love each other and have lots of wild sex because it feels good, and... Whoops... she just had twins.... now you've got 3... not to mention the dog... That's okay, we'll get a bigger house or build an addition....

 

Mars is the addition... the other house. It's a matter of need, not want. We can't just hope that the kids all suffer some sort of infant mortality syndrome...

[C1ay]

And I thought it was the US, now backed by some Asians, that have been calling for carbon emission quota tradeability. IOW, legally buying and selling the right to pollute.

 

I agree that Kyoto was insufficient but it was better than schmuck. It was irresponsible of Clinton to call it a thing of the past.

Kyoto accomplishes nothing if polluters can move their operations and keep on doing what they're doing. It is also not necessarily better than schmuck either. It could cause dirty operations in the U.S. to be shut down with dirtier replacement operations opened in China or India thereby increasing pollution. If the goal is to clean up dirty processes then there can't be any wiggle room to move them elsewhere.

[C1ay]

On the topic of man's need to control the world's population or branch out I invite you to take the Ecological Footprint Quiz.

 

It yielded a requirement of 13 acres to support me according to my lifestyle and needs. While this is approximately half of the U.S. average of 24 acres it still means we would need 2.8 Earths of land if everyone lived like me. This means the world is already well on it's way to being overpopulated.

[InfiniteNow]

It yielded a requirement of 13 acres to support me according to my lifestyle and needs. While this is approximately half of the U.S. average of 24 acres it still means we would need 2.8 Earths of land if everyone lived like me. This means the world is already well on it's way to being overpopulated.

Very interesting quiz... although I too scored a 13, I never realized how big my "feet" really were... or, contrarily, how small they were relative to the average.

[TheBigDog]

On the topic of man's need to control the world's population or branch out I invite you to take the Ecological Footprint Quiz.

 

It yielded a requirement of 13 acres to support me according to my lifestyle and needs. While this is approximately half of the U.S. average of 24 acres it still means we would need 2.8 Earths of land if everyone lived like me. This means the world is already well on it's way to being overpopulated.

I took 26 acres and I feel constrained! I am always leary of this type of survey on a site with a predefined agenda. The science behind the calculations would be interesting to see.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

So why won't the White House release photos of the president and Jack Abramoff? He said it himself, he gets his picture taken ( :( grip 'n' grin :( ) with lots and lots of folks here barely knows.

 

 

Do they truly have something to hide that the pictures might reveal?

Or, is this some sort of tactic to divert attention from the actual issue at hand? :dog: (what I might call a common theme in government).

 

"Oooh... just tell them that you won't release the photos. That'll get 'em all riled up and they will be so busy attacking that issue for a day or two that we'll have time to clean up the actual evidence and come up with a better cover story..." :)

 

 

Okay, perhaps it's both, but I guess I made my opinion pretty clear. :(

 

Any other thoughts?

[CraigD]

On the topic of man's need to control the world's population or branch out I invite you to take the Ecological Footprint Quiz. …

I got 28 acres – over the US average. Odd, as I don’t buy meat (thought I’ll eat it when other people offer it), and use cars only for trips beyond my region’s mass transit system (though when I do, it’s a gawdawful 20 MPG minivan!).

 

I seem to have taken a beating because I’m in a 50-year-old stand-alone house (2800 ft^2, next to the top of the survey, though not what I’d call a big house) with one other person – all children moved out. It’s pretty energy efficient – recently installed high SERE rating heating/cooling, masonry walls, good insulation, needs no daytime lighting – but not enough that I felt I could claim it as “enviro-designed”. I think I erred in saying Washington DC has weather like New York. Also, since my neighbors are greens, nuns (!) and other low-consumers, I was compelled to answer that I generated “about the same” amount of waste.

 

I took a similar survey years ago, and got a much better rating. I’m suspicious of the quiz’s formula.

[Boerseun]

Sheesh...:(

 

14.2 Hectares, or 9.3 EARTHS!!!:(

 

I should cut down on the beef, I guess...:(

[Qfwfq]

Here are my results: :(

 

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

 

FOOD 0.8

 

MOBILITY 0.1

 

SHELTER 0.6

 

GOODS/SERVICES 0.8

 

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 2.3

 

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 3.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

 

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

 

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.3 PLANETS.

 

Very interesting C1ay, thanks for the link!

 

Concerning Kyoto, I repeat: I agree that it schtincks but that means it should be improved, not that it should be trashed. I find emissions trading absolutely diabolic despite the fact that, as it seems, I could sell my own personal excess quota quite handsomely!!! :( Actually, I'd never dream of it, I'd rather tell Bush and Clinton to live the way I do and I certainly consider it improvable myself. One thing I regret is driving an old crate of a car (no passengers) to catch my trains but currently there are, unfortunately, reasons.

 

I certainly disagree with moving dirty activity to India and China and a "better Kyoto" certainly shouldn't allow it but I'll point out that, after a phase like the western industrial revolution but much quicker, they can now afford our step of heeding environmental concerns and they are already starting to be coerced in this direction.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Interesting quiz. It's fairly obvious what the "right" answers are though. Odd thing is that they seem to be mutually exclusive. For example, I live in a small town - thus I spend a lot of time in the car. There is no public transportation for me to ride, but I do get to eat locally grown food. There are no "row houses" or "apartments" to live in, and none of those cities are close to my weather. (Where is Atlanta? And it is actually penalizing you for having running water and electricity?!)

 

Anyway, 28 hectares.

 

I think you get lower scores for living outside a major metropolitan area in an industrialized country.

 

TFS