The Bush vs Kerry Debate

Quote:

---

The most likely scenario for Iraq (I assume this being the only reason you are concerned since you live in a foreign country)

---

Iraq is pretty much a committed concern now for all the countries involved including America.

What I watch with interest is Bush's foreign policy for his second term after the first term was a total disaster.

I mean who invites the Swiss navy to the White House? (for those who don't know: Switzerland is a land-locked country)

I hope that Bush changes his policy to climate change. I understand that many States already have started implementing policies to help - but let's be honest: America contribtes 25% of pollution to the world with only a minor fraction of the world's population - your federal government needs to get involved now.Time for you to ditch those 10litre tanks you lot keep driving around in. I hope that Blair leans hard on Bush early next year.

I hope that Bush doesn't get involved in business practices that allow films like 911 farenheit to get made.

I hope that Bush cancels the US income that is based on third-world debt. A US company is currently selling seeds to Africa that cannot be regerminated meaning that poor African countries have to buy the seeds every year.

In general I hope he completely revises his outlook to the rest of the world.

Yea. I agree Bush sucks at foreign policy.

As far as the US being top polluters, we also use the most energy, produce the most crop, and have some of the largest forested areas in the world. US passenger vehicles are not the source of our co2 emissions the world is concerned with. To that extent, the Bush administration followed through with Clinton's initiative to reduce diesel emissions by 99% in just about every diesel engine (lawnmowers, tractors, shipping trailers) minus large ocean vessels.


The bottom line here is that about 38% of total annual emissions come from electricity production.

It's the coal plants and yes, Bush has been lax on that industry (or any energy industry for that matter). But all free rides come to an end, so hopefully their *****footing will be halted in Washington.

Americas main problem is cars. Whats the lowest cc engine you can get in America 1.6???

Fuel is so cheap there that 20MPG is considered good in America :afrog:

Don't know if anyone else spotted THIS

Interesting comparison of how states voted & their average IQ :eek:

(author's note: I'm not trying to be inflametory and the data may be flawed)

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm

Makes a little sense, makes a little sense . . .

http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm

Here's the full table.

Asside from the fact politicians are suppossed to be some of the more intelligent elements of a society and they cock up more often than the average joe :afrog:

I dont really like Bush but I wont sink down to slagging off everyone who has an independant opinion :mad:

Sorry not you people but anyone who looks for this kind of thing to post on the web or bring to the worlds attention :D

. . . and those that read it anyway, and post replies :D

:cry: :lol:

:duck:;)

Anyone hear about "Operation Clark County"?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136447,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...326033,00.html



:wave:

Ah I see they've already banned sense of humour in the US. It's probably against the Bible and should not be taught to children. Or adults for that matter.

Whoops... :)

And evolution. Don't forget evolution!

All stats from Nationmaster.com

Co2 emissions

Us = 5.76 million (thousand metric tons) (25.4%)
Europe = 4.17 million (thousand metric tons) (18.3%)
World Total= 22.7 million (thousand metric tons)

Now, recall forests are proven carbon sinks.

The Us has a total land area of 9.1 million sq km, 24.9% of which is designated as forested land = 2,228,000 sq km of forest (carbon sinks). Remember, a large portion of the US southwest is desert.

Europe has a total land area of 4.97 million sq km, with 29% designated as forested land = 1,491,000 sq km of forest (carbon sink).

Now also factor in US cities were developed openly, which means they occupy larger masses of area than a typical European city. This equates to further traveling distance to areas of employment, shopping, etc.

Now we get a better view of how the US stands compared to Europe. I think most Americans would love to cut co2 emissions, but I think most are also hedging their future on alternative technology.

Truly the question now is how fast fuel-cell technology can develop to replace fossil fuels, because the US economy depends on it.

That's odd: nearly every other C02 estimate I can find (apart from your source) put the CO2 emissions from the US in excess of what you've posted.

Quote:

---

With only 4 percent of the population, the United States now produces 25 percent of annual CO2 emissions -- 6.7 billion metric tons annually

---

climatestar.org

Factor in ALL greenhouse gases:

Quote:

---

By 1996, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions had risen to 1,753 million metric tons carbon equivalent, including 1,463 million metric tons of carbon emissions from energy combustion. EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 1998 (AEO98) projects that energy-related carbon emissions will reach 1,577 million metric tons in 2000, 17 percent above the 1990 level. Projected emissions continue to rise at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent a year from 1996 to 2010, reaching 1,803 million metric tons of carbon emissions in 2010, 34 percent above the 1990 level.

---

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004686.html

I'm sure that you will agree that being only 4% of the worlds population, yet contributing 25% of greenhouse gases is a bit of an issue . . .

coupled with how fast Iter can be built and deliver what it's promised.

Quotes are less powerful than statistics, which is why I refer to nationmaster. This thread turned into a debate about the Kyota pact, which deals with Co2 emissions.

The percentage of our population does not concern me, as I point out, Europe would fall in to that same category. What you are missing in the equation is the production of both economies. These are energy-intensive economies so therefore it would be expected co2 emissions would be higher.

But why oh why oh why does a small man in America need a 2 litre car when a man in Europe can do with a 700cc :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
But why oh why oh why does a small man in America need a 2 litre car when a man in Europe can do with a 700cc :confused:

---

Why does any small man need a big car? ;)

I wouldnt know I am a BIIIIG man :lol:

They call me Yr 'Hung like shire-horse' Wyddfa in these parts . . .

that bit you could never make out was 'a long dead'

AKA
'Hung like a long dead shire-horse' :afrog:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nemaroller
All stats from Nationmaster.com

Co2 emissions

Us = 5.76 million (thousand metric tons) (25.4%)
Europe = 4.17 million (thousand metric tons) (18.3%)
World Total= 22.7 million (thousand metric tons)

Now, recall forests are proven carbon sinks.

The Us has a total land area of 9.1 million sq km, 24.9% of which is designated as forested land = 2,228,000 sq km of forest (carbon sinks). Remember, a large portion of the US southwest is desert.

Europe has a total land area of 4.97 million sq km, with 29% designated as forested land = 1,491,000 sq km of forest (carbon sink).

Now also factor in US cities were developed openly, which means they occupy larger masses of area than a typical European city. This equates to further traveling distance to areas of employment, shopping, etc.

Now we get a better view of how the US stands compared to Europe. I think most Americans would love to cut co2 emissions, but I think most are also hedging their future on alternative technology.

Truly the question now is how fast fuel-cell technology can develop to replace fossil fuels, because the US economy depends on it.

---

I'm not sure where you're going with this? Canada has larger forrested areas and produces about a tenth of the polution (which is actually about on proportion per capita with the states) yet it signed up for Kyoto? Sorry, I just don't see what the forrests have to do with anything... maybe I'm missing something...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

edit:
Also, they were both members of the Skull and Bones Frat back in Yale~:bigyello:

---

Yea i know, some choice the globalists give us eh?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
But why oh why oh why does a small man in America need a 2 litre car when a man in Europe can do with a 700cc :confused:

---

LOL. The European cars are sooooo small. lol. In America we require leg room and most babies are made in the backseat of American cars. ;) lol. BTW a cramped car fuels quick tempers.

America is starting to advertise hybrid vehicles (sp?) though. Sometimes you can blame the politicians for things and sometimes the citizens. But in this case the citizens. Americans aren't really stubborn (as most people would like me to say ;) ), but are picky about their money. Why blame them? Money decides almost everything here. I don't think the government should get involved. If the gov't gets involved you have a lot of pissed off Americans and the politicians pushing the laws would undoubtedly get voted out of office. So I would say blame the citizens.

Keep in mind though. A lot of people simply don't have the money for hybrid cars/trucks. SUV's are almost symbols of how much money you have (which I think is stupid). I will probably never own an SUV.

Again I wouldn't want a European car because they are so friggin small. I mean...I need room!!! But eh, America is in a bit of a predicament if you ask me. You dont want to piss off the people. If you are really into American politics you know what I mean. Most democrats would like to push gov't programs and make the people change. Most republicans want fewer gov't programs. So the elected official that gets in pushes certain issues. As you know.

Size of the car doesn't mean much for leg room. I'm fairly tall (6' 3"), and like leg room myself. One of the roomiest cars in the US is also one of the smallest: the new VW bug. Those suckers are pretty small, pretty mediocre, but they have HUGE amounts of leg room for the front seats.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
I'm not sure where you're going with this? Canada has larger forrested areas and produces about a tenth of the polution (which is actually about on proportion per capita with the states) yet it signed up for Kyoto? Sorry, I just don't see what the forrests have to do with anything... maybe I'm missing something...

---

Canada has 26% forested areas (frozen tundras do not constitute a forest) compared to the US 25%. Canada is also far smaller in terms of economy - which means it requires less energy, which means less Co2 emissions.

Economy Size
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...pp&id=ca&id=us

Co2 emissions
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...mi&id=ca&id=us

Where I am going with all this is the US has a large carbon sink within its borders, so many politicans use this as an argument against Kyoto, determining that our amount of Co2 gases contributed globaly are not accurately reflected due to the existence of our carbon sinks.

Now, I'm mr green environment, don't get me wrong. I just think its unrealistic for the world to assume the US will sign on to Kyoto at the expense of its already fragile economy (recession in 2000, slow job growth, and high fuel costs).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Size of the car doesn't mean much for leg room. I'm fairly tall (6' 3"), and like leg room myself. One of the roomiest cars in the US is also one of the smallest: the new VW bug. Those suckers are pretty small, pretty mediocre, but they have HUGE amounts of leg room for the front seats.

---

They may have driver side leg room, the backseats are small compared to regular sedans, and the trunk is basically non-existent. Which is important for anyone that has children what with the strollers, highchairs, play toys, etc...

The VW bug is a compact car by design, so I'm not knocking because it suceeds its design goals, but its no Buick, Lexus, or minivan either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nemaroller
Canada has 26% forested areas (frozen tundras do not constitute a forest) compared to the US 25%. Canada is also far smaller in terms of economy - which means it requires less energy, which means less Co2 emissions.

Economy Size
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...pp&id=ca&id=us

Co2 emissions
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...mi&id=ca&id=us

Where I am going with all this is the US has a large carbon sink within its borders, so many politicans use this as an argument against Kyoto, determining that our amount of Co2 gases contributed globaly are not accurately reflected due to the existence of our carbon sinks.

Now, I'm mr green environment, don't get me wrong. I just think its unrealistic for the world to assume the US will sign on to Kyoto at the expense of its already fragile economy (recession in 2000, slow job growth, and high fuel costs).

---

Thanks for explaining that. I wasn't sure what the tie up was, but that makes sense. However, the logic is a bit flawed in that there are other Kyoto countries with proportionally larger carbon sinks (such as Canada or Russia) which are signing onto Kyoto.

As for the economy, I don't think the politicians can blame emmissions control for crashing it or for holding it down when many of the Kyoto sign ups economies are still relatively boyant.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nemaroller
They may have driver side leg room, the backseats are small compared to regular sedans, and the trunk is basically non-existent. Which is important for anyone that has children what with the strollers, highchairs, play toys, etc...

The VW bug is a compact car by design, so I'm not knocking because it suceeds its design goals, but its no Buick, Lexus, or minivan either.

---

Not only that, but I wont be the first to deny Americans want bigger and faster. We do. We want the best, and I do mean BEST for what we pay. Can't fault America for that. That is one of the main reasons things wont change.

I disagree with us wanting the BEST. Best by what category? I want the best feul efficiency, but that sure isn't what SUV drivers want. I want very high reliability, but no American car company puts out cars that can compare with a few of the Japanese makers for reliability, but plenty of Fords, Dodges, and Chevys are sold each year.

Frankly, I have no clue what drives Americans, but one thing appears clear: If we do not have a challenge to face, we suck! Even when we face serious competition, we start out by whining about how unfair it is, before we actually do something about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Thanks for explaining that. I wasn't sure what the tie up was, but that makes sense. However, the logic is a bit flawed in that there are other Kyoto countries with proportionally larger carbon sinks (such as Canada or Russia) which are signing onto Kyoto.

Russia is signing on because part of the deal is they get to become a member of the WTO. So its a no-lose situation for them. Will them meet the Kyoto goals? I severly doubt it.


As for the economy, I don't think the politicians can blame emmissions control for crashing it or for holding it down when many of the Kyoto sign ups economies are still relatively boyant.

Yes, but signing up doesn't mean they are incurring the costs presently. Those costs are yet to come. Emissions controls drive energy costs up, which trickles down to the cost of just about everything you can imagine. Perhaps not in state-run utilities like much of the rest of the world, but in a free-market, the consumer will always foot the bill.

---

Quote:

---

Emissions controls drive energy costs up

---

Not neccessarily. Hydro and Nuclear both provide clean power (however both are highly constrained by severly limiting factors).

The easiest way to reduce pollution from coal fired stations is to reduce the amount of power required from them. For instance local solar panels on office buildings which provide 20-30% of the power during the working day (no loss due to transmission etc.) Lights which turn off at night (these are now commonly implemented though, so maybe not much to be gained there anymore), smart computers/equipment which hibernate when not being used. None of these ideas are new, I read about them 15 years ago, but there still not being implemented because the incentive isn't there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
I disagree with us wanting the BEST. Best by what category? I want the best feul efficiency, but that sure isn't what SUV drivers want. I want very high reliability, but no American car company puts out cars that can compare with a few of the Japanese makers for reliability, but plenty of Fords, Dodges, and Chevys are sold each year.

Frankly, I have no clue what drives Americans, but one thing appears clear: If we do not have a challenge to face, we suck! Even when we face serious competition, we start out by whining about how unfair it is, before we actually do something about it.

---

Actually, there are many owners of American cars that have gotten good mileage out of their cars. You can check the defect rates as of late, and the difference between Japanese and American automobiles is so microscopic, its a bias based on the models of 1980's.

The difference is in perceived quality. Japanese models typically cost more, because they use higher quality materials. For those unable to afford those type of vehicles, American models filled that gap. For example, you could buy a Mini cooper or Chevy Cavalier. I think we both know which one uses cheap plastic. And we both know which one sells for hella less.

You don't need a chrome radio knob, but it makes it appear the vehicle is better quality. The question is - do you want to pay extra for it? Most American models sell because they fulfill the basic need and don't cost you as much up front.

Ford's F-series trucks were the biggest cash cow for Ford, because previously Japanese automakers never understood that the people who buy those trucks need ample horsepower, and more importantly, sufficient towing capacity and torque.

Ford now understands that perhaps those people want a quality-looking interior, and its on par with the likes of Nissan Titan:

http://www.fordvehicles.com/kingranch/

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Not neccessarily. Hydro and Nuclear both provide clean power (however both are highly constrained by severly limiting factors).

The easiest way to reduce pollution from coal fired stations is to reduce the amount of power required from them. For instance local solar panels on office buildings which provide 20-30% of the power during the working day (no loss due to transmission etc.) Lights which turn off at night (these are now commonly implemented though, so maybe not much to be gained there anymore), smart computers/equipment which hibernate when not being used. None of these ideas are new, I read about them 15 years ago, but there still not being implemented because the incentive isn't there.

---

Do you have any idea how much that would cost!? (Solar Panel prices have gone down, but not by much. I think it is around $200 to $1000 for a single panel.

Costly, but each little bit you save counts. Doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Not neccessarily. Hydro and Nuclear both provide clean power (however both are highly constrained by severly limiting factors).

The easiest way to reduce pollution from coal fired stations is to reduce the amount of power required from them. For instance local solar panels on office buildings which provide 20-30% of the power during the working day (no loss due to transmission etc.) Lights which turn off at night (these are now commonly implemented though, so maybe not much to be gained there anymore), smart computers/equipment which hibernate when not being used. None of these ideas are new, I read about them 15 years ago, but there still not being implemented because the incentive isn't there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Do you have any idea how much that would cost!? (Solar Panel prices have gone down, but not by much. I think it is around $200 to $1000 for a single panel.

---

local schools here has solarpanels, a lots of office buildings and private houses got them. My parents got solarpanels on there house the last 20 years. 50 meters from where I work the appartmentblocks is partly powered with solar enegy. In some parts of the world it is possible


:D

I don't even wear clothes. I wear solar panels. I'm a walking battery. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nemaroller
Chevy Cavalier.

---

You spelled Vauxhall wrong :lol: But you are right about them sucking.