That is why Americans spend literally billions of dollars to protect and help fund the rehabilitation of endangered species from becoming extinct ones here and around the world. Wait! We’re suppose to be the Ecological Axis of Evil! This would be contradicting ourselves and I say let’s kill ‘em all! :roll:

@TG:

For the cost of Kyoto for one year, we could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every human being on earth.

to all the 2 billion people that don’t have it at the moment? Could you please back up your claim, and give your thoughts on “how long” will htese ppl have access to clean water?

@TG:

Backward thinking neighbors, eh? So every your country will earmark more than $4.6 billion over the next five years in tax credits for enewable-energy investments such as wind and solar power and energy-efficiency projects? So your country will spend hundreds of millions-billons on nuclear fusion research each year? So every other country should have more wind turbines and solar cells installed than in the United States? So you will donate more than $6.4 billon to environmental groups around the world? Of course, America is the “Ecological Axis of :evil:” – so disregard all of that. We secretly want to destroy the planet and don’t give a damn about the environment! Oh, how good it is to live the life of the “Ecological Axis of Evil.” :P

So that is more that (4.6 + 6.4) billions plus at least one for fusion tech…
that’s at least 11 billions for that. Can you give a benchmark of other spendings by the US gov?
How many wind turbines are there in the US? How much power do you get out of renewable sources? (In absolute numbers (Watts), relative to the total production and per capita please).

Numbers may sound great, but you need to have numbers to compare them to to get the real picture.

@Xi:

…

lots of claims. Not a singel source or back up.

I claim: you are a liar. All you say is nonsense. I give as much proof for this as you give for your opinion.

You claim scientists work by guessing, but you are not working properly (scientific) yourself when claiming stuff. Please, tell us where you get your stuff from. If it is from www.thereisnopollutionintheworld.com then suddenly your claims would look much less believable

The US had eliminated 98% of it’s 1974 automobile emisssions by 1992.

Standing alone, this is close to lying.
It sounds like: In 1992 all the cars in the US put only 2% of the stuff into the air that they put there in 1974. That cannot be.
Please, back up your claim!

In 1925 environmentalists said we would run out of oil in 20 years(1945).
In 1945 environmentalists said we would run out of oil in 30 years(1975).
In 1970 environmentalists said we would run out of oil in 100 years(2070).
In 1995 environmentalists said we would run out of oil in 200 years(2195).
Sounds like we’ve found more oil and become more efficient in its’ use.

Where do you get this quotes from?
Esp. where did you get the 1195 quote from.
Did you ever think of what happens once we run out of oil? Did it ever cross your mind how long it took nature to make it, and how we burn through it, using it for heating, while we could make the most amazing polymers out of it?

F_kquote -
“axis of ecological evil”
Oh, how original!
Sound like the Have Nots complaining again.

It’s not my idea. Follow the news.
And of course the the Have Nots complain, as they have not because of the haves who took it. (oversimplified, my last hope you can understand that now!)

Mt. Pinatubo(sp?) spewed more pollution in one shot than the US did in the last 100 years. The Earth cleaned it up in 2 years. …

For this and the others things: How do you know? Where do you get that from? Why are those sources more reliable than the “guessing environmentalists” ?
Am i the first one to complain that you are bloody poor debater?

F_Squote,
“CO2 Metric tons per capita - 1996”
Lawn grasses and weeds produce CO2 in large quantities. The US has more weeds and lawn grasses than these countries. Oh, I almost forgot! We also produce and export a great quantity of items, too.And how about China and India’s production/pollution today?

India and China will become even worse than the US once they consume as much…. when everyone there needs his climatized home with automatic watering for the lawn during midday and a car for each member of the family…
And your lawn argument is silly. Any chlorophyllic plants bind CO2, and bind more during the day than they produce during the night. Take any biology book for that.

to all the 2 billion people that don’t have it at the moment? Could you please back up your claim, and give your thoughts on “how long” will htese ppl have access to clean water?

Sure. The statement was made by Bjorn Lomborg in his the book, The Skeptical Enironmentalists. If you interested, I suggest checking out the book itself. However, the statement has been used in other articles as Time and National Geographic. For the gist of it, for the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will be U.S. $150 billion to $350 billion annually (compared to $50 billion in global annual development aid). With global warming hurting primarily Third World countries, we have to ask if the Kyoto treaty is the best way to help them. The answer is no. The cost of meeting the Kyoto treaty for just one year would be enough to solve the biggest problem in the world—we could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every person on the globe. This would save two million lives each year and prevent half a billion people from contracting a severe disease. In fact, for the same amount the Kyoto Protocol would have cost just the U.S. every year, the UN estimates that we could provide every person in the world with access to basic health, education, family planning, and water and sanitation services. Wouldn’t this be a better way of serving the world?

We need to focus more on development than on sustainability. Development not only possesses intrinsic value but in the long run it will lead the Third World to become more concerned about the environment. Only when people are rich enough to feed themselves do they worry about the environment and future generations. Focusing more on sustainability can easily result in prioritizing future generations at the expense of current generations, which is a backward way of solving our problems. In contrast, focusing on development has the advantage of both helping people today and creating the foundation for a better tomorrow.

Also, that numbr is 2.4 billion - damned that Ecological Axis of Evil!

So that is more that (4.6 + 6.4) billions plus at least one for fusion tech…
that’s at least 11 billions for that. Can you give a benchmark of other spendings by the US gov?

Oh please, all powerful German Government, we don’t know what to do! Please save us from becoming the Ecological Axis of Evil. Please, tell us how much your government spends on alternative energy in relation to total spending! Please, tell how much we should spent without significantly hurting the economy! Oh the terrible life of the Axis of Ecological Evil…

How many wind turbines are there in the US? How much power do you get out of renewable sources? (In absolute numbers (Watts), relative to the total production and per capita please).

Nearly 1,700 megawatts was from wind farms built across the U.S.
Wind energy output has increased a 66% last year with an additional $3 billion in windpower projects at work. Of course the wind production is relative from each year. Relative to total production, wind energy in California is about 1.27 percent of the state’s production of electricity in 2000, including imports from Southwest United States and the Pacific Northwest. Over 13,000 wind turbines in California alone. Relative to per capita, new, utility-scale, wind projects are being built all around the United States today with energy costs ranging from 3.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (at very windy sites in Texas) to 5 cents or more (in the Pacific Northwest). This is to compete at $0.015 to $0.03 per kilowatt-hour against for current generators, but government hopes to slash price of wind at $0.025 per kilowatt-hour as stated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Additionally, U.S. Department of Energy recently announced the Wind Powering America initiative with goals to power at least 5% of the nation’s electricity with wind by 2020, increase the number of states with more than 20 megawatts of wind to 16 by 2005 and 24 by 2010, and increase federal use of wind energy to 5% by 2010. But behind this is the secret Ecological Axis of Evil AKA the United States ready to destroy the ecological world. Save us!

I don’t think renewable energy is worth the investment. Too expensive, too selective. Hydro electric energy is good where you can dam it, but the damn dams are hard to get, and distrupt the envirment and people living around the damn river.

Nuclear energy is the way to go. Once we develope a way of getting rid of the waste, its very clean and we have almost unlimited Uranium.

This kind of reminds me how Fisternis was telling us how that the majority of French were no longer Catholic and that the number of Budhists in France had more than quadrupled.

Here in Washington we have lots of Damns and a large Nuclear power plant. Most of our energy is from them rather than coal, gas or oil.

@Yanny:

I don’t think renewable energy is worth the investment. Too expensive, too selective. … Nuclear energy is the way to go. Once we develope a way of getting rid of the waste, its very clean and we have almost unlimited Uranium.

I like the “once we develop” and “almost unlimited”.
Renewable energy is clean, and unlimited in the sense that it only stops once (a) the earth stops turning or (b) the sun stops burning :)

Therefore, i prefer renewable energy (plus fusion once we have that).

@TG:

Sure. The statement was made by Bjorn Lomborg in his the book, The Skeptical Enironmentalists. If you interested, I suggest checking out the book itself.

Thanks for that. I doubt i find the time for that in the near future though…

However, the statement has been used in other articles as Time and National Geographic. For the gist of it, for the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will be U.S. $150 billion to $350 billion annually (compared to $50 billion in global annual development aid). With global warming hurting primarily Third World countries, we have to ask if the Kyoto treaty is the best way to help them. The answer is no.

Though it seesm i have to read it, as i do not believe these numbers at all. Does it take into account the investments that have to be made to get the country complying, the jobs these investments create, the technological advancements that have to be made (which need investment, but lead to new industries etc)? Does it take into account money/costs that at the moment are hidden somewhere but have a clearly ecological background?
The cost for truck diesel for example: Does it take into account that heavy trucks are the number one road-killers? which means that without / fewer trucks you would need less repairing of streets / highways?
This would suddenly make railways much more competible (sp?)… yet this “hidden” cost is taken away from the trucks and put on whoever maintains the roads (the public here in germany).
It sounds to me that this book does look at costs without noticing that a “cost” sometimes is an “investment”.

The cost of meeting the Kyoto treaty for just one year would be enough to solve the biggest problem in the world—… Wouldn’t this be a better way of serving the world?

Well, if one of those was done…… but before nothing is done, i prefer money spent on Kyoto :)…

We need to focus more on development than on sustainability. … Only when people are rich enough to feed themselves do they worry about the environment and future generations. …

Unfortunately, what you state is only a possibility. It would be nicer if one would necessarily lead to the otehr, e.g. once you have enough to eat, you necessarily start to worry about the environment. Sadly, that’s not the case.

that’s at least 11 billions for that. Can you give a benchmark of other spendings by the US gov?

Oh please, all powerful German Government, we don’t know what to do! Please save us from becoming the Ecological Axis of Evil. Please, tell us how much your government spends on alternative energy in relation to total spending! Please, tell how much we should spent without significantly hurting the economy! Oh the terrible life of the Axis of Ecological Evil…

:P
i just downloaded the budget of the Federal Republic of Germany……
…damn… and i will work through it when you do the same for the US :) … way too much work to get through those statistics :)

How many wind turbines are there in the US? How much power do you get out of renewable sources? (In absolute numbers (Watts), relative to the total production and per capita please).

Nearly 1,700 megawatts was from wind farms built across the U.S.
Wind energy output has increased a 66% last year with an additional $3 billion in windpower projects at work. Relative to total production, wind energy in California is about 1.27 percent of the state’s production of electricity in 2000
… Additionally, U.S. Department of Energy recently announced the Wind Powering America initiative with goals to power at least 5% of the nation’s electricity with wind by 2020, increase the number of states with more than 20 megawatts of wind to 16 by 2005 and 24 by 2010, and increase federal use of wind energy to 5% by 2010.

So, let’s compare this to germany:
The aim is to double the amount / ratio of regenartive energies to the year 2010.
In 1999/2000 6% of electrical power produced came from these sources, at the end of 2002 it will be 8%
We had 17.8 TWh of electrical power in 2001 from renewable sources, 11 TWh from wind. the energy producers think in 2002 it will be 21 TWh from those sources.
About one third of all wind farms of the world are in germany:
at the end of 2001 a power of 8750 MW was installed, another 1100 were added till Juli 2002. 2.3 % of the electrical power was wind produced in 2001.
So germany produces more than 5 times more wind energy than the US.

@F_alk:

I like the “once we develop” and “almost unlimited”.
Renewable energy is clean, and unlimited in the sense that it only stops once (a) the earth stops turning or (b) the sun stops burning :)

Therefore, i prefer renewable energy (plus fusion once we have that).

However, it will take more money to develope efficient means of renewable energy. The Sun will not always burn, its called night. Wind energy can only be developed in places where, you guessed it, wind exists. Hydroelectric energy requires a huge dam, and impacts the enviroment like no other form.

Nuclear energy is developed, clean, practically unlimited, and produces a vast amount of cheap energy.

Though it seesm i have to read it, as i do not believe these numbers at all. Does it take into account the investments that have to be made to get the country complying, the jobs these investments create, the technological advancements that have to be made (which need investment, but lead to new industries etc)?

No doubt it will create new jobs, but at the rate of those found unemployed? Probably not. Always, what type of entry levels are available for entry level jobs in alternative energies? What degrees are required? What training? As for the numbers, those were taken from National Geographic (feel free to stop in some time). Though Energy Information Administration, predicts that if the United States is required to achieve stabilization at the 1990-7% levels without Annex I trading and no credit for sinks and offsets, the estimates of carbon prices required in 2010 range from a low of $221 per metric ton to $348 per metric ton, with the vast majority in the $265 to $295 per metric ton range. Actual GDP losses are projected to range from $102 to $437 billion dollars in 2010 (1996 dollars - inflation). With Annex I trading and credits for sinks and offsets from other gases, the carbon price ranges between $100 per metric ton to $175 per metric ton and the loss of actual GDP ranges between $56 and $207 billion dollars in 2010. Estimates of internationally purchased carbon credits by the U.S. range from 147 to 288 million metric tons.

EIA projects the loss in actual GDP in 2010 to range between $61 billion and $183 billion if revenues are recycled via a reduction in social security taxes, and between $96 billion and $397 billion if they are recycled via a reduction in personal income taxes (1992 dollars - inflation). Again, the economy grows even during the period of adjustment but does not reach the levels of growth in potential GDP.

The total cost to the economy can be estimated as the loss in actual GDP (the loss in potential GDP plus the macroeconomic adjustment cost) plus the purchase of international permits. It is assumed that the U.S. will purchase international permits at the marginal abatement cost in the U.S., i.e., the domestic carbon price. Total costs range from an average annual level for the period 2008 to 2012 of $77 billion to $338 billion 1992 dollars depending on the carbon reduction case and how funds are recycled back to the economy. Again, assuming if the economy continues to grow, but does not reach potential peak. For additional information, try refering to this graph http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/refcases.html

Well, if one of those was done…… but before nothing is done, i prefer money spent on Kyoto …

Not my cup of tea. I rather give people access to clean water and sanitation than simply cleaning up the air environment. At least there’s a better chance the “have nots” will live - even at the price of the “haves.”

Unfortunately, what you state is only a possibility. It would be nicer if one would necessarily lead to the otehr, e.g. once you have enough to eat, you necessarily start to worry about the environment. Sadly, that’s not the case.

Tell me, do you have enough to eat? Do you worry about the environment? If it is not the case then, not enough to eat = more care for the environment? This isn’t just about having enough to eat. It’s about providing people with better opportunities when they wouldn’t have it themselves. Certainly I would be more to inclined to help someone else if I didn’t have to worry about myself. If I die early - why should I care what happens to the environment or not? Of course, I’m a pagan Ecological Axis of Evil so I can’t have feelings about nature and the environment.

just downloaded the budget of the Federal Republic of Germany…… …damn… and i will work through it when you do the same for the US … way too much work to get through those statistics

But – but, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil! You owe it to us to show us “The Way” and make everything perfect.

2.3 % of the electrical power was wind produced in 2001.
So germany produces more than 5 times more wind energy than the US.

Only 2.3%? What about the remaining 97.7%? Only 5 times more wind energy than the US? Come on, you can do better than this. Afterall, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil!

Wind power really isnt the solution. Its not as large scale as other power sources. However, maybe Europe can ease it’s current flooding problem and make electricity )

@TG:

No doubt it will create new jobs, but at the rate of those found unemployed? Probably not. Always, what type of entry levels are available for entry level jobs in alternative energies? What degrees are required? What training?

Usually, inventing any new technology first leads to a decline in the number of jobs, with a later rise. Wether the rise can make up the previous loss is something you can’t fortell. So, your argument is valid for any new technology: the steam engine, the car, the computer, anything….

For the training and the degrees: well, you will need engineers and technicians just as you need engineers and technicians for any power plant, they will need different areas of expertise maybe. You will need office staff like you need office staff for any other company.

But to produce all the wind mills etc. you need to build/assemble them, and then install them. These jobs that come with going for the new
technology are jobs that you won’t get when you stick to the old one.
How much spin-off happens, i can’t tell.

Unfortunately, what you state is only a possibility. It would be nicer if one would necessarily lead to the otehr, e.g. once you have enough to eat, you necessarily start to worry about the environment. Sadly, that’s not the case.

Tell me, do you have enough to eat? Do you worry about the environment? If it is not the case then, not enough to eat = more care for the environment? … Certainly I would be more to inclined to help someone else if I didn’t have to worry about myself. …

What i was saying:
We have
Enough to eat =may=> more care for environment.
I would love to see
Enough to eat =does=> more care for environment

Just as you said: you would be “more inclined”, which doesn’t say you necessarily would.

But – but, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil! You owe it to us to show us “The Way” and make everything perfect.

You are the allmighty, allknowing, wise, superior to everyone, god’s own country, land of the free superpower….
you lead, we follow…

2.3 % of the electrical power was wind produced in 2001.
So germany produces more than 5 times more wind energy than the US.

Only 2.3%? What about the remaining 97.7%? Only 5 times more wind energy than the US? Come on, you can do better than this. Afterall, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil!

The rest are coal, oil, nuclear, gas, water, sun…… mostly the first 4 though.
How much area does the US have, how many ppl?
If you calculate the “per capita” or “per square km”, then it would start to look impressive :)…

And i never said that we don’t have to go forward. 8% renewable energy is nice, but by far not enough. And it doesn’t hurt.

Usually, inventing any new technology first leads to a decline in the number of jobs, with a later rise. Wether the rise can make up the previous loss is something you can’t fortell. So, your argument is valid for any new technology: the steam engine, the car, the computer, anything….

And in the mean time before long-term sustainable development occurrs? What employment will factory workers seeks? I see your reasoning, but remember – the steam engine, the car, and the computer all took time before their respective “revolutions” occurred. Nothing was ever “overnight.” Look at the development of cars before Henry Ford or computers before Jobs and Gates. I see alternative energy as a tremendous boon but one step at a time – wait I’m Ecological Axis of Evil… can’t say that.

For the training and the degrees: well, you will need engineers and technicians just as you need engineers and technicians for any power plant, they will need different areas of expertise maybe. You will need office staff like you need office staff for any other company.

Switching over is not as easy as it sounds. Also many engineers and technicians are well off, though those without advanced degrees aren’t so lucky.

Just as you said: you would be “more inclined”, which doesn’t say you necessarily would.

True. But the possibility of helping, of caring for the environment increases exponentially. Usually people don’t give to charity unless they have something suitable to replace it with.

You are the allmighty, allknowing, wise, superior to everyone, god’s own country, land of the free superpower….
you lead, we follow…

Ha, you wish! ;) What good has US Imperialism done to the rest of the world? Besides, who would want to follow some “Ecological Axis of Evil” hell bent on destroying the world?

The rest are coal, oil, nuclear, gas, water, sun…… mostly the first 4 though.
How much area does the US have, how many ppl?
If you calculate the “per capita” or “per square km”, then it would start to look impressive …

And i never said that we don’t have to go forward. 8% renewable energy is nice, but by far not enough. And it doesn’t hurt.

Only 8% in Germany from renewable energy!? Last time I checked, in America, that number was almost the same for renewable energy (7.5-8%)? You dare stoop down to our level of Ecological Evil? How dare you! :P

Yeah, I know about those people in Claifornia. Those were the same people that didn’t want dams to be built near potentially rewarding hydroelectric sites because of the “effect” on the environment.

As for those US environmentalists at Johannnesburg - tell me, would the imagery of young women, men, and children dying (their bodies carted off and simply buried) add to the environmental atmosphere?

Why offer grain in the first place? Aren’t we suppose to be the Ecological Axis of Evil? :o