buy me a car
2006-09-27 11:31:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by enord 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Kyoto treaty is an anti-American piece of crap. It makes requirements on the US but not China and Russia. It is unfair and will never happen. Just another way for the rest of the world to tear us down.
Also, Global warming is at best a theory. It is neither provable or not provable. To equate humans cause it is a fraud. The proof is that we do not have enough statistical data on temperature to conclude anything. We have about 200-300 years of recorded data and hundreds of millions of years of existence. The margin of error is greater than any proposed increase in temperature. Too many people throw around polls and do not accurately report them. For example, a person's approval ratings are up 2 points, yet the margin of error is 3.6%. There is no change statistically.
More importantly, liberals and the environmentalists think they can regulate behavior ie force people to conserve. We are a growing economy and need to use more and more energy. Conserving will not work when demand goes up. Supply and demand.
I went into these points because there will be liberals who go into these topics on this question. They are so predictable.
2006-09-27 18:45:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chainsaw 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think sovereignty is an important issue not being discussed here. We ask third world countries to improve their economies and human rights and transparencies, and then tell them they can't contribute more pollutants (which is what an industrial/economic revolution usually implies).
I also think you can't tell businesses to run their businesses less profitably, because of some relatively unsubstantiated link between their specific businesses and the detriment of the environment. As human population grows, that extrapolated effect on the environment is of much more concern than the industrialized world's shrinking contribution to global pollutants. The burning of Brazilian forests and overfishing of our oceans are never really called out, just the gas guzzling of America, yet the air quality in Mexico, China, Russia and other industrialized nations is substantially inferior. So I don't get it.
I would drive a high-efficiency vehicle if there were any available (I'm talking 50+ MPG). I also believe that the needless office presence of an ever-growing service sector workforce is hurting the US environment. With laptops, cell phones, wireless internet and video-conferencing so prevalent, why do we need to drive to work if we have office jobs? To support commercial real estate investors or the mistrust of corporate executives or the satisfaction of fossil fuel producers? There are many things we can do within the current technological paradigm to address fossil fuel consumption (including using more diesel/bio-diesel and light rail).
Kyoto is a well-intentioned motion, but it trashes sovereignty. Yes we live on ONE planet, but there's nothing that should subject us all to ONE government. That's dangerous and even worse for humanity's evolution and future than global pollution. Continued investment in technology will yield better energy sources and results. We can set artificial caps on pollution, but then pollution credits eliminate the real reduction in pollutants because they make it ok to pollute up to a certain point (versus making ALL pollution undesirable).
I like my car, it's my comfort zone, and where I decompress (akin to the cowboy's steed on the range, it's where people have their only chance to take a breath and think, or just listen to music or something). I don't want further global pollution, but on the other hand, I don't want to ride my donkey 50 miles to the nearest Trader Joe's. Sorry.
2006-09-27 18:43:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by rohannesian 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I feel YOU use too much oil, thus driving up the price. _I_ use just the right amount, thank you very much.
And don't call me a sniveling hypocrite. I haven't sniveled in a long time.
2006-09-27 18:48:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by mcmustang1992 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Everybody in the entire world wants the Americans to stop wasting oil. It is a finite resource and the Americans are consuming too much needlessly.
2006-09-27 18:40:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by LongJohns 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
remember the Laforce bros. engine from back in the 1970s?it was a standard g.m.350 they easily modified to get 80 mpg. who bought their patents?the technology is out there. oil companies are suppressing it.
2006-09-27 18:40:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
All run on Ethenol. I own some ethenol stocks.
Men can run real fast on ethanol
2006-09-27 18:32:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by lal 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
You use too much of most things in the USA to be honest.
Wake up.
2006-09-27 18:31:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
NO!!!! NO!!!!
2006-09-27 18:31:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Vagabond5879 7
·
2⤊
1⤋