At least they admit they want to redistribute the wealth.

Groups Call for Global Warming Control

1 hour, 36 minutes ago Science - AP


By MICHAEL McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Rich countries should do more to control global warming and help poorer nations cope with the effects of climate change, a coalition of aid and environmental groups said Wednesday.

Severe weather such as the recent hurricanes in the Caribbean or flooding in Bangladesh is likely to become more frequent as a result of global warming, the coalition said in a report released in London. Climate change also causes damage in more gradual ways, for example by creating longer droughts that harm subsistence farmers.


Such changes could undermine advances in development and prevent countries raising themselves out of poverty, according to the report.


"Decades of progress and development can be wiped out overnight," said a spokeswoman for the New Economics Foundation, the think-tank that released the report.


Other groups including Oxfam, ActionAid, Friends of the Earth (news - web sites), Greenpeace and World Vision contributed to the report.


The document called for a global risk assessment to determine the likely cost to poor countries of adapting to climate change, and urged rich nations to provide funds for "the increasing burden" of climate-related disaster relief.


The report said industrialized countries should cut emissions of greenhouse gasses — which are believed to trap heat in the atmosphere, warming the Earth — by 60 percent to 80 percent by the middle of the century, relative to 1990 levels. The Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) calls for an average 5.2 percent reduction from 1990 levels by industrialized countries by 2012.


Tackling climate change doesn't have to hamper economic growth in those developing countries that are becoming more industrialized, the NEF spokeswoman said, speaking on condition of anonymity.


"It's not a question of either or," she said. "We have to look at ways that are more climate friendly. If we let economic development continue based on the profligate use of fossil fuels, we'll be reaping the environmental and financial impact of that."


The report noted that the use of renewable energy is very low in the developing world, and called for a "managed withdrawal from fossil fuel" while giving poorer countries their per-capita share of the remaining fossil fuel that is safe to burn. It considered the possibility of a market in emission entitlements that would generate income for "under-emitting" countries.

DrTorch Wrote:Tackling climate change doesn't have to hamper economic growth in those developing countries that are becoming more industrialized, the NEF spokeswoman said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

However they have no problem hurting rich countries. We really needed these people 40,000 year ago when we had an ice age. :D

Forget wealth and poverty.

Some nations face absolute extinction.

<a href='http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555' target='_blank'>http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555</a>

....and that's our fault becauseeeee.......?

Schadenfreude Wrote:Forget wealth and poverty.

Some nations face absolute extinction.

<a href='http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555' target='_blank'>http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555</a>

I just wonder what sort of research has been done to prove this reporter's conclusion that this is all definitely due to global warming...interesting that the concept of land erosion was around before global warming...and what's the long term data say about these islands (i.e. what has the erosion rate been for the past 100 years...or even better, the past 1000 years). But it's easy to attach a social agenda (wealth redistribution) to an environmental cause nowadays.

And don't get me wrong...I've got a undergrad in Environmental Science and a master's in Environmental Management...I understand the science behind global warming just as well as anyone...just don't tell me that's the only reason these things are happening...it doesn't float (nor does that piece of crap movie they reference in the article). But these groups wrap their political beliefs behind 'environmental causes' and soon they'll say and do anything to make people believe their side of things (oh, like say that greenhouse gases are the only reason island nations are sinking into the ocean)...or make grandious statements like "these islands have more storms than they used to have" when our recorded data is so small compared to the amount of time this planet has been in existance...sorry to rant here, I just hate these type of alarmists, non-researched, headline grabbing articles.

jjburtzel Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Forget wealth and poverty.

Some nations face absolute extinction.

<a href='http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555' target='_blank'>http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555</a>

I just wonder what sort of research has been done to prove this reporter's conclusion that this is all definitely due to global warming...interesting that the concept of land erosion was around before global warming...and what's the long term data say about these islands (i.e. what has the erosion rate been for the past 100 years...or even better, the past 1000 years). But it's easy to attach a social agenda (wealth redistribution) to an environmental cause nowadays.

And don't get me wrong...I've got a undergrad in Environmental Science and a master's in Environmental Management...I understand the science behind global warming just as well as anyone...just don't tell me that's the only reason these things are happening...it doesn't float (nor does that piece of crap movie they reference in the article). But these groups wrap their political beliefs behind 'environmental causes' and soon they'll say and do anything to make people believe their side of things (oh, like say that greenhouse gases are the only reason island nations are sinking into the ocean)...or make grandious statements like "these islands have more storms than they used to have" when our recorded data is so small compared to the amount of time this planet has been in existance...sorry to rant here, I just hate these type of alarmists, non-researched, headline grabbing articles.

That's easy J, even though scientists say a river ran through North America from east to west in the Paleo age that would DWARF the Mississippi, .......

.....it's all George Bush's fault.




I will tell you, they are ALL IDIOTS!

Global warming? It's something that has gone on for millions of years. Ice ages? Same thing. What, some human is going to change it? Yeah right. Liberals are idiots.

Have'nt you heard RK that the world was perfect and pristine, then some republican discovered fire and it all went to hell. :D

Skipuno Wrote:Have'nt you heard RK that the world was perfect and pristine, then some republican discovered fire and it all went to hell. :D

:laugh:

Seems that way.

jjburtzel Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Forget wealth and poverty.

Some nations face absolute extinction.

<a href='http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555' target='_blank'>http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555</a>

I just wonder what sort of research has been done to prove this reporter's conclusion that this is all definitely due to global warming...interesting that the concept of land erosion was around before global warming...and what's the long term data say about these islands (i.e. what has the erosion rate been for the past 100 years...or even better, the past 1000 years). But it's easy to attach a social agenda (wealth redistribution) to an environmental cause nowadays.

And don't get me wrong...I've got a undergrad in Environmental Science and a master's in Environmental Management...I understand the science behind global warming just as well as anyone...just don't tell me that's the only reason these things are happening...it doesn't float (nor does that piece of crap movie they reference in the article). But these groups wrap their political beliefs behind 'environmental causes' and soon they'll say and do anything to make people believe their side of things (oh, like say that greenhouse gases are the only reason island nations are sinking into the ocean)...or make grandious statements like "these islands have more storms than they used to have" when our recorded data is so small compared to the amount of time this planet has been in existance...sorry to rant here, I just hate these type of alarmists, non-researched, headline grabbing articles.

Let me put it this way:

The threat of global warming for nations such as Tuvalu is more real than any threat George W. Bush perceived from Iraq.

Why else would the Maldives be constructing an artifical island designed to house a third of its population? Why else would New Zealand be accepting Tuvalu immigrants as environmental refugees?

If the United States was faced with the circumstances now facing Tuvalu, we'd be nuking everyone in sight.

You're comparing a cycle in the Earth's life to terrorism? Weak.

For those of you not familiar with Tuvala:

<a href='http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tv.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ok/geos/tv.html</a>

Area:
total: 26 sq km
land: 26 sq km
water: 0 sq km
Area - comparative:
0.1 times the size of Washington, DC


What caused the demise of the Ice Age Schad? SUV's? Republicans?
What's Causing Mars to heat up? SUV's? Republicans?

Good Gawd, after reading about that dreadful place I can equate it to me moving beneath a volcano and then bitching when my home is destroyed. :rolleyes:

Lowest point 0 meters
Highest point 5 meters
arable land: 0%
permanent crops: 0%

since there are no streams or rivers and groundwater is not potable, most water needs must be met by catchment systems with storage facilities

Schadenfreude Wrote:

jjburtzel Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Forget wealth and poverty.

Some nations face absolute extinction.

<a href='http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555' target='_blank'>http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=5555</a>

I just wonder what sort of research has been done to prove this reporter's conclusion that this is all definitely due to global warming...interesting that the concept of land erosion was around before global warming...and what's the long term data say about these islands (i.e. what has the erosion rate been for the past 100 years...or even better, the past 1000 years). But it's easy to attach a social agenda (wealth redistribution) to an environmental cause nowadays.

And don't get me wrong...I've got a undergrad in Environmental Science and a master's in Environmental Management...I understand the science behind global warming just as well as anyone...just don't tell me that's the only reason these things are happening...it doesn't float (nor does that piece of crap movie they reference in the article). But these groups wrap their political beliefs behind 'environmental causes' and soon they'll say and do anything to make people believe their side of things (oh, like say that greenhouse gases are the only reason island nations are sinking into the ocean)...or make grandious statements like "these islands have more storms than they used to have" when our recorded data is so small compared to the amount of time this planet has been in existance...sorry to rant here, I just hate these type of alarmists, non-researched, headline grabbing articles.

Let me put it this way:

The threat of global warming for nations such as Tuvalu is more real than any threat George W. Bush perceived from Iraq.

Why else would the Maldives be constructing an artifical island designed to house a third of its population? Why else would New Zealand be accepting Tuvalu immigrants as environmental refugees?

If the United States was faced with the circumstances now facing Tuvalu, we'd be nuking everyone in sight.

Wrong.

Again, let me state, the fact that this island is eroding away cannot be blamed only on global warming and greenhouse gases (which is what the article implies)...does it contribute? Possibly, in that it MAY increase the rate, but it alone would not cause the island to erode. If we had never discovered fire or had the industrial revolution never come along, would the island be eroding away? Yes.

The fact is, Schad, that the US does lose ocean-adjacent land, every year, every week, every day. But our entire country is not 26 square miles. Sure it sucks that your country is being swallowed by the ocean, no doubt, but to follow the French Doctrine (i.e. blame the US for all of your problems and trying to avoid any personal responsibility...yet come with your hand out when it's time to fix the problem) when this would be a problem even if we were living in teepees and without industry...ah, this is pointless.

Here are the facts...all industrialized nations produce greenhouse gases. The greenhouse gases contribute to 'global warming', which, in theory, has caused the global mean temperature to rise somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-1.2 degrees F over the past 120 years...now you're going to tell me that our ecosystem is so fragile...that an increase in global temperature of 1-1.2 degrees throws the whole thing into a massive spiral that makes the ocean swallow islands (well, the small ones)? It doesn't even pass the smell test, let alone any critical thinking or research. Just yet another example of a government's poor planning and vision somehow difusing their responsibility to their people (and themselves) by blaming everyone but themselves. "It's not our fault that we live on an island that can't sustain people...it's the US's fault, those dirty bastards!":rolleyes:

The figure below is from the USEPA's data...make of it what you will.

Does global warming exist? Yes. Do we contribute to it? Hell no. I am a FIRM believer that this planet is going through a phase. We had an Ice Age at one time......SUV's didn't cause it to end.

I don't disagree with you RebelKev...I have more immediate concerns about human-health effects of smog than I do about greenhouse gases (and really, I'm not staying up nights thinking about the smog either...but it's closer to being a problem than global warming). I always go back to the fact that we can't have that definite of an opinion about a long-living system (our planet) that is constantly changing around us based on our 150 years of industrial revolution data. All we can say is that we see some trending and test theories as to why...it's dumb articles like the one posted that have everything to do with a political/social agenda rather than science and research that get me going.