Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/5/07 02:04 PM, Togukawa wrote: Oh really? Are you refering to Tsjernobyl?

Not just the Chernobyl, but how they made a mess of their own country through reckless industrial negligence.

Well I think it's only normal, when housing 12% of the global population as opposed to 5%, it's only normal that you produce a more. Pro capita the US polutes a hell of a lot more.

True, but China is still largely peasent and poor. Think of how it is going to mushroom when their middle class reaches a US standard...

I mean they have over 100 cities with populations of more than a million. China is the greater threat than the US...

China has the same policy about their economy.

But as opposed to the US, still able to hold some pretenses of caring for the environment :)

So not wanting to sign onto something as flawed and useless as Kyoto means we do not care about the environment? Style over substance? God I hope the greens and environmentalists stay away from power...if they do something real may get done! :)

Besides there is still debate in the US as to how much this will help global warming. Also look at my previous posts...I have my doubts on how much climate change is the result of human industry. So why should I be forced to live under the Kyoto protocol?

It's not up to you, it's up to the government :) I hope that it will be the knowledgable folk that will make the correct decisions. We'll see.

It's called a Republic, so yes I do have somewhat of a say. And I wouldn't say that I'm ignorant, in fact I'd probably say at this point I'm more knowledgable than the average congressman or senator...

And the point is there is still MUCH debate on what the correct decisions are!

At 2/5/07 03:08 PM, JoS wrote: The Canadian House of commons (our equivalent of Congress) committee on the environment has actually banned anyone from presenting evidence infront of them that global warming is not the result of human activity.

See what I mean? It's approaching an inquisition! What's next? A person who has questions/theories/proof about negative feedbacks that provide counterbalance (and thus equilibrium) to global warming is made a pariaha? This is not science, this is religion.

At 2/5/07 03:13 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/5/07 02:04 PM, Togukawa wrote: Well I think it's only normal, when housing 12% of the global population as opposed to 5%, it's only normal that you produce a more. Pro capita the US polutes a hell of a lot more.

True, but China is still largely peasent and poor. Think of how it is going to mushroom when their middle class reaches a US standard...

I mean they have over 100 cities with populations of more than a million. China is the greater threat than the US...

Well that's all speculation. The EU is also a developed something with a lot more inhabitants than the US, and it pollutes a lot less pro capita.

But as opposed to the US, still able to hold some pretenses of caring for the environment :)

So not wanting to sign onto something as flawed and useless as Kyoto means we do not care about the environment? Style over substance? God I hope the greens and environmentalists stay away from power...if they do something real may get done! :)

Hahah, I agree there. That is indeed a big problem of the greens. Here they actually planned to shut down all nuclear energy because they were opposed to it, within the next 7 years. But they haven't proposed any alternatives. And 80% of my country's energy comes from nuclear power (20% is imported).

In the end all this symbolic crap doesn't matter, as long as something gets done.

It's not up to you, it's up to the government :) I hope that it will be the knowledgable folk that will make the correct decisions. We'll see.

It's called a Republic, so yes I do have somewhat of a say. And I wouldn't say that I'm ignorant, in fact I'd probably say at this point I'm more knowledgable than the average congressman or senator...

Indeed, the policy makers themselves usually aren't that knowledgable. But that's what advisors are for.

And the point is there is still MUCH debate on what the correct decisions are!

True, but at least everyone can agree that reducing polution is probably a good thing, global warming or not.

I've noticed that the government is doing alot around where i live about global warming (Ontario, canada). But its the people who see it and complain about how others should work harder to stop it, but then they forget about it in the next five minutes. I think the best idea is to scare people about it to get them more enthusiastic and have it on their minds.

I had an idea spark into my head last night after reading some of these posts: If new cars were fitted with the ionized metal filters ,that they use in some home air filters , inside the exhaust pipe somewhere it would accually clean the air as the car drove, making thousands of air filters that drive around the country every day.

At 2/8/07 04:26 PM, rugbylg6 wrote: I had an idea spark into my head last night after reading some of these posts: If new cars were fitted with the ionized metal filters ,that they use in some home air filters , inside the exhaust pipe somewhere it would accually clean the air as the car drove, making thousands of air filters that drive around the country every day.

Spewing out huge amounts of ozone (smog) along the way. Great idea. How would you clean them? Deal with the wastes? How would you even supply the energy? Would it mean even worse MPG? There's more to the issue.

Lol... Anyone seen "An Incovenient Truth"? You know, Al Gore's movie? I did just a bit ago... Totally convincing. I think the goverment should just freaking cut down on all this factory polution. I mean, these ASSES could just use friggen filters in teh smoke stacks. LOL

At 2/5/07 01:02 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: i think global warming is good. i hate the cold.

if global warming happens then where i live will feel like the tropics.

come on global warming.

;
I agree with your statement. (looks out window & it is minus 13)
I would love for the temperature to never go below freezing , ever!
The only place I want to see ice is in my drink.

Sir Richard Branson and Al Gore announce the Virgin Earth Challenge, a $25 million global science and technology prize to encourage a viable technology which will result in the removal of at least 1 billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

"Today, Sir Richard Branson and Al Gore announced the setting up of a new Global science and technology prize – The Virgin Earth Challenge – in the belief that history has shown that prizes of this nature encourage technological advancements for the good of mankind. The Virgin Earth Challenge will award $25 million to the individual or group who are able to demonstrate a commercially viable design which will result in the net removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases each year for at least ten years without countervailing harmful effects. This removal must have long term effects and contribute materially to the stability of the Earth’s climate."

---

1 Billion Tons... (huh? is that UK or US billions)

1 Trillion (1,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0 or 10^12) Kilos ~ per year!

Geezuz .. make it hard why don't they!

At 2/10/07 12:25 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Sir Richard Branson and Al Gore announce the Virgin Earth Challenge, a $25 million global science and technology prize to encourage a viable technology which will result in the removal of at least 1 billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

Well that should get some people motivated for alternate fuels.

At 2/10/07 12:27 AM, random8982 wrote: Well that should get some people motivated for alternate fuels.

Not really. They want a "Earth Vacuum cleaner" device.

Sir Richard already pledged 3 billion over 10 years for research and development of green energies, which includes $400 million in 3 year for Virgin Fuels.

This $25 mil. is small change by comparrison. Maybe some concerned governments and industries will top up the fund a bit in years to come ..at least it's a start.

At 2/8/07 04:50 PM, Draconias wrote:
Spewing out huge amounts of ozone (smog) along the way. Great idea. How would you clean them? Deal with the wastes? How would you even supply the energy? Would it mean even worse MPG? There's more to the issue.

The filters would have to be designed for easy removal, they can be cleaned eaisly in the sink.
The wastes would be dealt with at the water treatment plants. They need only a small amount of energy that could be supplied from the cars battery. The MPG change would be no existant or barley noticable.