Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 10876
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/04/04 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/4     

2003/10/31 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10876 Activity:nil
10/30   Double standard on environment issue.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3229211.stm
        So, shut up and stop bitching about how China/India is ruining
        the environment.
        \_  Right now, the US uses about 4 terawatts of the 12 terawatts of
            global energy usage.  In 2050, that's likeley to be 40-50
            terawatts of total energy usage, with the US total about the
            same.  That means that when you're projecting decades or centuries
            into the future, which you must do in climate policy, you *have*
            to consider the developing nations as more important than the US.
            A devoloped-nations only policy simply won't fix the problem,
            and forcing quotas on the developing nations is politically
            impossible.  our only way out is technology. we must develop
            a way to generate 50 terwatts of clean power that is
            cost-competitive with petrochemicals.  It is a matter of both
            national and global security, and I believe it's not so
            far out of our reach.
            \_ Uh, nuclear. Clean, safe, unlimited.
                \_ What part of nuclear waste is clean?
                \_ nukular energy is eevviiil!
               \_ How much uranium or plutonium of the right isotops can we
                  find on earth?
               \_ I can't tell if you're being facetious.
            \_ Bah, it's more fun to Blame America First(r) and Hate America(r)
               and Kill Whitey(c).  You just killed the op's perfectly good
               anti-US troll.  -!op
            \_ 12 terawatts to 40-50 terawatts while US use stays the same?
               Sounds like a huge exaggeration of developing countries'
               energy usage growth.  Past history doesn't substantiate
               such claims.
            \_ Nah.  Even if the developing nations' energy usage
               stays the same, US still would not do anything simply because
               vested business interests don't like it.  Developing nations
               energy use is just an excuse for US not to do anything.  It's
               called the Blame Developing Nations(tm) tactic.
2025/04/04 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/4     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2014/1/24-2/5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54765 Activity:nil
1/24    "Jimmy Carter's 1977 Unpleasant Energy Talk, No Longer Unpleasant"
        link:www.csua.org/u/128q (http://www.linkedin.com
	...
2013/1/28-2/19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54591 Activity:nil
1/28    "'Charities' Funnel Millions to Climate-Change Denial"
        http://www.csua.org/u/z2w (news.yahoo.com)
        And they're getting tax-deduction out of it!
        \_ Climate denialism should quality for the religious exemption.
        \_ Koch, yes, Koch and his ilk give "millions" to this kind of thing.
           How much is spent on the other side of the issue?
	...
2012/12/7-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54550 Activity:nil
12/7    Even oil exporters like UAE and Saudi Arabia are embracing solar
        energy: http://www.csua.org/u/ylq
        We are so behind.
	...
2012/6/22-7/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54420 Activity:nil
6/22    "Study: The U.S. could be powered by 80% green energy in 2050"
        http://www.csua.org/u/wtz  (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ How many Republicans does it take to make green energy?
           -150,000,000! Ding ding ding!
           \_ Because having control of the White House and both houses of
              Congress wasn't enough (ie, the do nothing and blame the
	...
2012/6/26-7/20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54422 Activity:nil
6/26    WW2 brought us antibiotics, syringe, production capacity,
        excessive petroleum, radar, television, atomic energy,
        rocketry (HEIL VON BRAUN), synthetic rubber, microwave,
        computers (GAY TURING), jets.
        What did the Iraq war bring us?
        \_ HMMWV -> Hummer H1 the gas guzzler.
	...
Cache (1334 bytes)
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3229211.stm
The US Senate has rejected efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions from industrial power plants. Senators voted 55-43 against the an amendment to the bill on abrupt climate change, which would have required power stations and factories to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. Many scientists have identified greenhouse gas emissions as a major source of global warming. The measure was opposed by the Bush administration, which said it would seriously damage the US economy. The amendment was co-sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Joe Lieberman. Ice loss Senator McCain told the Senate that it was a very minimal proposal that should be the first step. We have to start somewhere, he said, showing photographs taken from outer space that depict a melting Arctic ice cap. We will be back, because these pictures will continue to get worse and wont improve until we begin to address this issue. However, opponents of the bill backed the White House view that it would increase household energy bills and hamper job creation. President George W Bush provoked widespread international criticism in 2001 by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol on tackling climate change, which would also have committed the US to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In its place, Mr Bush has proposed a voluntary plan for curbing the gases.