|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 6th, 2003 06:59 PM | ||
| Perndog |
Chimp, I for one am confident that in 50-70 years people will realize how safe nuclear energy is and will start using it instead of fossil fuels, along with assorted renewable resources. And if I were a 40-year-old politician, I wouldn't really care what happened in 50 years, because I'd probably have died by then. Not that politicians really think in these terms... |
|
| Oct 6th, 2003 04:36 PM | ||
| glowbelly | ummmm. is russia still a communist country? | |
| Oct 6th, 2003 02:09 PM | ||
| AChimp |
See, that's the problem. Everyone is catering to their own immediate desires. "Oh, we're making shitloads of money RIGHT FUCKING NOW, and if we change our ways, we'll only be making a piggy pile instead, so let's keep going on the same way we always have!" Oil is finite. It will run out. We will not find a secret stash of oil somewhere, nor will we discover that the Moon is full of oil. Smart businesses should be proactive rather than reactive. Because if the economy will take a hit right now by starting to eliminate fossil fuel usage, what will happen to the economy in 50-70 years when there are NO MORE? |
|
| Oct 6th, 2003 01:58 PM | ||
| Perndog |
The last I heard, Russia was in favor of maintaining high carbon emissions because warming due to the greenhouse effect would be beneficial to Russian farmers. With a slight change (a degree or two, which could happen in as little as twenty years) in global temperature, their growing season could increase by weeks, and the Russian economy would receive a boost. And reducing emissions means reducing industry, something that would slow Russia's economic growth. They're just being practical. They're looking out for themselves; if you want them to cater to the rest of the world's desires, the only way you're going to make them do it is by force. |
|
| Oct 6th, 2003 01:02 PM | ||
| Protoclown | Hi Vince. I've been gone for a while. Thank god you're still around. | |
| Oct 6th, 2003 03:57 AM | ||
| FS | Good point. | |
| Oct 6th, 2003 02:55 AM | ||
| CastroMotorOil | kyoto will NEVER work, why won't peoepl just shut up about it. it has been going on for how long now and still nothing has been done, just give up already and try something else. | |
| Oct 6th, 2003 01:07 AM | ||
| The_Rorschach | Yeah it is, Herr Burbank posted something on it not too long ago. | |
| Oct 5th, 2003 10:57 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
Chernobyl is in the Ukraine. "On April 26, 1986 at 1:23 am technicians at the Chernobyl Power Plant (former Soviet Union) allowed the power in the fourth reactor to fall to low levels as part of a controlled experiment which went wrong. The reactor overheated causing a meltdown of the core. Two explosions blew the top off the reactor building releasing clouds of deadly radioactive material in the atmosphere for over 10 days. The people of Chernobyl were exposed to radioactivity 100 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb. The people of the world and Northern Europe were greeted with clouds of radioactive material being blown northward through the sky. Seventy percent of the radiation is estimated to have fallen on Belarus and 10 years later babies are sill being born with no arms, no eyes, or only stumps for limbs. It is estimated that over 15 million people have been victimized by the disaster in some way and that it will cost over 60 Billion dollars to make these people healthy. More than 600,000 people were involved with the cleanup many who are now dead or sick. The Chernobyl Plant is made up of 4 graphite reactors; Number 4 exploded in 1986, Number 2 was shut down from a fire in 1991. In December 1996 the Government announced it plans to reopen Number 2" |
|
| Oct 4th, 2003 04:08 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
P.S. Is that a serious plan? |
|
| Oct 3rd, 2003 05:38 PM | ||
| kahljorn | popcorn candy. | |
| Oct 3rd, 2003 05:29 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach | Don't worry Kelly. . .That was then, this is now. Russia's lunar nuclear power station will be much much different. | |
| Oct 3rd, 2003 04:29 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Oct 2nd, 2003 10:15 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Yeah, Vince saw the thread where we recently trashed the Soviet Union's environmental record. I see no point to this thread, and I wish I could have my 1 1/2 minutes back. 
|
|
| Oct 2nd, 2003 12:44 PM | ||
| Zhukov | Phew! That's the US and Australia of the hook! | |
| Oct 2nd, 2003 12:43 PM | ||
| mburbank |
For the record, as any evnvironmentalist knows, Russia and China have appauling environmental records, largely due to a system of government with no checks and balances. I have never heard anyone say otherwise. You knew that, right? And to cut you off at the pass, I'm more concerned with my governments economic policies becuase my vote doesn't effect China or Russia. |
|
| Oct 2nd, 2003 12:40 PM | ||
| VinceZeb |
Even the Commies want to destroy the enviroment! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3152424.stm Russia rows further away from Kyoto By Tim Hirsch BBC environment correspondent, in Moscow A senior adviser to President Vladimir Putin has cast further doubt on whether Russia will ever ratify the Kyoto agreement on limiting emissions of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming. Andrei Illarionov, who advises the president on economic policy, was speaking the day after Mr Putin refused to set a timetable for Russian ratification, angering supporters of Kyoto around the world. So long as Russia stays out, the UN protocol setting targets for cutting emissions from the burning of fossil fuels cannot take legal effect. Speaking at the World Climate Change Conference in Moscow, Mr Illarionov told BBC News Online: "The words of President Putin cannot be interpreted as saying that Russia will ratify the Kyoto protocol but that it is just a matter of time. He never said that. "The president said that we are in the process of studying the Kyoto Protocol and all the consequences of it. That will take time. What decision will be taken remains to be seen." High costs Mr Illarionov, a key member of Mr Putin's inner circle of advisers, went on to question whether it would be in Russia's economic interests to sign up to Kyoto, despite the 30% cut in emissions which have taken place since 1990 due to the collapse of traditional smokestack industries. KYOTO PROTOCOL Agreed at Kyoto, Japan in 1997 Commits industrialised nations to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases Emission cuts to average 5.2% below 1990 levels within 10 years US withdrew in 2001 He argued that economic growth in Russia would bring its emissions back up to 1990 levels by the end of the decade, so it would not have any spare pollution allowances to sell - rejecting the claim that the country stood to gain financially from the treaty. And beyond 2012, the end date for the targets agreed at Kyoto, the costs for Russia could start to mount if further cuts in emissions were required. "It's quite clear that the Russian economy is not going to stop at the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that we have today or that we shall have in 2012. "That's why it is necessary to calculate the costs which will have to be balanced against any possible gains," said Mr Illarionov. "The United States and Australia have calculated that they cannot bear the economic consequences of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. If they aren't rich enough to deal with those consequences, my question is whether Russia is much richer than the US or Australia?" Mr Illarionov's analysis is challenged by many economists, including some in Russia, but his downbeat comments indicate how difficult it is going to be to persuade Mr Putin to move ahead with Kyoto. Taken together with a succession of Russian scientists using this conference to cast doubt on the science of global warming, the event is proving something of a nightmare for supporters of worldwide action to combat climate change. |
|
