Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
But it wouldn't have happened without a stink being made about it.  You're acting as if these things happen in complete isolation.

You are correct, it was done because a stink was made.  It was not, however, done because we signed a treaty or created new laws.

Just wondering, what is "The Clean Water Act"?

Quote:

The people simply spoke up and said, "if you want to continue to grow your business, you had better clean up your act."

Bottom line, we don't need a treaty to tell us we need reduce our emissions.  We can do it all by ourselves.  I was simply giving an example to illustrate that point.

All this "we can do everything ourselves" is very nice and sounds great, but unfortunately various poluting substances somehow have problem readings maps.

Just wondering: let's say your water supply was from ground water. If your neighbour was dumping chemicals in the ground thretening to polute this water, would you then say it's his own business because he is doing it on his own land?

Please stop pushing your "new world order" here.

Thanks.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
But it wouldn't have happened without a stink being made about it.  You're acting as if these things happen in complete isolation.

You are correct, it was done because a stink was made.  It was not, however, done because we signed a treaty or created new laws.

Just wondering, what is "The Clean Water Act"?

It is a federal regulation passed in 1972 that governs water pollution...but you already knew that.  I fail to see what your point is.  Have we passed enviornmental laws?  Yes we have.  But that doesn't change the fact that some industries are also doing things on their own.

That was what I thought it was (though it is a bit confusing with the changes etc, I can't keep up with all laws in all countries)... However it kind of confused me when you stated that it the clean up was not because you created new laws when one of the very few US laws I actually know the name of was a law to clean up polution. The mix between laws and "public opinion against poluters" pushing the environmental issues is the same all over the developed world, I wrongly read your statement as if you ment the US was somehow different.

Quote:

Quote:

All this "we can do everything ourselves" is very nice and sounds great, but unfortunately various poluting substances somehow have problem readings maps.

You are missing the point.  There are people in this thread who have claimed that the US doesn't care about the environment simply because we didn't sign Kyoto.  I am countering that claim by giving examples that show we do, in fact, care.

Fair enough - I was missing your point. Just as you miss my point. I am commenting on the claims in this tread that international treaties are not needed/helpful etc, I am not saying the US isn't doing anything about polution (if it is enough can always be argued, but some things are certainly being done).

Quote:

You may not like our "we can do everything ourselves" attitude, but Kyoto isn't any better.  As the numbers I have given show, some of the countries that have signed it have increased their carbon emissions at a rate fairly equal to that of the US.  The UK, after signing, has reached a 10-year high.

Oh, for the first time someone actually mention countries not living up to the treaty as a problem, instead of going on about countries NOT covered by the treaty. I have certainly not claimed Kyoto is perfect, but so far all I have seen here is critics that it did not do something it was never designed to do. Your criticism is justified though you have to consider how bad would it have been without Kyoto - then the UK's 10-year high might have been even higher.

Quote:

Quote:
Just wondering: let's say your water supply was from ground water. If your neighbour was dumping chemicals in the ground thretening to polute this water, would you then say it's his own business because he is doing it on his own land?

This is a flawed and self serving question as it doesn't account for the fact that I am also dumping those chemicals...unless you are suggesting that the US is the only country creating pollution. 

Sorry, I can see you consider my argument flawed, as you read it as an argument for one or another point I am not trying to make.

No, it has nothing to do with the US (or any other country) being the only country poluting.
No, it does not really matter if you polute equally.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume people actually drink the water (I know it doesn't happen as much in the US as hear, but it's just an example).

The point I was trying to make is that the gain from poluting is often limited (to an individual, company, city, state, union, continent), while the cost is distributed a bit more. In this example the benefit is going to the guy poluting, while the cost is distributed between all users of the ground water. This means the cost/benefit of the polution might yield a favorable result for the poluter, while the actual cost/benefit is bad seen as a total.
And yes, the expected result without some overall agreements/rules on a city scale would be that you (and everyone else) starts poluting as well.

Hence you will typically find laws and treaties in your state and/or country making sure people do not take advantage of the benefits while letting others pay the cost. The Water Act is one such law. If this law was needed on a national level, what is needed for polution on a global scale?

HereWatch Watch the video if you dare, I need sum up the views of the Democrat Party no clearer than has been made all to clear by Congresswoman Maxine Waters, it is a view the Party has held for well over 70 years.

Skip

Quoting TraneMan:

Quote:
Not to be rude..and someone else may have already made this point, but in the U.S. many of our states are larger in physical size than some of the euro countries..this does not give us any particular right to complain, but unless you have traveled here, you cannot appreciate the sometimes vast distances that many of us commute just to make a living for our families.  Simply comparing price and claiming that we Americans are just 'cry babies', doesnt pay just due to the physical distances many of us have to travel.  I work in a sales position and have to drive over 3000 miles per month to perform my job and support my family.  I'm only one of millions in this situation.  How many people in Europe drive 3000 miles a month strictly related to their jobs??

Not very far then...as an ex HGV driver doing between 8 and 10K per month. (2-2.5K per week.)

Steve

Quoting TraneMan:

Quote:
Not to be rude..and someone else may have already made this point, but in the U.S. many of our states are larger in physical size than some of the euro countries..this does not give us any particular right to complain, but unless you have traveled here, you cannot appreciate the sometimes vast distances that many of us commute just to make a living for our families.  Simply comparing price and claiming that we Americans are just 'cry babies', doesnt pay just due to the physical distances many of us have to travel.  I work in a sales position and have to drive over 3000 miles per month to perform my job and support my family.  I'm only one of millions in this situation.  How many people in Europe drive 3000 miles a month strictly related to their jobs??

We have the same situation here in north europe, also another thing is winter. Heating takes enormous amounts of energy thats why nordic countries and canada are on the top too. I think theres actually more CO2 emission per capita from Canada then US. Also some countries are ideal for wind, some solar and some hydrogen power plants, and i'm afraid the Kyoto protocol wount take all that into account.

Quoting eagle61397:

Quote:
Here in Ohio where I live the Speedway down the street is at $3.83 for unleaded. Just a few days ago it was $3.69. I recommend if you haven't seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" you've gotta see this. It tries to investigate what happened to the GM EV-1 that came out in 1996 and why it was suddenly pulled from the market and why they were repossed from the buyers and destroyed.

Just watched that, was really intresting.

One thing that really struct me: California made a law (or mandate dont know the diffrence) and all major car companys were able to make an electric car that was really usable, more efficient and environmentally friendly.

Also made some research, Tesla Motors just started producing electric cars. 0-60mph in 3,9 seconds, goes 220mph with one charge and looks... well:



Its going to be expensive, naturally. But they say that if that sells, next will come a family car and then the cheaper models.

Also, i want an electric scooter

Ah, Rico, batteries!!!! Last time I investigated it a typical hybrid set of batteries cost about $3500 PLUS another $3500 for disposal of the original set. A friend of mine just told me his hybrid is down til fall when he can get a new battery set....$10,000 including disposal of the old ones. Too rich for my blood, electrics in all forms need a lot more work...I am waiting for the hydrogen cars..

Skip