Oh, how scary! Sounds like one of those U.N./WorldGov conspiracy plots! You know, get 'em to conform--even for a good cause--then march in and TAKE OVER! (Hey, it worked for Hitler--he won people over by doing good...*at first.*)

Not a conspiracy theory. If the Kyoto treaty (and as I say I haven't read it) asks the US to abdicate sovereignty (even partial) to other nations or other panels of nations, I don't support signing it. Simple as that. Have I belittled anyone's view that opposed mine on this?

Part of the problem is we are so emotionally frightened of nuclear power, we refuse to develop it. Because of this fear, we are reliant on fossil fuels for our energy. This causes us to cause damage to the planet -- some of it, perhaps, irrecoverable. I have read that France gets 80% of it's energy from nuclear power -- and not a single mishap. Again, that figure is second-hand, and I'm no expert; but it seems that Kyoto may be a flawed (and certainly not the only) approach.

Again, I'm willing to be enlighted by someone who has read the treaty in its entirely and understands (and is qualified to understand) it's legal and economic ramifications.

Not sure I see the tie-in to Bradbury here any more, so I'll back off.

Hydrogen power is a must and soon. The drive for this source of energy should be on the national agenda at full throttle, rather than a political volleyball sent over the net for votes.

In the 40's "everything" was recycled by necessity. Today, unfortunately, that has all changed. Plastics, of course, are a petroleum by product. Gas combustion engines and foods/drink contained in non-refundable bottles are deeply entrenched into the international way of doing the biggest business. How to make change?

What far reaching changes do some of you envision that could change the paradigms? The old way is often still a better way. Remember that course-Common Sense 101? Throw in modern science and what would we have? (Ah, Convenience vs. Inconvenience! Our mindset must evolve.)

Ie, How about high tech. distribution centers vs. fancy grocery stores where packaging can be held to a minimum on hundreds of items. Or maybe, grand scaled recycling efforts where the materials are out-sourced to companies at a far more economical price than newly mined or processed raw materials. The reforestation of third world nations, and our own landscapes for that matter, must also remain a priority in the coming decades. How about a equitable refund on major appliances when you send an outdated item in for material reclamation as opposed to dumping it on the sidewalk for removal. Or (as my 8yr. old said just yesterday) a $2 refund on a six pack of soda cans "so people will want to get their money back!"

The bottomline($) always directs the course of the above senarios. Small potatoes maybe, but community politics and financial incentives are places to begin.

Mr. D, Per related RB topics: Some bits and pieces of The Highway, The City, The Concrete Mixer, The Veldt, -And the Moon Be Still As Bright, and maybe The Toynebee Convector. Then and again, Yestermorrow!




[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 10-25-2004).]

I've always seen myself as a tree-hugging environmentalist, but lately my ideology has been challenged by something an online friend said recently:

"Another thing I've never understood is the environmentalists opposition to oil drilling in the USA. The way I see it, there's less risk of environmental damage from locally produced oil that the government can monitor than there is in countries like Nigeria and Venezueala that don't have as many resources to clean up their mess nor as tight environmental standards. It's always seemed very selfish to not use our own oil while other countries destroy their environment to get oil to us."

Hmmmmmm...

Yeah, I know that I can be a wishy-washy, open-minded to a fault, FUZZY-HEAD.

I firmly believe we need to be weened from our fossil fuel dependency and eventually we will be.

What's to be done with our waste is also a great concern.

I think we need to approach these issues with long term concern because change, on this scale, is a long process. I can accept being called an alarmist, someone has to do it. I don't think we should all live like Somalians in order to leave smaller environmental "footprints", but the sooner we start scaling down our wasteful and gluttonous ways the less drastic the changes will be. We can't save or destroy the planet, only it's ability to sustain us. I hope we exist long enough to be able to figure out how to defeat, or survive, the end of our sun.

Wow!!! How did this thread get from reading and the values thereof, to nulcear proliferation and the general world condition?

I can think of any better than to sit down with a good book, a large bowl of pop corn and something to drink. What more could one need?

quote:

Originally posted by biplane1:

I can think of any better than to sit down with a good book, a large bowl of pop corn and something to drink. What more could one need?

Control of the remote!

Mr Dark,
why don;t you read the agreement, then, and only then make an argument against it? Hearsay is not good enough.
Cheers, Translator

I've read several pieces on it. I've been clear my position is based on hearsay. And I've invited knowledgeable people to comment on it. I have been careful not to overstate my claims. I think that's good enough.

(Now if I could just learn to spell.)

Addendum:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/index4.html

The text of the Kyoto treaty is here (web site above). I've copied it into Word, and I'll print it out, and try to read through it over the next couple days.

Tie it in to Bradbury, and I'll consider this as "challenge accepted". (I think I'll also re-read, "Here There Be Tygers", also.)

I always challenge my students by telling them that there is a difference between an informed opinion, and an uninformed opinion. The only way to have an informed opinion is to read the text. My guess is that much of this will go over my head -- scientifically, and in terms of numbers; but it will be informative.



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 10-25-2004).]

This is not exactly entertainment, but it is entertaining. (Anything to get our minds off the 'poplitical' for a moment).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbdkZB9-Sd4&feature=related

Censorship at work in the movies? Darn tootin!

In the new movie, "2012", every single religious icon, church building, symbol, Buddist temple to the Vatican itself, can be seen being destroyed. Except one.

The Muslims win out!! Not one hair on their hide has been mussed. Why? The producers felt that tilting sense of power in the world with so much as a whisper of destruction of a mosque or holy book would inflame them and perhaps cause a boycott of the film. Or more!

This has been a report of a moment of censorship in the movies!

Deja vu all over again..."It was a pleasure to burn!"

RE: http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/451/451.html