U.S. Not Doing Enough to Protect Coral Reefs

[archman]

I think there's a communication problem between total greenhouse emissions, vs. greenhouse emissions per capita. From a personal responsibility standpoint, the per capita figures are relevant. In that case MANY industrialized nations have a crummy record.
From a global environmental standpoint it's the total gas emitted per country that's relevant. And oh my, the U.S. clobbers everyone else. Of course that may be a statistical artifact of merely having 300 million citizens. Most other industrialized countries are teeny in comparison, so their overall pollution would be less.
I LOVE this nationsdata website! I can sling data all over creation!

 

[Boogie711]

I haven't disputed that for a second, Calypso. The US is the leading emitter of GHG's, sure. I'm confused - what makes you think I've disputed that?

What I have disputed is a) whether or not GHG emissions affect reef's more than localized, far more acute threats such as spills, sewage or waste, and b) if they were a threat, whether or not the Kyoto protocol would be an effective deterrent to that threat. In both cases, my argument is clearly "no."

But I've never once disputed that the leading man-made emitter of GHG emissions is the USA. Per capita, the leading emitter is Kuwait, followed by Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and a number of other Middle Eastern countries. This is because one of the leading causes of GHG's is the production and refining of petrochemicals.

And again - let's remember that the Mount Pinatubo explosion, which was a completely natural event, released what some scientists believe is over 100 YEARS worth of man-made emissions. The earth's climate is going to naturally oscillate whether there are 6 billion polluters or a single soul.

 

[Kim]

...look what just popped up on CNN. And the science they're reporting is pretty solid, how refreshing.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/05/04/thewarming.west.ap/index.html

Interesting link Archman. I'd like to say thanks for it, as it supports a lot of what I'm saying, but the consequences it's describing are almost too much to read - so I seem to be missing any sense of satisfaction. It does seem clear though that there aren't going to be too many 'winners' in this debate - and that Mother Nature doesn't seem to differentiate much between 'good' guys and 'bad' guys.

 

[Boogie711]

It is an interesting link. What do you propose we do about it? Real answers - not like "Oh, everyone has to do their part and stop using resources."

You're Queen of the world for 3 months. What changes would you make?

Newsflash Kim - with respect, you would do nothing. Why? Because you can't prevent it. It's going to happen, or it's not. The Kyoto protocol was and is a farce - if Kyoto was under full implementation, that story wouldn't have changed one iota. Remember, we're talking about the difference of .1 degree over 100 years with Kyoto.

 

[Kim]

It is an interesting link. What do you propose we do about it? Real answers - not like "Oh, everyone has to do their part and stop using resources."

You're Queen of the world for 3 months. What changes would you make?

Newsflash Kim - with respect, you would do nothing. Why? Because you can't prevent it. It's going to happen, or it's not. The Kyoto protocol was and is a farce - if Kyoto was under full implementation, that story wouldn't have changed one iota. Remember, we're talking about the difference of .1 degree over 100 years with Kyoto.

The Chinese have an old saying: "A journey of a thousand leagues starts with a single footstep"
Kyoto was not perfect I agree - but it WAS an attempt at a single step in the right direction - now we don't even have that. I believe that to be a mistake. You don't - that's clear - we obviously disagree.
Kyoto was originally designed not so much to reduce emissions as to stabilize them. US emissions are still rising - many other countries' emissions (including China) are falling in real terms. Which attitude do you think is better for the planet in the long term?

By the way - I'd never be a Queen - possibly a King (check my profile!!)

 

[calypsonick]

I haven't disputed that for a second, Calypso. The US is the leading emitter of GHG's, sure. I'm confused - what makes you think I've disputed that?

Thanks Boogie. We’re on the same page for that one. Sounds like there is a majority consensus that the US is by far the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses. We do not all seem to be in agreement that science has proven greenhouse gasses have detrimental effects on coral reefs. That’s cool.



IMHO, the issue is elsewhere. Regardless of whether greenhouse gasses are bad, practices by a few nations that directly impact the entire globe, which someday may be found to cause problems for other nations (and their coral reefs), should be stopped! Imagine Mexico spilling some chemical agent that gets into all of North American waters and yet scientists can’t find detrimental effects. Are the U.S. and Canada going to sit back and let it continue to happen? You get one guess………



If you do stuff to mess up your own backyard, it’s bad but hey, it’s your own backyard...............just don’t do stuff that also gets into my backyard!!!

 

[Firefyter]

Imagine Mexico spilling some chemical agent that gets into all of North American waters and yet scientists can’t find detrimental effects. Are the U.S. and Canada going to sit back and let it continue to happen? You get one guess........If you do stuff to mess up your own backyard, it’s bad but hey, it’s your own backyard...............just don’t do stuff that also gets into my backyard!!!

Actually, some of the very companies that have left the US because of strict air and water regulations have relocated to Mexico, and are dumping their wastes in the Rio Grande. Between this and the raw sewage that Mexico dumps into the river, it's not safe in MY backyard now..

 

[chrisch]

Boogie, I don't hate anyone so what I say is not based on that. Read carefully and you will see we agree on lots. Biofuel is one of the things I really think will make a difference. I don't give a monkey's who "invented" it "discovered" it or whatever. Biodiesel works in existing automotive technology and is carbon neutral. It will be shipped by the gas companies and keeps their profits up as the reserves deplete. Maybe they can stop lieing to boost their market capital..

Your response to Kim hits the nail on the head. What to do about the whole thing? Sure Pinatubo is bigger than Exxon in any one year, but I do think that the US governement could (and should) do more to promote renewables - like biofuel - and to provide research dollars for things like nuclear fusion.

If nothing else this would let them have some defense of the US use of resources.

I am far from eco-friendly and I know it. There's not much I can do and I realise most people do not give it a moment's thought. Something has to change or we will suffer as a result.

I believe that climate change threatens reefs as the rise in sea level and sea temperatures are bad, but I am not a biologist so if someone out there knows better post up and lets have the facts please..

Chris

 

[rcohn]

. The real problem is that modern man is used to the global climate of NOW, and global warming (whatever its source) will screw everything up. You know... the coastal flooding, increased hurricane frequencies, dramatic shifts in weather patterns, more sunburn, blah blah.

I always wonder why global warming is assumed to have only negative consequences? Will everyone really be worse off? I mean some folks will get new beach front property, growing seasons in the colder climates will increase, maybe Death Vally will become rich farm land, or coral reefs and ocean species can expand their range? Isn't someone going to be better off?

Ralph

 

[simbrooks]

I always wonder why global warming is assumed to have only negative consequences? Will everyone really be worse off? I mean some folks will get new beach front property, growing seasons in the colder climates will increase, maybe Death Vally will become rich farm land, or coral reefs and ocean species can expand their range?

Lets look at it this way, heating up will cause the desert land to spread into what are currently fertile areas. Ice caps melting will flood many areas - think India and Eygpt (maybe even Louisiana and Holland) completely underwater now (places with major delta areas or low lying) - which would give us less land to live on or grow things on. Yes more areas to dive. BTW how high is Boston off mean water level? Would it be different if you couldnt use the first few floors of a building and had to get to work by boat? It would be a major PITA to get low lying areas above the rising water level (i know the rate of rise would be fairly slow, but would be considerable during a lifetime).

Isn't someone going to be better off?

With people moving further inland, flooding farmland, increasing desert areas, the world would probably be worse off and some will die due to this strain on providing food for people - the only people definately getting better off would be underatakers - always a job for them until the last person on this earth dies!! Other people who might gain are the construction industry to repair or replace buildings eventually going underwater.