UAE beats Americans' environmental harm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, so when did you denounce your central air conditioning? You already used the "I live in SoCal" excuse for the car, so don't use that one again.

Do you dispute the fact that Americans for the longest time have done more harm to the environment per capita than any other nation in the world? Does it bother you that anyone should dare to criticize the incessant attitude by many Americans who believe that as long as they pay for it, they have no duty or responsibility to the environment, let alone the rest of the world?

You want to simplify it into - "Well, unless you don't use energy then you're just part of the problem." You're missing the point. Of course we humans use energy. The issue is over-consumption of that energy, especially at the detriment of our environment. Conservation used to be part of being conservative, but now over-consumption seems to define the attitude of many Americans. To me, that doesn't make sense.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Masks the greenhouse effect. Prevents global warming.

The greenhouse effect is the absorption of energy by the atmosphere which is only partly responsible for making the planet warmer.

Of course, the real cause of global warming is the sun. To maintain a thermal equilibrium, the earth must radiate the same amount of energy back into space that it receives from the sun. There are basically two types of radiation, visible solar radiation and thermal infrared radiation. The former heats up the surface and the latter heats up the atmosphere. Air pollution reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.

Reference any reputible scientific journal that supports your statements otherwise, this will just turn into a pi$$ing contest.

[bob_bonner 0]

Reference any reputible scientific journal that supports your statements otherwise, this will just turn into a pi$$ing contest.

The effect I described is called "solar dimming" and is common knowledge among environmental scientists.

For some recent research findings, see

Wild, M., Ohmura A., Makowski, K. [2007]

Impact of surface solar dimming and brightening on global warming

Geophys. Res. Lett., (in press)

Martin Wild is affiliated with the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (IACETH) in Zurich and has written a number of articles on the subject.

For a layman's introduction to the subject, follow this link.

[Robor007 0]

Rob, I just recently watched a documentary I think you'd be interested in seeing - The Corporation. I belong to Netflix and watched it over the weekend.

I'm a Blockbuster member so I'll definitely check that out if they have it. Thanks!

[Robor007 0]

I finally decided to watch that movie. It was pretty interesting but honestly Gore needed to keep the politics out of it. It was like he was basically blaming global warming on the fact that Bush won the 2000 election and not him. Every time they talked about politicians rejecting solutions they panned on a Republican. These are not good tactics if you are trying get people who are otherwise skeptical of you to look at the situation in an unbiased manner. Other than that I think he put it together pretty good. We're screwed.

I must admit that while I voted for Gore and Kerry I do agree with you in some ways here. I think Gore did focus a little too much on the current administration. Don't get me wrong, they should be pointed out because they know about the problem and choose to deny and/or ignore it. However, they've only been in office 6 years. This problem has been snowballing much longer than that. The sad part is even if he delivered it in an unbiased approach most of the US would continue to ignore/deny it either out of ignorance or anti-liberal bias. Hopefully we will wake up and try to reverse or at least slow down the global warming process but considering there's little effort I doubt it.

[Robor007 0]

Reference any reputible scientific journal that supports your statements otherwise, this will just turn into a pi$$ing contest.

The effect I described is called "solar dimming" and is common knowledge among environmental scientists.

For some recent research findings, see

Wild, M., Ohmura A., Makowski, K. [2007]

Impact of surface solar dimming and brightening on global warming

Geophys. Res. Lett., (in press)

Martin Wild is affiliated with the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (IACETH) in Zurich and has written a number of articles on the subject.

For a layman's introduction to the subject, follow this link.

This article alleges that we need more pollution to counter the greenhouse effect...? That's a joke, right? Either way, I don't buy it. This planet was around a long time before man and these alleged 'protective' man-made pollutants. The solution is to reduce the cause, not cloak the planet in pollution.

[anya-D 8]

Do you dispute the fact that Americans for the longest time have done more harm to the environment per capita than any other nation in the world? Does it bother you that anyone should dare to criticize the incessant attitude by many Americans who believe that as long as they pay for it, they have no duty or responsibility to the environment, let alone the rest of the world?

You want to simplify it into - "Well, unless you don't use energy then you're just part of the problem." You're missing the point. Of course we humans use energy. The issue is over-consumption of that energy, especially at the detriment of our environment. Conservation used to be part of being conservative, but now over-consumption seems to define the attitude of many Americans. To me, that doesn't make sense.

Not just american though... I've talked about this with many of my friends in Thailand too (but the problem was about water shortage) and they just keep using it and didnt care about the future if we'd have it or not..

I told them that the "shortage" means that even you have million dollar but there's no water to use then the money is useless anyway - that apply to electricity , oil , food, trees and everything else.. which also relate to the pollution too.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

This article alleges that we need more pollution to counter the greenhouse effect...?

hey i'm working as fast as i can!

[dalegg 143]

Reference any reputible scientific journal that supports your statements otherwise, this will just turn into a pi$$ing contest.

The effect I described is called "solar dimming" and is common knowledge among environmental scientists.

For some recent research findings, see

Wild, M., Ohmura A., Makowski, K. [2007]

Impact of surface solar dimming and brightening on global warming

Geophys. Res. Lett., (in press)

Martin Wild is affiliated with the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (IACETH) in Zurich and has written a number of articles on the subject.

For a layman's introduction to the subject, follow this link.

This article alleges that we need more pollution to counter the greenhouse effect...? That's a joke, right? Either way, I don't buy it. This planet was around a long time before man and these alleged 'protective' man-made pollutants. The solution is to reduce the cause, not cloak the planet in pollution.

I think that only works if you believe the greenhouse affect is only completely or mostly caused by natural events. Seems like the things that cause most of the man made air pollution are the same things that cause man made green house gases so if you got rid of the air polluters, you would by default be getting rid of the global warmers.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you dispute the fact that Americans for the longest time have done more harm to the environment per capita than any other nation in the world? Does it bother you that anyone should dare to criticize the incessant attitude by many Americans who believe that as long as they pay for it, they have no duty or responsibility to the environment, let alone the rest of the world?

You want to simplify it into - "Well, unless you don't use energy then you're just part of the problem." You're missing the point. Of course we humans use energy. The issue is over-consumption of that energy, especially at the detriment of our environment. Conservation used to be part of being conservative, but now over-consumption seems to define the attitude of many Americans. To me, that doesn't make sense.

Not just american though... I've talked about this with many of my friends in Thailand too (but the problem was about water shortage) and they just keep using it and didnt care about the future if we'd have it or not..

I told them that the "shortage" means that even you have million dollar but there's no water to use then the money is useless anyway - that apply to electricity , oil , food, trees and everything else.. which also relate to the pollution too.

[Robor007 0]

Not just american though... I've talked about this with many of my friends in Thailand too (but the problem was about water shortage) and they just keep using it and didnt care about the future if we'd have it or not..

I told them that the "shortage" means that even you have million dollar but there's no water to use then the money is useless anyway - that apply to electricity , oil , food, trees and everything else.. which also relate to the pollution too.

No, it's not just America. By that I mean I we are not the only ones with their head in the sand on global warming. I saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' while I was in the Philippines (Metro Manila) with my wife. Greenpeace was trying to drum up support for the movie out in the main lobby. While they did get some people's attention sadly it didn't translate to wanting to see the movie. Including us there was a whopping 8 people watching it before it started and when it ended there was just us and 2 more couples.

[mrc 0]

Well, I just think it's real convenient to just talk about it and not do anything about it. I see so many people that use this forum discussing all of these "GLOBAL WARMING" issues but what are YOU actually doing about it? Posting on a message board?

It's easy to cut and paste articles, but how many of you that talk about global warming are using public transportation rather than giving excuses why you can't? Or, who is using sacks instead of paper/plastic bags at the store? Ooooh...big air conditioned malls you say? Are you ready to get rid of your home central air? If not, I bet you have been known to shop at one of these big air conditioned malls. Instead, we are just sitting at our fairly new computers which get replaced every two years (I wonder what kind of footprint all those old crts and cpus leave...think of all the unrecycled plastic!).

The point is, if you want to affect change, you must be willing to make sacrifices yourselves. Rather than rehashing the same stale global warming rhetoric, list some steps you may be taking to help the environment or leave a smaller footprint.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I just think it's real convenient to just talk about it and not do anything about it. I see so many people that use this forum discussing all of these "GLOBAL WARMING" issues but what are YOU actually doing about it? Posting on a message board?

It's easy to cut and paste articles, but how many of you that talk about global warming are using public transportation rather than giving excuses why you can't? Or, who is using sacks instead of paper/plastic bags at the store? Ooooh...big air conditioned malls you say? Are you ready to get rid of your home central air? If not, I bet you have been known to shop at one of these big air conditioned malls. Instead, we are just sitting at our fairly new computers which get replaced every two years (I wonder what kind of footprint all those old crts and cpus leave...think of all the unrecycled plastic!).

The point is, if you want to affect change, you must be willing to make sacrifices yourselves. Rather than rehashing the same stale global warming rhetoric, list some steps you may be taking to help the environment or leave a smaller footprint.

I think there's several issues Matt that you're combining into one issue. The first issue is the public's opinion or acceptance of legitimate science. For whatever strange reason, particularly in this country, science has now become publicly debatable and everyday Joe Schmoe's feel confident about arguing over the science behind the theory, be it evolution or global warming. So inevitably, as you will see articles and news stories in the media, these discussions find their way to public forums like this.

As Alex and I have pointed out earlier in this post, the issue isn't whether or not we humans use up energy, but whether the consumption of the energy is excessive to the detriment of our quality of life or the general attitude that one is entitled to use up natural resources as long as they pay for it. So, based on the original article of this post, the US statistically out produces more pollution and uses up more natural resources per capita than all other nations. China recently has surpassed us with emissions. Why is that so? Why do we use up more per American than other people around the world? Could we do better at reducing our consumption?

Perhaps you fall in the category of Americans who feel entitled to consume and pollute as long as you pay for it with your money. If you do have that attitude then really there's no point in arguing over these issues. I personally believe we have a responsability towards this planet and all of its inhabitants, to minimize our consumption of natural resources and to support ways which promote sustainability. It's about environmental conservation and in turn perserving a quality of life for my children and my children's children, Matt - not sure why that escapes you.

[bob_bonner 0]

This article alleges that we need more pollution to counter the greenhouse effect...? That's a joke, right? Either way, I don't buy it. This planet was around a long time before man and these alleged 'protective' man-made pollutants. The solution is to reduce the cause, not cloak the planet in pollution.

The article doesn't allege that, nor am I advocating polluting the air. However the fact that we have cleaner air now than we did in the '80s is partly accountable for the recent increase in global warming.

[mrc 0]

Well, I just think it's real convenient to just talk about it and not do anything about it. I see so many people that use this forum discussing all of these "GLOBAL WARMING" issues but what are YOU actually doing about it? Posting on a message board?

It's easy to cut and paste articles, but how many of you that talk about global warming are using public transportation rather than giving excuses why you can't? Or, who is using sacks instead of paper/plastic bags at the store? Ooooh...big air conditioned malls you say? Are you ready to get rid of your home central air? If not, I bet you have been known to shop at one of these big air conditioned malls. Instead, we are just sitting at our fairly new computers which get replaced every two years (I wonder what kind of footprint all those old crts and cpus leave...think of all the unrecycled plastic!).

The point is, if you want to affect change, you must be willing to make sacrifices yourselves. Rather than rehashing the same stale global warming rhetoric, list some steps you may be taking to help the environment or leave a smaller footprint.

I think there's several issues Matt that you're combining into one issue. The first issue is the public's opinion or acceptance of legitimate science. For whatever strange reason, particularly in this country, science has now become publicly debatable and everyday Joe Schmoe's feel confident about arguing over the science behind the theory, be it evolution or global warming. So inevitably, as you will see articles and news stories in the media, these discussions find their way to public forums like this.

As Alex and I have pointed out earlier in this post, the issue isn't whether or not we humans use up energy, but whether the consumption of the energy is excessive to the detriment of our quality of life or the general attitude that one is entitled to use up natural resources as long as they pay for it. So, based on the original article of this post, the US statistically out produces more pollution and uses up more natural resources per capita than all other nations. China recently has surpassed us with emissions. Why is that so? Why do we use up more per American than other people around the world? Could we do better at reducing our consumption?

Perhaps you fall in the category of Americans who feel entitled to consume and pollute as long as you pay for it with your money. If you do have that attitude then really there's no point in arguing over these issues. I personally believe we have a responsability towards this planet and all of its inhabitants, to minimize our consumption of natural resources and to support ways which promote sustainability. It's about environmental conservation and in turn perserving a quality of life for my children and my children's children, Matt - not sure why that escapes you.

Perfect response...with that said, re-read my post.

It's about environmental conservation and in turn perserving a quality of life for my children and my children's children

Again, I ask you, what are you doing to preserve a "quality of life" for your children? What steps do you take to reduce energy consumption? Certainly, you are concerned with it but to what extent? Are you willing to make necessary changes to help foster change? I never said or implied that I am one of the "I pay for it..." crowd. My only complaint was it's really easy to cut and paste articles condemning emissions but what are YOU or OTHERS that are complaining about it actually doing yourselves to stem the tide of "global warming"? It's like the guy who says "my vote doesn't count," so he doesn't vote...unless you are willing to make sacrifices yourself, I don't see the point...change has to start one individual at a time.

So, I ask you again, what do you do to conserve? You've already mentioned you drive a four-cylinder car...do you think that's enough? I'm merely inquiring...I think this would make a more productive post. Nothing escapes me...I'm just asking.