'Unsustainable' atmoshphere by 2030.
 

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4414000.stm:deb06]Article[/url:deb06]

[quote:deb06]Global greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 52% by 2030, unless the world takes action to reduce energy consumption, a study has warned.

The prediction comes from the latest annual World Energy Outlook report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

It says that under current consumption trends, energy demand will also rise by more than 50% over the next 25 years.

The IEA adds that oil prices will "substantially" rise unless there is extra investment in oil facilities.

It says the world has seen "years of under-investment" in both oil production and the refinery sector.

The organisation estimates that the global oil industry now needs to invest $20.3 trillion (£12 trillion) in fresh facilities by 2030, or else the wider global economy could suffer.

'Unsustainable'

"These projected trends have important implications and lead to a future that is not sustainable," said IEA chief Claude Mandil.

"We must change these outcomes and get the planet onto a sustainable energy path."

The IEA's warning comes at a time when the Kyoto climate change agreement calls on developed nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

It also cautions that oil producers need to double annual investments in their oil fields or else see another £13 a barrel on the projected price of oil over the next 25 years.

Economic impact

The IEA says this extra investment is vital to avoid the supply bottlenecks that saw oil prices rise above $70 a barrel in late August.

"If investments do not come in a timely and sufficient manner, there will be higher oil prices, and global economic growth will suffer," said IEA chief economist Fatih Birol.

The IEA says the world has enough oil supplies to last until 2030, and that the core issue is instead the need to improve the supply chain.

Greenpeace said the latest figures from the IEA showed just how important it was for countries to meet their Kyoto targets.

"The Kyoto protocol doesn't amount to much in terms of emissions reductions but at least it breaks the curve [of rising emissions] among countries that have accepted its targets," said Steve Sawyer, climate policy expert at the environmental pressure group.

"We have to work out the trick of how to get the US and the rapidly industrialising developing countries to break the curve as well."

The IEA is made up of the 26 main industrialised nations who are the major oil consumers.[/quote:deb06]

[sarcasm]great. The future looks brighter and brighter everyday.[/sarcasm] oOo:

I burn as much gas as I can. I burn tires and pur antifreeze down gutters.

[quote="newt.":5842b]I burn as much gas as I can. I burn tires and pur antifreeze down gutters.[/quote:5842b]

Get deployed to Iraq and get shot fuckface.

This one neibor of mine had like tons and tons of tires and one morning he started burning them. Smelled so HORRIBLE and TONS and TONS of black smoke in the area you would think everything was catching on fire. (I live in the middle of nowhere not a town or city.). Such a Jackass.

what do you expect with such a jackass(bush) in power of one of the most polluting countries in the world(20% of the worlds pollution) failing to recognize that pollution effects the enviroment, putting money over saving the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1248757.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0215-04.htm
http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressrele ... un162.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 4448.shtml

skank chicks love it because of a quicker tan


ps...Bullshits on entire article.

yea, we didnt pollute before Bush was in office. We may create 20% of the polution but what % of the worlds goods do we produce?

stfu


http://www.iea.org/Textbase/press/press ... REL_ID=163

I highly doubt that in 24 years the earth will not be able to sustaine life on it.

yea, we didnt pollute before Bush was in office. We may create 20% of the polution but what % of the worlds goods do we produce?[/quote:fbb86]


im not saying US didnt pollute before bush, im saying that the action to protecting the earth is now, with the kyoto Protocol now and bush not signing up to it.

And anyway many other countries produce just as much or even more goods for the world but have signed up to kyoto even if they dont have the strongest economy in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol


And you shouldnt be so ignorant about this, what good is '% of the worlds goods' when there is no world left to live in?

Sorry where does it say in the article that earth will not be able to support life?

No where.

It refers to unsustainable as in nothing can be done about it and it will be irreversible even, that action then will not work

I didnt say anything about in 23 years dumbass, you called bs on the article posted, I commented on the world going down the drain in the whole sense of pollution. Use your brain.

Christians always seem to deny Global Warming.

The Koyoto Protocol shoudnt have been signed. It was not realistic for a developed nation.


the % of goods produced has everything to do with the amount of polution created. you cant compare Africa with the US (or even Canada) in terms of polution produced. Both the US and Canada will create more polution because they are the most developed countries in the world, therefore producing more goods for the world to use.

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":1c90a]The Koyoto Protocol shoudnt have been signed. It was not realistic for a developed nation.


the % of goods produced has everything to do with the amount of polution created. you cant compare Africa with the US (or even Canada) in terms of polution produced. Both the US and Canada will create more polution because they are the most developed countries in the world, therefore producing more goods for the world to use.[/quote:1c90a]

maybe you didnt hear me, there are many other developed nations, strongest economic being japan, huge producing in Taiwan and other countries that have a huge producing markets as big or bigger aswell BUT their countries have signed up to kyoto, so why can't America? Canada ratified the treaty so why not USA.

And to quote myself again incase you didnt read before

'what good is '% of the worlds goods' when there is no world left to live in?'

The USA as the fastest developing country of the past century and their ignorance towards their new inventions (automobile and so on) are the reasons why we have this effect. There was a time when the USA alone was using 1/3rd of the worlds resources compared to the rest.

thats because most of the others lived in huts

the only things people over here care about are money and jobs. we are unwilling to develope alternate energy sources cause we're too lazy to change with the world. we are unwillling to join kyoto because we dont want to give up jobs and products.

alternate energy sources sounds great, running cars on water sounds great, turning trash into fuel sounds great but it isnt going to happen soon. There are people working on it but nothing realistic has come yet. Electric cars wont work. Hydrogen powered cars wont work. Some day an alternative will be found but until then it will be oil

[quote="Jin-Roh":96b39]Christians always seem to deny Global Warming.[/quote:96b39]

Global Warming is only a theory. In the last 100+ years, the US has maintained the best network of weather stations and the most accurate data on temperatures.

Here is what the data shows....

- The warmest year of the last century was 1934
- Since 1880, the mean temperature increase is only 1/3 of a degree celsius
- Temperatures have increased slightly in the last 30 years, about 1/2 degree celsius, but actually decreased by the same amount the previous 30 years
- Current temperatures in the US are the same as they were during the 1930s

Personally, I believe that the theory is solid, but there is not overwhelming amounts of data to support it. Also, the amount of time that data has been collected, is negligible when compared to the age of the earth.

We develop as much alternative energy as anyone. Nuclear power, for example. People bitch and moan about that. BTW, there are so many hybrids on the road in Northern VA and DC area, that they had to lift the HOV exemptions for them. I believe that it was something like 1 in 7 cars in the carpool lanes were hybrids.

[quote:03e31]Kyoto: Why did the US pull out?[/quote:03e31]

I love the wording on the title ... Bush pulled out because the majority of the countries would not enforce the policies. Is like why join the chess club if you are not gona go to the meetings or practices or actual games.

I love how everything is Bush’s fault, yet while this was going with Clinton no one seemed to care, or complain to him. Bush has taken many steps to resolve problems like this … but noooooo lets just find the negative of everything. –Bush helps US economy by CAFTA, downside Americans will loose jobs … well get a better job fag is a global economie.

Yeah BS on article, I call for a reunion on 2030 to see if 'Dem' are still fags complaining about everything.

Instead of complaining about the US, just take action by going to other countries like Brazil and go help over there ... I've seen the mass deforestation and I did my part by bringing my own kerosene and matches.

sorry where did you get this bullshit from? And just because the pollution hasnt affected temperatures in the US doesnt mean US's pollution hasnt affected the worlds temperatures or atmosphere.

Now something more realistic:

[img]http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/4329/instrumentaltemperaturerecord6.png[/img]
"This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set TaveGL2v was used. The most recent documentation for this data set is Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A. (2003) "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate, 16, 206-223."




I cant believe how ignorant some of you are on this, it is just stupid that you stand so firm behind such a idiotic leader's every decision, such a wrong one on not ratifying the Kyoto Treaty.

Sorry, should have qualified the data by saying in the US, where the data is dependable.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Personally, I don't. However, experts on the subject acknoledge that global warming is only a theory.

[quote:e7ec6]
Personally, I don't. However, experts on the subject acknoledge that global warming is only a theory.[/quote:e7ec6]

yes well when we are all living on boats itll still be a theory then too

If you were to represent the gases that make up the atmosphere on a football field, CO2 would be approx. 3 inches on the field. Just an interesting fact.

And also, if you look at charts over the last hundreds and hundreds of years (I mean farther than 1800's) you can see that the temperature fluctuation we have had recently are concurrent with patterns from the past. The temp rises and falls over periods of time, remember, in the 60s people were complaining about the earth's temp dropping more than usual...

http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf

^ a report that instigated a petition signed by 15,000 scientists/climatologists arguing that we didn't need to sign Kyoto.

so you think that the way we are heading is fine? you dont think we need to make some changes soon? what do you think the earths temperature will be like in the next 20-30 years? do you think that this country is going to self conciously reduce its greenhouse emissions, waste or its burden on the worlds environment anytime soon? at this rate, i think not. when i read stuff like "global warming is a theory," it just sounds to me that people dont care about the subject; that they only make arguments because they feel like they have to defend the US and its govt. i dont think people here take this issue seriously enough.

I certainly agree that we as human beings need to make some changes or sooner or later, the earth won't be able to sustain us. The literature that I've read recently suggests that the US, while being a contributor, won't be as big of a problem as China or India. Personally, I'd be happy as a clam if alternative clean energy were affordable for the average Joe. It'd be nice to tell the assholes in the Middle East to shove all their oil up their asses. The fact is, hybrid vehicles and solar power, are out of most people's reach. Although,

scientists probaly funded by the huge industrial companies behind/friends of the people in power.

15,000 of them?


I'm sure we should do something to take better care of the planet, but I do not think it is as imminent as a threat that most people are pushing it to be. It is not an issue that is clear cut, many scientists are divided on global warming and I don't think it something that will create any serious effects anytime soon. I think many people are overreacting to what Gore and "The Day After Tomorrow" are presenting and taking it to heart without considering it. I'm just saying, I don't think it's as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be, I don't beleive that it is something proving to be an imminent threat to the world, and I don't beleive that we need to take actions like the Kyoto agreement to make things harder on the people on the earth unnecessarily.

That said, I think we should take steps to reduce pollution, I just don't think we need to be so extreme about it.

it will happen, and then there will be an ice age, and no im not saying that cause of that moive.

[quote="Jimmy Paterson":8103e]it will happen, and then there will be an ice age, and no im not saying that cause of that moive.[/quote:8103e]

What movie, was it good?

We should start outsorcing our waste to mars, its allready f-ed up, or just send it straight to the sun and it would help the sun so it doesn't die in a couple hundred years.

And yeah is just a theory. Sadly we will only see it as just a theory cause nature is unpredictable, and there are too many constants, and what not, so we cannot get an accurate thing going since it will take hundreds of years.

I'm all for nature, but mother nature can be somewhat rough sometimes ... hurricanes. And is not like hurricanes started happening this millenium, and at this strength.

[quote="mR.cLeAn":35f32]We should start outsorcing our waste to mars, its allready f-ed up,[/quote:35f32]

oOo:

[quote="mR.cLeAn":35f32]or just send it straight to the sun and it would help the sun so it doesn't die in a couple hundred years.[/quote:35f32]

No, it wont help at all. Plus try a few billion years.

My bad, my sources told me the wrong information.

Is it just me, or does that graph basically confirm what Tom said? If you read the data points, the variance at its highest and lowest point is roughly between 0.9-1.1 degrees C change.

Regarding the issue at hand; I do think global warming exists and something needs to be done about it. I live in the heart of Detroit, where automotive companies rule the land. I can tell you that they're busting their asses off to identify and engineer alternative energy sources. In fact, a new corporation just built a huge research facility a few blocks from me that is strictly reserved for alternative energy exploration. A buddy of mine that works at Ford was telling me that Toyota is working on a hybrid that will get between 70-100 MPG. I read an article that said something along the same lines ([url=http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,1107812,00.html:aee19]article[/url:aee19]).

The beauty of a market driven economy is the huge incentive for such comapnies to find a sustainable & renewable alternative energy source. You think the oil companies make a lot of $? Wait until one of these companies finds a solution to the fossil fuel problem; they'll make more than any of us could even imagine.

Exactly. People always say that the big oil companies are only focused on selling oil until it runs out. Does that make any sense? Why would a billion dollar industry want to do something so destructive to itself? The incentive of alternate energy sources is too great for them to ignore, and that's why many of them are investing in r&d of alternative sources of energy, because it's an easy business choice.

We get alot of current events reports about Global Warming. And yes human pollution of the atomsphere is a growing concern but really I don't care. I don't mean to sound ignorant or selfish or shortminded but I think people should worry more about education then ice caps. I don't mean to sound stupid, saying that, but lets get our children educated and movetivated. Fit as much life as we can in the brief moment that humans have existed on earth.

You claim Kyoto is nonsense because it is only there to stop Global Warming.. Bullshit. It was made up in order to deal with massive smog problems, maybe you do not live by a major smog center, but it effects your health and FUCKING LIFE EXPECTANCY !!!!. This is just as important as a fucking hole in the atmosphere, We need to stop polluting. Remember.. You breathe it in.

I live in Northern Virginia, a very densely populated area. And while you argue that we should do something about smog, I think the rest of the world needs to do something. In Indonesia and China they have had bad enough air pollution that they had to wear surgical masks around outside. I think America and Europeans countries have been much better at limiting emmissions than the rest of the world. Getting angry at America for not signing it is stupid, we should just make sure the really bad countries sign it. Our smog isn't that bad, maybe NY and LA are really bad but we are already making new gas to lower emmissions and raising emmission standards. (That's why gas is more expensive in CA, because they use special formulations to limit emmissions) I just don't think the world should be mad at us when it's Asia and South America who are doing the most damage.