Archives

Hi All:

___After watching “An Inconvenient Truth” the other day, I was thinking about legal actions that could be taken against the US when/if the caps and Greenland do start to melt in a large enough quantity to make sea level’s rise significantly. Are we open for this kind of backlash given we emit ~ 25% of the GHG’s on the planet yet have far < 5% of the worlds population? Is there a world type court that can fine or enforce a fine on a country/countries for losses created by sea level rise?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

As I'm sure you know, this is being debated this week-- on a smaller scale -- in the Supreme Court, with 12 states (including CA) battling it out against the EPA. But the issues are quite similar --proving global warming exists, then proving cause and effect, jurisdiction & responsibility, then finally pinning down the injury and damages caused, and finally how much effect can change have, considering the global environment. I've found some of the analyst discussions on tv such as Jim Lehrer News Hour completely riveting. This is one of the most interesting news stories of the year imho.

I to am interested in the out come of the high courts actions.

BUT,,, honestly. I put very little if any over thought or care into what doom's day sayers have to offer. History has proven time and time again. They have been wrong. I think the current freon mess is a f****** joke! I honestly believe global warming happens, if not happening right now! But it seems for what ever reason this has happened to the world before. And it came back just fine.

Im for nuke power. God knows we have ruined enough land with coal and hydro. If we cant manage nuke power at this point in human history. Why are we even waisting the big courts time. And looking at the worlds pollution police. Seems kinda stupid to me in the long run. :) We as humans will spend more than its worth for nothing.

Just look at the EPA:

We spend a lot of time debating mpg. The use and amount of hydrocarbons and the effect of this on our plant.

I spent sometime in the painting world. Ive painted aircraft, cars, homes and thimbles. Im here to tell you the EPA has ruined the painting world. Take aircraft. They ruined Emron paint. Sure it was hazard. But it was great paint in the hands of a skilled painter. Now days the ave. aircraft owner will basically have to have his or hers airplane painted more often than before. Because the new EPA paints are junk.

Then there are the Super Fund Sites. We have one here in town where I live. Talk about a joke! It involves corporate America, the EPA and court system. More money has been spent for noting than anything I can think of in the county as a hole.

So yeah. I look forward to the war between the states and the court. Im sure something good will come of it. But Im sure the cost will out weight the bennys in the short and long run.

It would be to much for folks to do the near close to right thing the first time wouldn't it.

I think both parties will take Global Warming seriously by the 2008 election. I think (and hope) Republicans are going to do an about face from denial to what Gov Schwartzenegger is currently doing. As time goes on, Global Warming denial is going to become an unacceptable political libelity.

The lead-free and other RoHS-compliant electronics are
likely to be a long-term metallurgical nightmare, too.
.
Lawyers screw everything up, and get rich from it. Hearing
that they're even entertaining the time to have ANY of this
discussion in such venues really pisses me off.
.
_H*

Well, when 100+ million people drown, I'm sure the world can convene a trial like the Nurenburg trials and try all the US government officials. Find them guilty of mass murder, global genocide, following orders, and profiteering and hang the lot of them.

Not that it'll do much good at that point for the rest of us, but it'll probably make us feel better.

Hi Tarabell:

___I was speaking more about a world court, not the Supreme court ruling over the MA lawsuit. If/when those sea levels rise and some of the coastal city’s become shallow lakes, we know the world will be pointing their fingers at us no matter what happens. The world will become a very interesting place if sea levels rise more given we have already read of similar problems from a few smaller island habitats off major coastlines in the Pacific.

___I was just wondering if there was a $ consequence that could directly be tied and squeezed out of the US is all?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I was speaking more about a world court

Yeah I know my brain just got worked up with the court debates last week and couldn’t resist the parallels. In 20 years maybe when the Netherlands floods over, instead of war crimes, the Hague will be conducting global warming trials. Hopefully the question whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant won’t be tolerated by then...

I was just at a small neighborhood discussion gathering about
climate change, and one of the things that emerged was that some
people who have run the numbers show much lower costs for
immediate and widespread mitigation NOW, as opposed to what
the consequences of inaction will cost. The real trick is
getting people, especially those with economic interests, to
see long-term. Someone's gotta start asking them how they expect
to ENJOY all that money if there's no civilized world left..
.
_H*

Coincidence we are planning a permanent moon base?

I was struck by the irony after hearing that the residents of Bangladesh donated approximately $ 1 million in disaster relief to aid the US victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Those residents of Bangladesh may themselves become refugees in the not too distant future, as that nation is now mostly only 1 - 2 feet above sea level.

Possibly relacted > http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/06/colorado.avalanche.ap/index.html