☆ENGLISH ONLY☆コミュのAn Inconvenient Truth

>Death is an inevitability for everything on this planet.

On the premise of the fact that everything on earth is destined
to die, global warming is actually trivial issue.
No objection about it and I totally understand that you are
too smart to argue trivial issues such as global warming.

Now, could you do me a favor? Why don’t you stop arguing
such trivial things so that you can avoid wasting your time?

Believe me. I understand that you are smart guy and
I wish smart guy like yourself can devote something meaningful.
(If you can find one.)

Well, we are not competing anything. We are discussing about the global warming. I think that we are still lucky compared to future generation. We still have opportunity to discuss whether global warming is big threat or not. Global warming itself already started as everybody mention. We are not sure how much badly it would affect us.

Actually, we can take advantage of this global warming to generate money!!! Now, in the world, we have many project such as reforestation, water preservation project,
change the energy resource to solar energy, wind energy, etc.

This is solar energy project:
> MSK CEO Dr. Tadao Kasahara will remain in his current role for at least four years
Based on the "2006 Photovoltaic System Market Future Outlook Report, Japan", Japan is the most important market for solar energy in terms of both total installation and production of solar cells and modules with 53% of world production
http://www.solarserver.de/index-e.html

This is Rainforest project by US company project:
Oregon Power Companies Offset Carbon Through Investment in Ecuador's Rainforest
Conservation Organizations Help Companies Combat Global Warming Through Reforestation
http://www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/2002/111302.xml


Oh, by the way, US is one of the worst countries in terms of producing CO2, CH4 (Methane), critical gas pollution.

However, Some of US companies and NGOs are leading the
pro- environment in the world!!

I worked for EcoLogic Development Fund (Boston) for their CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) project in Honduras. This project is that EcoLogic provide the environmental traning such as reforestation, agroforestry, project proposal writing etc for the local NGO (FUPNAPIB- Pico Bonito National Park Foundation). Through World Bank Bio carbon fund, EcoLogic and FUPNAPIB received fund for reforestation project. Through reforestation, we can generate income for the local and conserve the forest too!

Honduras Pico Bonito Forest Restoration
http://carbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&ProjID=9637&stp=Yes

Many US company fund the project for environment. Why
US company and NGO spend so much money on environment?
Because this is opportunity and money involved!!
We can make money to face directly with global warming!

We can make more economic incentives to company, if they know that environment is money! We do good thing for enviornment and for our future. And everybody happy!
now, we can do that. But if we miss this opportunity, what will we face at the year 2050?

I made one scenario for this.

The year 2050, we would probably be around 60 - 80 years old.

One day, our child ask me, papa, why we don't have food?
I will say that because we don't have enough place to plant and cultivate the land.
Our child will ask me that papa, why we don't have enough place?
I will say, because many of land was gone.

Papa, why many land have gone?
I will say that because suddenly whole glacier melt down at 2025, and Tokyo was gone! Papa, what is TOKYO!?
TOKYO was our ex-capital. I am sorry, I couldn't do anything for you. You never seen plain land.
Papa, You are not bad!!
Because you didn't know that glacier would gone, right?

I am sorry that we knew what global warming makes us disaster, but we weren't sure. We much care about economic
development. We care about our money.

Papa, but now we don't have anything, why?

Humm,,,because flood brought whole of my asset to sea.
I worked very hard at one of the biggest company in Japan. But my company also gone, because of flood. I had
so much money, but money couldn't do anything global warming at that time.
So, We have to move to Mountain.

Papa, you knew what would happen!?

Yes, my dear. We knew that.

....

Papa, I see that water is coming up everyday. I am scare.

My son. This is our destiny. Now, we don't have winter. Everyday, it is hot. still ice is melting, so water is increasing. This is "irreversible". I can't do anything.

Papa, you are smart, why you didn't do anything?

Huummm

Papa, can I do anything now?

My son, we can't do anything. When we were at 2006, we could do something, but we missed the time.
We weren't really sure.

NOW! WE CAN DO SOMETHING! AND WE CAN MAKE MONEY FROM THIS!

One of the typical myth about global Warming:
To work for Global Warming is enermy for economy!!!

But absolutely this is not true! We can make money
directly deal with this!

Let's face it! And make money and give our future generation hope!

Remember --

Al Gore presented THEORIES in his animations. THEORIES. Not hard facts.

Science Fiction.

So-called "scientists" predicted that by 2000, we'd be living on the moon and have manned spaceships powerful enough to explore beyond the solar system. They even created elaborate models and scenarios. Never happened, did it? Why -- science fiction.

Films like "Waterworld" and "the Road Warrior" and "A.I." and "The Omega Man" and many others are science fiction, also. Why don't you believe them? Why don't you put all your faith in what they say?

Because they're theories. Science fiction. Theoretical views of the future. And that's EXACTLY what Al Gore has done -- presented theoretical views of the future.

There's no way in hell that he can predict the future. There is no way anyone can.

In the 1970s and 80s, so-called scientists and "experts" screamed that the world would freeze. That we would enter an ice age bigger than the previous ones.

Now these exact same "scientists" and "experts" are saying that the world is going to overheat.

Who's right? Are we going to freeze? Or heat up? Or maybe nothing will happen -- because there's no way that we can predict it.

The alarming gas price rises and whatnot are artificial. There's no gas crisis. We won't run out of oil anytime soon. Not within our lifetimes, at least. The government is just wagging the dog - -trying to create panic in the general public to distract them from the fact that the US government is killings 10s of 1000s of people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If anything, nuclear war will kill us all before global warming does. Man's inhumanity to man will kill us all before nature does.

There might not be 2050. Hell, there might not even be a 2007 if Das Bush-fuhrer makes good with his threat on nuking Iran. We'll all be reduced to ash and dust and shadows on the pavement.

鈴木すずきち,
> Now, could you do me a favor? Why don’t you stop
> arguing such trivial things so that you can avoid
> wasting your time?

Why? You can't stand it when someone has an opposing viewpoint? That someone doesn't believe in exactly what you believe? With that attitude, you'll go nowhere in this world. Nowhere.

So instead of presenting your viewpoint, you give me a sarcastic reply. Whatever, d00d.

There will always be people who don't believe in what you believe in. There will always be people who will contradict you. There will always be people with opposing viewpoints. That's human nature. People who can't accept that fact are extremely immature. I suggest that you learn to accept it. Because if can't accept it, and you humor them with sarcastic remarks while you're beggin people to stop saying things contrary to what you believe, then I pity you. I feel sorry for you. You must live a miserable, horrible existence.

Toade>

Scientific theories are on an equal footing with science fiction. You're kidding me, right? Science fiction does not need to be based on science fact or empirical evidence. Theories and hypotheses are only credible when they can explain empirical evidence. They can (and often are) wrong, but to equate them with fiction is going a little too far.

If we want facts, we might consider the following:
Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations appear to track human industrial activity pretty well. Of course, the directly measured data sets are limited historically, but you can't blame the scientists for lack of data before their time.

There is a scientific debate about the greenhouse effect, but many of the naysayers are being funded by oil money and other sources who have a vested interest in denying the problem exists.

Anyhow, I think everyone pretty much acknowledges that there are long term temperature fluctuations which are independent of human activity.

When it comes down to it, the debates are about the significance of human contribution to global climate change, and how best to address the issue of climate change (regardless of cause(s)).


Regardless of whether or not human activity is the main cause or just one of several factors in the apparent climate and ecological change, it would seem that we do need to think about the human race's response to dramatic climate change, given that a dramatic change in climate will impact the human race in a major way.

I suppose we can all sit back and accept that the climate will change, and that many, many humans will suffer, or we can attempt to plan for the future.
(Or we could hypothesize about the likelihood of the annihilation of the human race as a result of nuclear war (which unless the 3 major nuclear superpowers go into direct conflict is impossible), or of a huge comet hitting the earth sometime during our lifetimes which will bring a natural "nuclear winter".)


Anyway, is it really morally justifiable for city dwellers to drive around in SUVs, light trucks, or Humvees, or for corporations to promote and sell such vehicles to the public? Interesting to note that the main proponent of gas guzzling vehicles is a country which is claimed by the Christian right. What does the Bible say about gluttony and avarice? Hmm....

And as someone said, there is plenty of money to be made when new industries grow. Witness the flood of money into cleantech and renewable energy (Pacific Ethanol, or the whole bunch of solar cell companies which are getting funding right now).

What is the downside to the public (ie to those without direct financial interest) of encouraging people to live more sustainably? Do we not have an obligation to impose a burden on people who choose to waste and pollute way beyond their fair share?

Of course, the people who will lose out will put up a fight using every means possible. I'm sure the horse and carriage guys put up as good a fight as they could when automobile appeared. Things have moved on since then, and tactics are more diverse, more aggressive, more subtle all at the same time, the corruption of science wouldn't be a surprise. Scientists as a group are unfortunately no less prone to succumbing human weakness than doctors or lawyers or housewives.

On a broader level, reliance on non-renewable resources is bound to end in disaster, perhaps not in our generation, but at the current appetite, it can't be that far away. Is it OK not to care about the greedy consumption of non-renewable resources just because it doesn't affect us, or maybe even our children? As for the hypothesis about the relationship between oil and war, I agree there is one but not in the way you suggest. It does give oil companies an excuse to jack up their prices though. (to be fair, the market prices for crude are as much a result of speculative trading, which isn't just done by or on behalf of the oil majors)


I have to admit I haven't seen the film, and whilst I am all for a more sustainable economy, I have issues with a person who claims to have "invented the internet". It seems like such a politically motivated stunt. Sorry if that sounds too cynical. That doesn't change the fact that I am in favour of economically viable (which doesn't mean I oppose anything that makes me take a sacrifice, far from it, I am willing to accept that we all need to make a reasonable sacrifice, at least until a transition is made to an economic model which shifts significantly away from hydrocarbon reliance) change towards a more sustainable world.

Again, Toade san.
Please give us more reference information.

> Films like "Waterworld" and "the Road Warrior" and "A.I." and "The Omega Man" and many others are science fiction, also. Why don't you believe them? Why don't you put all your faith in what they say?

Are you kidding right? These are more like assumption.
The difference between Al Gore "An Inconvenient Truth" and others are now happening all over the world.

> しんのすけ san
Scientific theories are on an equal footing with science fiction. You're kidding me, right? Science fiction does not need to be based on science fact or empirical evidence. Theories and hypotheses are only credible when they can explain empirical evidence. They can (and often are) wrong, but to equate them with fiction is going a lit> tle too far

I support しんのすけsan opinion.

I admit you (Toade san) about gas problem. This is the one most likely artifial problem. Bush got so many enermy at Middle East and create hostilities to Western society.

Nuclear weapon didn't exist in Iraq, but US invaded and raped Iraq, because of oil. Without oil, US won't intervene Iraq. This is not the social justice issues, but oil issues.

The population growth and industrialization affect the gas price quite rapidly.

> Toade san
There's no gas crisis. We won't run out of oil anytime soon.

Please read following, you are right, but you need to consider population growth and industrialization.

> "Are We 'Running Out'? I Thought There Was 40 Years of the Stuff Left"
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is n> ot having enough to keep our economy running.

This is very interesting, if you are aware of gap price rising. It will take 10-15 minutes to read, but I think that you can have some idea about the oil problem.

Your making point is very interesting:

> If anything, nuclear war will kill us all before global warming does. Man's inhumanity to man will kill us all before nature does.

There might not be 2050. Hell, there might not even be a 2007 if Das Bush-fuhrer makes good with his threat on nuking Iran. We'll all be reduced to ash and dust and sh> adows on the pavement.

Bush administration and Kim Jonyil North Korea is somehow very dangerous to have a chance to create the nuclear war. However, US can't shoot nuclear weapon to Iran. If US used nuclear weapon, the other countries will break the Nuclear Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapon, and the world would be much insecure.

> Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm

Narrative

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is one of the great success stories of arms control. It has made major contributions to global security and economic well being. It has been remarkably successful in achieving its main goals and -- with nearly 190 parties -has become the most widely-adhered to arms control treaty in history. The NPT is an indispensable tool in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Conclusion

The world is emerging from the Cold War, a period marked by costly and spiraling nuclear competition. As the international community moves into a new era, the NPT will remain critical in a world where security is defined increasingly by the absence of nuclear weapons programs, rather than by their presence, and by the sharp reduction, not expansion, of existing nuclear arsenals.

The NPT is vital for security, arms control and disarmament, and economic and social development throughout the world. By rededicating themselves to the NPT, its parties can ensure that this Treaty will play an even more vit> al role in the new millenium.

US already have lost hegemony after Iraq invasion. Now, they are facing serious problem with Lebanon and Israel war. US supported Israel, then they lost international support about their Middle East policy.

US can use nuclear weapon as "threat", but this should be only for threat. North Korea doesn't have huge international impact, their impact is limited only in East Asia. They probably could use nuclear weapon only one time to Japan, but after that, North Korea and maybe South Korea map will be gone forever, coz other countries will shoot nuclear weapon to North Korea.

しんのすけsan
> I suppose we can all sit back and accept that the climate will change, and that many, many humans will suffer, or we can attempt to plan for the future.

I think that we can discuss what is better approach to the environment. And we already have many renewable energy sources to apply into our daily life.

This is natural, we have pro and con, but at least we are already aware of the environmental problem. we probably could more advocate the industry sector to adopt the
ethernol like Brazil already did. Brazil will be the oil independent country by 2007.

> Published on Sunday, April 17, 2005 by the Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
The Future of Ethanol
by David Morris
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0417-23.htm

By 2007, 100 percent of all new Brazilian cars may be able to run on 100 percent ethanol. Brazilian sugar-cane-fed biorefineries will be capable of producing sufficient ethanol to allow the entire fleet, new and old cars al> ike, to do so.

The discussion is quite important, but if we are the one who already know the problem and alternative solution, we probably could act for this.

It is very difficult to change someone's mind, because
he or she might have more confidence in his or her theory. Why not act, if we already know some alternative!

I've been starting to take care of the landscape and I recycle cans and paper now.

That's really great iniciatives.

we can't change the world drastically, only we can do litlle by little.

Willingly or not, the American public is becoming more and more concerned about their dependence on crude oil. The skyrocketing gas price is driving a lot of Americans to replace their huge SUVs with small, more fuel-efficient vehicles. I'm seriously considering taking the bus to work, too.

I have a friend studying global warming (literally, that's his major in his university) and he was pointing out the fact that even if every American stopped driving cars, it would have a negligible effect on global warming.
However, i'm not saying that people shouldn't be more conscious of the environment.
I'm just saying that there are more important things for mankind to be doing than hugging trees.

Oh, and another thing. The kyoto protocol was a stupid idea. bwa hahah

Driving cars or not is not just about the global warming. Depending less on cars has a lot of positive consequences - less traffic congestion, less pollution, less dependence on foreign oil, to name a few. Makes you feel good to not help those top bananas at the oil companies buy their cruiser boat or a multimillion-dollar mansion. :)

haha holy shit, i didnt even read it all but.. it seems that global warning awareness is really popular in japan, but in america a lot of people dont know about it so no one really cares.

Now, "3 out of 4 conservatives agree (that global warming is real.)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHc9PawwoNk

Unfortunately, many of American doesn't know anything about international trends as マッチュー san said to us. American is not stupid, I think. They just don't have any interests outside of their states not even country.
Because USA is too big, and people tends to be individualistic.

Btw, even some of educated American doesn't know all of USA states name. When I went to Washington DC at 2000, I joined the International conference. Then some American asked me where I came from? I said that I came from Nebraska. But he thought that this was different country.
Even educated person doesn't know their country's state, what do they know about the world?

American is not stupid, they are educated for more economic oriented. Therefore for the management parts, I think that they are really good and they are very competitive. Of course, they are very smart in many ways, but particularly for the international issues, they don't know.
But I am very surprised that my American roommate and landlord knew what the global warming it was.

In USA, generally speaking, North east side, people are more progressive. The rest of parts except California, American are very conservative and more domestic.

Kyoto protocol, there are many problems as ☆James san
mention. ☆James san, you'd better mention why you think that this is stupid idea. I know that you have some reasoning, but still.

I think that his one of reason is:

Developing countries doesn't need to participate for this treaty. So, China can produce much pollution while
developed countries strive to reduce the pollution

Second:

USA didn't ratify, mostly because of economic reason.
(Somebody will mention that USA disagree because developing countries will be exclude from this treaty. But this is just excuses)

Third:

We can trade the CO2 depends on countries condition.
If Japan couldn't meet our goal, we can purchase from
other developed countries where reduced more than they needed. So, this is just trading, and money making game like concept. Maybe ☆James san think.

Somehow, I also disagree such concept, but as starting point, I think that this is very interesting.

If anybody want to know more about Kyoto Protocol, and
CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) theory and practice, I think that I can explain more.

>> Btw, even some of educated American doesn't know all of
>> USA states name.

I can't blame them for that. I as an educated Japanese don't remember the names of all the Japanese prefectures. :p

More seriously, you're probably right about the Americans in general being more focused on the local events than on what's happening in the world. I believe it's true especially in the inland states, where people tend not to have as much cross-cultural experience as those who live in states with more mixed population. I don't have hard facts or numbers to back it up, but that's my take anyway.

だいはど san.

Haha, before I came to USA at 1999, I thought that American are more or less progressive, but I faced many un unbelievable things with American. Then I realized that more or less American are the same with Japanese.

American politics control the world, so I thought that they should aware what US is doing. Actually, this is very dangerous for the world sustainability. US create too much hostility against Middle East.

If Middle East people know that American public doesn't know much thing about them, they would upset.

I am not totally disappointed to USA, because I know that we have more awared population work in USA too. They really try to change the world better place. Little by little, we can make the world better with those friends.

This is not scientific but I spent some time down in the jungles of southern Mexico in 1989. The Lacandon Mayan Indians I was living with told me that their rainy season had been delayed by a month. They informed me that the planet was sick because of us and that our world would end soon as result of our neglect.

There is a mind set of entitlement in the US and throughout the developed world. We saw it when the war started when Cheney in his infinite wisdumb stated that American's have a God given right to maintain their lifestyle. Until we change the mindset obsessed with the moment it will be very hard to affect change.

First of all, Dai, you're crazy if you think that riding a bike to work is going to stop global warming. Of course, nobody can say what effect humans are having on the global temperature, and what specific pollution causes it.

On another note, this is just a weird thing to say: "American is not stupid, I think. They just don't have any interests outside of their states not even country. "

First of all, there are almost 3 times as many people in America as there are in Japan, in addition, we're spread out over a land mass that's larger than all of europe (if you consider alaska as well) with every race of person on earth (pretty much). Saying statements that are supposed to describe ALL Americans is like trying to describe ALL europeans or something. You can't say "they dont have interests outside of thier country" because even if only 1/3 of all Americans cared, that's equal to the population of ALL of Japan.

And another thing, I know that America bashing is very stylish around the world right now, but the Kyoto protocol was just stupid. Poor industrialized countries like Mexico, China, Vietnam and others would have no regulations, but America would have to spend billions of dollars lowering thier polution PERCENTAGE even though America's ratings are vastly lower than most other countries to begin with. In the end, the Kyoto protocol was just another way to screw over the American people, who have to pay for all these taxes and international agreements funded by the US government.
Maybe the rest of the world should get their pollution levels down to the same rate as America, and THEN we can talk about having an equal percentage reduction plan.

America isn't everybody's dad. When did we become the "move in and clean everything up for everybody" country? When a 台風 hits Asia, America sends millions of dollars, when civil war kills millions of Africans, America sends money and aid. When ANYTHING happens to Israel, America goes running in (which is SO f*cked up. Stupid christians have America obsessed with Israel). Something like 76% of all foreign aid/donations that come from America come from American private organizations (American citizens, not the government).
Yet, when a hurricane hit America, nobody did shit for us.
If we DO go into a country and remove a dictator, the world bitches about us getting involved, but if we DON'T agree to something, the world bitches about us _not_ getting involved.

I have absolutely no idea how to solve the problem, but I still think it's rubbish, always complaining about America.

Ahhh, I love ranting.

(One more thing, I've never met an American older than 10 in my life who didn't know where Nebraska was)

James, you apparently did not read my post above (#33). Global warming or not, driving cars less will have a lot of positive consequence. :)

The way I see it is, the Kyoto Protocol doesn't require developing countries to adhere to the same standard, since we need to give those countries a fair chance for industrialization. The current developed countries such as the U.S. and Japan had no environmental restrictions when they became industrialized. Telling the developing countries that they can't do that would be a bit unfair.

Mista Momi san

> The Lacandon Mayan Indians I was living with told me that their rainy season had been delayed by a month. They informed me that the planet was sick because of us and that our world would end soon as result of our neglect.

These phenomena happened not only USA, but also many different countries. While I was working in Indonesia 1999, rain didn't come on september, and end of October rain started as rainy season. As urban farmer (as intern), I was waiting for the rain to seed the vegetables. Because of changing the weather, it was hard to tell when we could start cultivating. It was almost 2 month delay for the first rain. This is very directly affecting the agriculture too.

Global warming affect our food security too.

> http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=257
"Global warming is on everyone's radar," says viticulturist Franci Ashton of her colleagues in California's winegrowing industry. Small wonder: The quality and taste of wine depend utterly on the soil and climate conditions in which the grapes are grown—a concept known as terroir.

Scientists predict that global warming will bring higher temperatures, more heat waves and less precipitation, changes that could transform the state's $15 billion win> e industry. (Wine Institute, 2004)

☆James san.

I don't know what do you want to address you through
> in addition, we're spread out over a land mass that's larger than all of europe with every race of person on earth (pretty much). Saying statements that are supposed to describe ALL Americans is like trying to describe ALL europeans or something.

Did you read my statement?
> In USA, generally speaking, North east side, people are more progressive. The rest of parts except California, American are very conservative and more domestic.

I am not talking about ALL American. However, unfortunately, most of American who worked, traveled or studied in differenct countries, they most likely frequent
back and force then still minority.

Travelers go to Mexico, Bahama, Hawaii (US), Canada,
some of central America, but many American goes to
tourist spots.

Anyway, don't think that I am blaming or bashing American or USA. I just state that this is very pessimistic situation we are facing to.

Kyoto Protocol, as だいはど san mention,

> since we need to give those countries a fair chance for industrialization. The current developed countries such as the U.S. and Japan had no environmental restrictions when they became industrialized. Telling the developing countries that they can't do that would be a bit unfair.

This was the really discussion between the developed countries and developing countries.

To solve this problem, they had discussion about the
transfer technology such as CDM (Clean Develoment
Mechanism). Normal situation, developed countries
doesn't have much interests to transfer their
"advance" technology to developing countries.

To give the incentive, CDM create the Joint project
between developed countries and developing countries.

If you want to know more about Kyoto Protocol, wikipedia
is very helpful source to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Economic is matter for all countries. But economy is very fragile against environment and terrorism.
Terrorism doesn't cause the biggest death figures compared to Environment.

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

> The earthquake triggered a series of devastating tsunamis that spread throughout the Indian Ocean, killing large numbers of people and inundating coastal communities across South and Southeast Asia, including parts of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand. Although initial estimates have put the worldwide death toll at over 275,000 with thousands of others missing, recent analysis compiled lists a total of 229,866 persons lost, includin> g 186,983 dead and 42,883 missing.

> http://www.greatdreams.com/trade.htm
TERRORISM - WORLD TRADE CENTER

PAGE 1 SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
updated 5-20-2006 WTC REVISITED
[Actual final death total is 2645]
[Estimated total of deaths and injured is 3400]
[This is based on body parts - some people have not bee> n identified]

Only one time incidence, but terrorism caused
3,400 death, and Tsunami caused 229,866 persons lost, including 186,983 dead and 42,883 missing.

Environmental hazard can easily cause more than 100,000
death in anywhere particulary coastal area including the possibilities of Japan. After Tsunami, people suffered
much heavily because of the loss of working age workers and huge grief of loss, economy would get much worse.
It will last for long time.

As you may know, terrorism never killed more than 100,000 people in one time yet (If nuclear terrorism occur, I wouldn't know, but so far fortunately, we didn't have).

But global warming can kill more than 100,000 people in one time.

If we think about the economy, we have to prevent the
environmental hazards.

How do you think?

だいはどさん：I think you should sell your BMW and give the money to fuel cell reasearch. bwahaha ;-)

正樹: "Did you read my statement? "

Yeah, I did. You said "American is not stupid, I think. They just don't have any interests outside of their states not even country. " and I said that Americans DO have interests outside of their state, and yes, even their country.

Also, i'm not saying that the Kyoto protocol was a bad idea for the environment, i'm just saying that it was a bad deal. I could try to get every country on earth to eliminate all gas cars, and that would be good for the environment too. But it wouldn't be realistic.

Why don't people just go on and do the Kyoto Protocol without America's participation? Do they need America to symbolically hold their hand or something? haha

James,

At the very least, my car qualifies as "ULEV" (ultra-low emission vehicle)... :) I know, I know, I should leave it in the garage and take the bus... I know...

>>46: ☆James> Why don't people just go on and do the Kyoto Protocol without America's participation? Do they need America to symbolically hold their hand or something? haha

:I You do realize America puts out more carbon dioxide emmissions than about a dozen of all the other greatest carbon dioxide producers put together, so if America as a whole could be involved in an agreement to reduce global warming, it would feel like half of the problem was solved right there. There's no denying the impact of the American economy on the globe.

＞ 48: Guchi

Id like to see where you get your statistics from. Could you please post a link to this information? Otherwise its just hype im assuming.

The problem in the US is that our entire economy revolves around buying and selling. This creates a superficial sense of self in many people who define their existence by what they buy and own rather than what they contribute to society. I live in a country of misplaced values and priorities.

Case in point. The US is attacked and one of the first things uttered from Dick Cheney's slanted stroke struck mouth is that American's have a right to maintain their lifestyle. No talk of sacrifice because we are at war. No talk of conserving because gas prices are skyrocketing. Just spend spend spend. The only thing that gives Cheney a hard on at his age is the profits. But we can balance profits with protecting the environment we are headed down a path that will be problematic for our grandchildren.

49: I don't have a link or source off the top of my head but I've read of it several times (so my accuracy is questionable when comparing the volume of CO2 to a dozen other top producers). At any rate though, America is the world's greatest source of CO2 pollution hands down, in what references I have seen.

I'll look some articles up.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp

Q. What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?
A. The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.

http://www.solarenergy.org/resources/energyfacts.html

"The United States is the world's largest single emitter of carbon dioxide, accounting for 23 percent of energy-related carbon emissions worldwide." (U.S. Department of Energy)

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.htm

Trends
"North America, as defined here, consists of the United States and Canada. North America is the highest fossil-fuel, CO2 emitting region of the world with 1.73 billion tons of carbon in 2002. This 2002 total is an all-time high for North America and represents a 1.4% increase from 2001. Because ~92% of current fossil-fuel CO2 emissions from the region are from the United States, the time series for North America closely resembles that for the United States. In addition, the patterns of change for the two countries have been similar in gross features, although they differ in detail because of political and resource differences. In contrast with CO2 emissions from other regions, the striking features are a relatively uniform growth rate from 1950 to 1973 (2.7% per year), an essentially constant rate of emissions from 1973 to 1987, growth during the 1990s leading to record hghs in 2002. Because of more rapid growth elsewhere, emissions from North America have shrunk from 46.4% of the global total in 1950 to 26.1% in 2002. Per capita emissions have been consistently high and well above those for any other region."

These are just a few references to US and N. American CO2 emissions. Take note that they aren't fringe group, environmentalist flunkies writing these stats. They're primarily from respected research institutions and even government sanctioned departments gathering the data.

http://uspirg.org/uspirgnewsroom.asp?id2=24976

"Carbon dioxide emissions from oil combustion jumped 1.1 billion metric tons from 1960 to 2001, accounting for 40 percent of the total increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The transportation sector drove this rapid increase. Carbon dioxide emissions from oil burned in the transportation sector increased by more than 150 percent over the period, largely due to a substantial rise in vehicle travel and the stagnating fuel economy of vehicles. In every other sector, carbon dioxide emissions from oil combustion peaked in the 1970s (Figure ES-1)."

Also take note that that 1.1 billion metric tonne figure is just the increased CO2 emission on an annual basis. I don't even know what kind of total figure were dealing with when it comes to actual CO2 that remains in the air, but I think I can assure you that it's not a small amount.

Renewable energy is the way to go!

Guchi: "You do realize America puts out more carbon dioxide emmissions than about a dozen of all the other greatest carbon dioxide producers put together, so if America as a whole could be involved in an agreement to reduce global warming, it would feel like half of the problem was solved right there. There's no denying the impact of the American economy on the globe."

I'm not saying that the impact of the American economy isn't great, but if you lower the CO2 output in America, the only thing that will happen is that everybody will move production to third world countries. So, the global warming issue goes unchanged, and America loses thousands of jobs. Of course American politicians aren't going to support that.
The only reason Japan's CO2 output is so low is because they import so much crap that is produced elsewhere (places that wouldn't be covered by the Kyoto protocol by the way).
It's a very tree-hugging hippie thing to say when you suggest "hey, lose a bunch of jobs and spend a bunch of money so that we can have symbolic but largely ineffectual improvements to the environment"

That said, i'm all for being much better to the environment, but I really don't think getting stuck on the (flawed) Kyoto protocol is going to fix anything. We should be coming up with real solutions.

James san.

Your argument is very interesting and very thoughtful.

1. If we put investment on environment, MNC (Multi-National Company) will move to other environmentally loose regulated countries such as developing countries.
True

2. Japan CO2 output is low because we all import bad things which might produce much CO2
Partly True

3. Kyoto Protocol is not the real solution for the environment
True

First, MNC(Mul-National Company) prefer to move the countries such as less environmentally regulated countries or area. I think that we should implement some kind of standard to operate the business in developing countries.
ISO, it could be a good start. At least, every year, that standard level is getting higher, automatically, MNCs also should improve their facilities.

This theory might be true, but anyhow whether US will implement the high standard of regulation to reduce the CO2 or not, American will keep losing their job. Because of international trade, MNCs keep looking for the place to build the plant where they can hire cheap labor and relatively can expect high educated population.

If US impose the high standard regulation, MNCs could react as James san says. But, there is a possibility that American company will not leave from USA, if US government support for creating these high advanced technology with American Universities and some Industries. After US company could make some new advanced technology, they probably will apply the international license. Then US company will get much strong comparative advantage against other MNCs.

Now, I think that free rider business is unfair. So, nobody want to pay additional payment. But if everybody participate, some of the companies doesn't want to be alone.

However, James san is exact right. Because Bush doesn't have any interests to invest money on environment (everybody know that), so for the company, it would be better to operate their business in developing countries.

In this condition, I think that it is just matter of time whether American will lose their job much faster or later. Anyhow they will definitely loose. Now, India and China advanced their education, they can create very sophisticated products with cheap labor. US education can't keep up with high standard, because currently US government spent so much money on war such as Iraq and Israel support. Tax rate is decreaing, and medical healthcare and education budget are decreasing. They can't compete with China and India after decade.

Why not US have initiatives to create the new technology and get the international license (when US company still have comparative advantage)! Otherwise, US will lose much employment.

2. Japan CO2 output is so low, because we are importing so much crap. That might somehow correct. However, I think that we advanced our technology while we were facing the oil crises at 1970s. So that, we could reduce huge amount of pollution. And particularly, for car, we obtained huge competitive advantage after we create the gas efficient mobile. If Japan didn't face with oil crises, they might not get such high advanced technology. Japan decreased huge amount of CO2, because we create high gas efficient automobile, Japanese companies could obtain much competitive advantage against US companies.

3. Kyoto Protocol is not the real solution.

That is true. This is just the begining. We should do
much initiatives to decrease the current CO2 level, and then even decrease more than we polluted in the past.
Kyoto Protocol is just the begining, we should do much things with Kyoto Protocol.

58: ☆James> Far from considering myself a tree hugger, I think I have a few very rational concerns about the state of the environment. For evidence on the changing weather in the last half century, just look outside to the aberrant weather we've been experiencing. Droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, often striking places that rarely if ever experienced such things in our parent's and grandparent's time (not to mention hundreds of years according to geologic and ice-core analysis).

Yes jobs are important. But so is the air we breathe and the water we drink. What's the biggest priority is always a matter of immediacy with the human animal. While we have a supply that will last a while longer (If we scare ourselves with a little foresight, or start realizing we're paying too much for filtered water and air, whichever comes first), we deal with an entity we have yet to fully understand our own impact on. That's why I think it's important to stay as much as we can on the side of caution.

The Roman empire fell because they didn't realize the effect that lead-lined plumbing for their drinking water would have on their cities and urbanized areas. What's happening today is similiar, but on an entirely different scale.

>>I'm not saying that the impact of the American economy isn't great, but if you lower the CO2 output in America, the only thing that will happen is that everybody will move production to third world countries. So, the global warming issue goes unchanged, and America loses thousands of jobs. Of course American politicians aren't going to support that.

To be honest, I have little faith that American government will ever compromise national interests in favour of global benefit (although, that's not a mutually exclusive thing so there's always a bit of overlap). American industry decreasing it's CO2 output is economically pricey, but there are costs incurred beyond the profit margins that flash by on the stock market.

Sure third world countries might pick up the slack a bit if American industry slowed CO2 production, but consider this too, much of the industrial development in third world world countries exists because of foreign investment, if there were any "truly" international agreements that could be honoured and binding, then those with the greatest responsibility still haven't changed, and the agreement could still apply.

If N. American industry could get weaned off oil somewhat, I can forsee plenty of benefits in the long run. If Big Oil has anything to say in it though, that's not going to happen. Short term profits tend to have a heavier punch at a government level discussion.

Idealistic? Yeah. I'm a cynic, so I don't think it'll start happening until we in the industrialized world start being forced to live in fully filtered environments, and start putting gas masks on babies, or get a lot of cancer.

...or until fuel hits $20 per gallon..

Maybe competitiveness and "free" mind such as free competition, that makes us not to give up anything what we already have and never give up with other companies. We should win the capital game. And after whether we win or lose, still we will lose everything against environment.

Itis very even ironic, isn't it?

Western mind is more like conquering environment and disseminate their idea to other world including East.

Eastern mind is more like harmonizing with environment and harmonize with others.

I think that the Japanese prefer not to have strong position. We try to harmonize with somebody strong or
something popular.

However, for environment sake, I take care much about our future.

Guchisan
> just look outside to the aberrant weather we've been experiencing. Droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, often striking places that rarely if ever experienced such things in our parent's and grandparent's time (not to mention hundreds of years according to geologic and ice-core analysis).

We already faced with something changing. If we are just sitting, we would be very irresponsible for our future generation. We sometime blame our ancestors because of their fault, next twenty years, we will face with same sitution with our descendants.

Cynic won't make anything good, just it is irresponsible. Don't say that I am cynic, I am just irresponsible to the future. Since you already know what is the problem and you clearly state what is happening outside of your window.

To be as responsible person, it demands lot. I certainly understand your position. If I can do something better future for our future, I definitely would like to take this.