USA can blame themselves for Katrina?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

While you obviously can't blame the USA for the hurricane - in fact developing nations + china are rapidly becomming more of an issue - the events of Katrina as well as rising fuel costs in general will hopefully serve as a wakeup call to many "average Joes" across the pond.
Some vital concepts are yet to be understood by most of the US, the primary one being fuel efficiency. While over here in the UK we gawp at a 3 litre engine as being overkill, that's somewhere around the mean point for the US car industry. The fact of the matter is that if US car engines were power stations, they'd be bankrupt due to the laughable conversion rate of fuel to electricity. Europe is lightyears ahead in terms of efficiency, and these rising "gas" prices can only serve to make efficient cars more attractive to the buying American public.

After you you adjust US gasoline prices for inflation, it's currently only two-thirds of it's all-time high price--still a bargain. Gasoline is cheaper than milk, 'bottled' water, vegetable oil, soda, or just about any liquid. The price would have to increase substantially, and stay high for a long time, to have any significant effect.

God forbid what it would be like if they had to pay the prices we do,

We pay market prices for crude oil like (almost) everyone else. The difference in end fuel prices is almost entirely due to taxes. In Europe, taxes account for about 60% of the price of gasoline as opposed to 20-25% in the US.

but I really hope it does come to that just to teach them the lesson.

What lesson would that be? That government can distort the market?

It's certainly possible, through increased taxes, to create the illusion that a commodity is scarcer than it really is; but to what end? This will decrease consumption to some extent, but it will also increase costs and divert money from the (generally) more-efficient private sector to the (generally) less-efficient public sector. That would be bad enough, but in addition other countries aren't obligated to share this illusion and can gain a competitive advantage by not doing so (Kyoto actually encourages this btw).

For example, current gasoline prices in Beijing are at 3.42 yuan/liter, or $0.41/liter ($1.56/gallon), or 0.23 GBP/liter, or 0.37 Euro/liter. Now the exchange rate for the yuan is artificially set, but even so it looks to me like the Chinese government isn't taxing gasoline much at all (and may even be subsidizing it). It looks like your state-mandated fuel efficiency and conservation just means there's that much more fuel available for the Chinese at lower prices while helping to slow your economic growth in the process. I hope the Chinese appreaciate your sacrifices on their behalf.

It seems to me that the Chinese government understands that cheap energy is good for economic growth whereas European governments (and their economies) seem to be headed in the opposite direction. I know which example I'd like the US to follow.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

I'm Qazokrouge5, ****tard.

Even your parents don't care about that my friend.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

After you you adjust US gasoline prices for inflation, it's currently only two-thirds of it's all-time high price--still a bargain. Gasoline is cheaper than milk, 'bottled' water, vegetable oil, soda, or just about any liquid. The price would have to increase substantially, and stay high for a long time, to have any significant effect.

im pretty certain they will do just that. the price per barrel was well above 60$ before anyone even thought about this hurricane. that's 2-3 times as much as what used to be the price.

We pay market prices for crude oil like (almost) everyone else. The difference in end fuel prices is almost entirely due to taxes. In Europe, taxes account for about 60% of the price of gasoline as opposed to 20-25% in the US.

What lesson would that be? That government can distort the market?

the problem with market prices is that they dont account for the ecological costs caused by pollution. if, because of the higher, human-made co2-emiisions the weather condititions become more extreme the damage done by those more extreme weather conditions will have to be paid for by someone. that is some kind of cost, just like the thehours of work and the captial spend to get the oil. yet, without extra taxation none of these costs are part of the prices. because of this the consumption is higher than it would if the whole costs would be regarded. (i hope that makes some sense, im far too tiered to explain any better)

It's certainly possible, through increased taxes, to create the illusion that a commodity is scarcer than it really is; but to what end? This will decrease consumption to some extent, but it will also increase costs and divert money from the (generally) more-efficient private sector to the (generally) less-efficient public sector. That would be bad enough, but in addition other countries aren't obligated to share this illusion and can gain a competitive advantage by not doing so (Kyoto actually encourages this btw).

For example, current gasoline prices in Beijing are at 3.42 yuan/liter, or $0.41/liter ($1.56/gallon), or 0.23 GBP/liter, or 0.37 Euro/liter. Now the exchange rate for the yuan is artificially set, but even so it looks to me like the Chinese government isn't taxing gasoline much at all (and may even be subsidizing it). It looks like your state-mandated fuel efficiency and conservation just means there's that much more fuel available for the Chinese at lower prices while helping to slow your economic growth in the process. I hope the Chinese appreaciate your sacrifices on their behalf.

It seems to me that the Chinese government understands that cheap energy is good for economic growth whereas European governments (and their economies) seem to be headed in the opposite direction. I know which example I'd like the US to follow.

Kyoto isnt perfect, so we better do nothing at all?

[Kurashima]

Just for the record , American "Heavy Industry" has been on the decline for years as theyve subcontracted the majority of their labor to Mexico and other poorer south american nations to save on cost. Theyve lost a very significant amount of these jobs to the far east, and Bush has no real interest in saving those jobs, after all, when youre out of work, and need to pay the bills, youll consider anything , hence the army is getting a lot of new recruits.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

hence the army is getting a lot of new recruits.

No it isn't.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ju...mili-j01.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...499164,00.html

[meglamaniac]

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

After all the aid we have lent britain over the years they damn well should.

What?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

It seems to me that the Chinese government understands that cheap energy is good for economic growth whereas European governments (and their economies) seem to be headed in the opposite direction. I know which example I'd like the US to follow.

I love how people have it built into their heads that economic growth == ultimate good. How is it not obvious to people that if the prosperity of a nation relies on constant growth, then at some point it won't become possible without expanding onto land that others require for economic growth - what then? Surely a socially and environmentally sustainable economy would be most ideal for a country whose inhabitants can see beyond the next month.

Of course it's rediculous to suggest that American cooperation since the Kyoto agreement could have prevented this hurricane. I think the greater point was that this hurricane was very likely to have been perpetuated by the last 200 years of industrialisation in nations such as Britain, Germany, USA etc etc. The irony in the current situation is that the one nation that rejects all scientific evidence suggesting humans are the main blame for the infamous 'global warming' (in favour of their economy), is the nation who now has atleast $25billion (dunno exact figure, was £14billion yesterday) in damages to make up. That isn't to suggest that the Americans who were hit are deemed to have deserved it, but it's certainly comforting to see the American economy experience a little karma for the long years of inefficient/excessive fuel usage and the US's destructive, plunderous attitude towards all other human races.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

PERHAPS YOU ****S HAVE ALL FORGOTTEN THAT AMERICANS AREN'T THE ONLY PEOPLE LIVING ON THIS ****ING PLANET. BRITISH, FRENCH, GERMAN, JAPANESE, CHINESE, BLACKS, SWEDISH, SPANISH, MEXICANS AND CANADIANS LIVE HERE TOO MOTHER ****ERS. DON'T YOU THINK THEY HAVE SOME CONTRIBUTION ALSO? OR ARE YOU ALL TOO HIGH AND MIGHTY WITH YOUR ODORLESS FECES?

funny, i was about to say the same thing about americans forgetting there are other residents of this planet, so they should stop fking it up for everyone else

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

After all the aid we have lent britain over the years they damn well should.

'lent'.

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Just for the record , American "Heavy Industry" has been on the decline for years as theyve subcontracted the majority of their labor to Mexico and other poorer south american nations to save on cost. Theyve lost a very significant amount of these jobs to the far east, and Bush has no real interest in saving those jobs, after all, when youre out of work, and need to pay the bills, youll consider anything , hence the army is getting a lot of new recruits.

It's still their industry in some senses even if they're not doing it.

Just like you can't pass off responsibility for pollution or whatever else by outsourcing to other countries and then claiming they're ineffieicnt at reduction of co2 levels or whatever. You knew that, you outsourced it anyway, who should be holding the can? (or helping to)

[laputa]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

After you you adjust US gasoline prices for inflation, it's currently only two-thirds of it's all-time high price--still a bargain. Gasoline is cheaper than milk, 'bottled' water, vegetable oil, soda, or just about any liquid. The price would have to increase substantially, and stay high for a long time, to have any significant effect.

We pay market prices for crude oil like (almost) everyone else. The difference in end fuel prices is almost entirely due to taxes. In Europe, taxes account for about 60% of the price of gasoline as opposed to 20-25% in the US.

What lesson would that be? That government can distort the market?

It's certainly possible, through increased taxes, to create the illusion that a commodity is scarcer than it really is; but to what end? This will decrease consumption to some extent, but it will also increase costs and divert money from the (generally) more-efficient private sector to the (generally) less-efficient public sector. That would be bad enough, but in addition other countries aren't obligated to share this illusion and can gain a competitive advantage by not doing so (Kyoto actually encourages this btw).

For example, current gasoline prices in Beijing are at 3.42 yuan/liter, or $0.41/liter ($1.56/gallon), or 0.23 GBP/liter, or 0.37 Euro/liter. Now the exchange rate for the yuan is artificially set, but even so it looks to me like the Chinese government isn't taxing gasoline much at all (and may even be subsidizing it). It looks like your state-mandated fuel efficiency and conservation just means there's that much more fuel available for the Chinese at lower prices while helping to slow your economic growth in the process. I hope the Chinese appreaciate your sacrifices on their behalf.

It seems to me that the Chinese government understands that cheap energy is good for economic growth whereas European governments (and their economies) seem to be headed in the opposite direction. I know which example I'd like the US to follow.

After visiting Econ 101 you might wanna check out intermediate microeconomics next term where you can learn about external effects. Additionally you could take a look at 'The evolution of cooperation' by Axelrod. But that would be grad-level...

[QazokRouge5]

Originally Posted by Phil^

funny, i was about to say the same thing about americans forgetting there are other residents of this planet, so they should stop fking it up for everyone else

Explain to me how Americans are the ONLY people polluting.

If you believe that then I say you have moldy maggot infested pig shit for brains.

You people are just as much to blame as we are.

[QazokRouge5]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

'lent'.

Your post, whilst informative, fails to deliver any real substance.

Much like Dove shampoo adverts.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

Explain to me how Americans are the ONLY people polluting.

If you believe that then I say you have moldy maggot infested pig shit for brains.

You people are just as much to blame as we are.

goodness, go get a fking clue. ta

Read carefully what i said. I know thats difficult for you given you only know a bastardised version of english but try nonetheless.

where abouts did i say that americans are the only ones polluting?
thats right, nowhere.

Now, read the post i did on this thread even closer. yeeees thats right i said americans contribute to the problem.
this is where you get your dictionary out QazokRouge5, to find out what contribute means.
i'll give you a clue - it DOESNT mean " do everything themselves "

If you're very very nice perhaps yahwe will teach you the finer points of english - assuming he can control himself from bursting into laughter at your ineptness.

Oh - and go to anger management classes, its probably what you need

[meglamaniac]

I think the point was that
a) you said "lent", the simple definition of which is "that which is given with the understanding of return at a later date".
b) aid for Katrina is being given with no such understanding
c) if the aid you were refering to lending has anything to do with WW2, as I suspect it does, you should really brush up your history

[QazokRouge5]

Originally Posted by Phil^

goodness, go get a fking clue. ta

Read carefully what i said. I know thats difficult for you given you only know a bastardised version of english but try nonetheless.

where abouts did i say that americans are the only ones polluting?
thats right, nowhere.

Now, read the post i did on this thread. yeeees thats right i said americans contribute to the problem.
this is where you get your dictionary out QazokRouge5, to find out what contribute means.
i'll give you a clue - it DOESNT mean " do everything themselves "

If you're very very nice perhaps yahwe will teach you the finer points of english - assuming he can control himself from bursting into laughter at your ineptness.

Oh - and go to anger management classes, its probably what you need

read your own goddamned post.

Where does it say that we only contribute?

funny, i was about to say the same thing about americans forgetting there are other residents of this planet, so they should stop fking it up for everyone else

...

Now if you are referring to this post...

btw - i tend to agree with ' the twat who started the thread ' , americans have to realise their actions contribute to global warming - and the weather is how the planet shifts this heat around the globe. The more heat there is, the more energetic and thus severe the weather becomes.

Then I agree, however if you will compare your above 2 posts then I think you will find they contradict each other.

Also, it could be argued that you are STILL implying that americans are the only ones 'contributing to global warming'. by your statement of,

americans have to realise their actions contribute to global warming

... What happened to Phil^s statement of "americans only contribute"?

Here you're making it seem as if it is only americans and the process of global warming that are 'contributing'.

[Phil^]

americans fk the rest of the planet up in more then one way, the most notable being foreign policy right now.
THAT is what i was referring to in this :

Originally Posted by Phil^

funny, i was about to say the same thing about americans forgetting there are other residents of this planet, so they should stop fking it up for everyone else

However you clearly didnt understand, and so whined as follows:

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

Explain to me how Americans are the ONLY people polluting.

If you believe that then I say you have moldy maggot infested pig shit for brains.

Regarding climate change, i pointed out that americans contribute, MUCH earlier. something you either overlooked or ignored before engaging in your clueless rant

[QazokRouge5]

Originally Posted by Phil^

americans fk the rest of the planet up in more then one way, the most notable being foreign policy right now.
THAT is what i was referring to in this :


However you clearly didnt understand, and so whined as follows:


Regarding climate change, i pointed out that americans contribute, MUCH earlier. something you either overlooked or ignored before engaging in your clueless rant

No. You're wrong.

[meglamaniac]

I see we're going for the intelligent arguement then
How can he be wrong when the evidence of his posts is right here in this thread?

Unless, of course, you're refering to foreign policy part. It is certainly arguable that US foreign policy ****ed things up for one area of the planet other than Iraq recently - London. I know it was our "choice" to join you in Iraq, but if you spend any time over in the UK you'll find the vast majority of the British opposed any involvement, and that our troops being sent to support you was one of the most undemocratic decisions ever undertaken by a modern British government.
The results of a recent inquiry have, unsurprisingly, concluded that the events in London were directly linked to the Iraq war.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

No. You're wrong.

you forgot to add " puts fingers in ears, and screams na na na i cant hear you "

[Yahwe]

more incisive and measured debate from our 'friends accross the pond'

I wonder if they bother to print the word dignity in american dictionaries. for why bother to waste ink on a word that the readership has no interest in pursuing.

[laputa]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

more incisive and measured debate from our 'friends accross the pond'

I wonder if they bother to print the word dignity in american dictionaries. for why bother to waste ink on a word that the readership has no interest in pursuing.

dignity - yes, look who's talking

[laputa]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

If that is indeed what he said (link please) then he is full of shit.

I found an English article

[dda]

This is not the worst hurricane season on record. I think I heard that would be 1890. This is not the worst hurricane to hit the United States, Andrew and Camille were both more powerful.

The difference between Katrina and other hurricanes is the vulnerability of the area where it struck. New Orleans was not only a major city but a city below sea level protected by levees. Failure of levees produced flooding out of proportion to the wind and rain produced by the hurricane. Other places were hit hard but New Orleans is, as we speak, having water from Lake Ponchatrain poor through broken levees into the city. They feel it may be 16 weeks before it can be drained fully.

Those of you who feel the need to use a natural occurance to bolster your political beliefs may certainly be my guest in doing so. However, it does nothing to advance the credibility of your arguements.

[dda]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

more incisive and measured debate from our 'friends accross the pond'

I wonder if they bother to print the word dignity in american dictionaries. for why bother to waste ink on a word that the readership has no interest in pursuing.

Ad hominem attacks on entire populations are surely the height of dignity, not to mention incisive and measured debate.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by dda

Ad hominem attacks on entire populations are surely the height of dignity, not to mention incisive and measured debate.

when people identify themselves with their country and then act like children you must expect that to reflect badly on that country.

perhaps better diplomats should be chosen? perhaps an american would like to comment on quazokrogue's 'behavior'. until you do what are we to think?

[Cuddley_Battleship]

I think hijacking a natural disaster as a political tool is childish personally.

[dda]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

what are we to think?

How was the thrust and I thought the answer was insightfully and with measured logic. To judge all Americans by any or all of us on this forum is neither insightful nor with measured logic.

[Cuddley_Battleship]

More than a few users on this forum are not insightful and have no measurable logic.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by dda

How was the thrust and I thought the answer was insightfully and with measured logic. To judge all Americans by any or all of us on this forum is neither insightful nor with measured logic.

quazokrogue's behavior (normally just childlike) has been utterly appalling in this thread. you'll find it on both pages. cudley battleship is a continued disgrace.

the point is that you can not expect their appalling behavior not to reflect on america. how are we to judge america but by what we see and hear?

If either of the two of them were british, and acted the way they do in representation of my country I would string them both up for treason.

how? how dear dear dda can you expect their behaviors to not make us think poorly of america? they no knothing of history. their care nothing for the opinions of others. they are children gloating over the good things about america. children who could not have won the success america enjoys for themselves, but who are more than happy to claim it as part of their own.

they are children: and we will inevitably think less of their 'parents' if they fail to chastise them.

[dda]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

more incisive and measured debate from our 'friends accross the pond'

I wonder if they bother to print the word dignity in american dictionaries. for why bother to waste ink on a word that the readership has no interest in pursuing.

As you will note, I am included in your statements. Your second comment was amusing but it also struck me as amusing that you mada an argument that was of the nature that you criticized, non-incisive, non-measured and undignified. I didn't take issue with the content of the comment nor with the general feeling you were conveying. I did however point out what I considered a flaw.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

behaviors

You disappoint me. American spelling from you of all people


dda, I have a lot of respect for you, as you've probably seen in your rep comments from myself. However, people like QazokRouge5 just demean your entire country and contribute to the stereotype of Americans that many Europeans have. I'm sure you've seen it many times on this forum.

On the one hand, we have yourself, an important Californian attorney (DA, I think?). Reasoned arguments, a good writing style (quite important on here) and a decent sense of humour. On the other, we have 'patriotic' Americans who lack any of these features. It can hardly be any wonder that they are 'ganged up upon' by the more reactive members of the forums.


Regarding the thread subject, it's a load of balls. New Orleans is particularly vunerable to natural disasters; by this I mean that they will have a greater effect on New Orleans than, say, Atlanta or Seattle. It would be the same for much of the Netherlands.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by furball

On the one hand, we have yourself, an important Californian attorney (DA, I think?).

dDA i should think.

and i shuldn't throw around words like 'important'. you'll embarrass the poor chap

[vampire_lestat]

Blame the French, they put New Orleans where it is.

[wu_trax]

apparently the yankees bought all the fuel and oil in Rotterdam. now we dont have any anymore. the prices rose by 10 cent per lite or so damn free trade.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

dDA i should think.

and i shuldn't throw around words like 'important'. you'll embarrass the poor chap

"What really flatters a man is that you think him worth flattering."




George Bernard Shaw.

[Texan]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

quazokrogue's behavior (normally just childlike) has been utterly appalling in this thread. you'll find it on both pages. cudley battleship is a continued disgrace.

the point is that you can not expect their appalling behavior not to reflect on america. how are we to judge america but by what we see and hear?

If either of the two of them were british, and acted the way they do in representation of my country I would string them both up for treason.

how? how dear dear dda can you expect their behaviors to not make us think poorly of america? they no knothing of history. their care nothing for the opinions of others. they are children gloating over the good things about america. children who could not have won the success america enjoys for themselves, but who are more than happy to claim it as part of their own.

they are children: and we will inevitably think less of their 'parents' if they fail to chastise them.

But the thread was started based on a European leader making statements with no basis in reality. If the United States would only sign the Kyoto Protocol, then hurricanes would stop hitting. I think if there were really ANY value at all in the treaty, the United States would have signed it. The treaty has nothing to do with global warming, hurricanes or the weather. It is purely a socialist invention to take money from rich countries and give it to poor countries.
So, until your leaders stop making idiotic statements for political purposes, I will just have to assume that all the euroidiot statements on this forum are made for the sole purpose of influencing people's political attitudes.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Texan

But the thread was started based on a European leader making statements with no basis in reality. If the United States would only sign the Kyoto Protocol, then hurricanes would stop hitting. I think if there were really ANY value at all in the treaty, the United States would have signed it.

see

we don't think that you would.

(the german minister in question by the way could not be described as a 'european leader'. but we'll let that slide. but but but? do you understand? we forgive you these little mistakes all the time.)

there is a school of thought.

this school thinks: america will never do anything about climate change (like increased hurricanes) because all america cares about is it's economy.

some tough talking members of that school might even suggest that americ will let it's own people die. in their hundreds (or even thousands: it's own people). rather than even admit that climate change has increased both the risk of and magnitude of hurricanes.

it can seem to this school of thought. that there are those in the US who would rather make money than save lives. even given that stark a choice.

that school of thought. it doesn't seem to ever be proved wrong.

oh it is extreme i grant you. i was brought up to trust the US. that school of thought. why it must be wrong. it must be. but you see. if it is wrong? why has america never proved it wrong?
why has dear sweet america never ever proved that school of thought wrong?

[Nodrog]

this school thinks: america will never do anything about climate change (like increased hurricanes) because all america cares about is it's economy.

This is a false dichotomy, since increased hurricanes would have an adverse effect on the economy. It's in the economic interest of the US to decrease damage from natural disasters.

some tough talking members of that school might even suggest that americ will let it's own people die. in their hundreds (or even thousands: it's own people). rather than even admit that climate change has increased both the risk of and magnitude of hurricanes.

Do you have any evidence that human-caused climate change has increased either the risk of or magnitude of hurricanes?

it can seem to this school of thought. that there are those in the US who would rather make money than save lives. even given that stark a choice.

I'm not sure why this is necessarily a bad thing. Firstly, it is often the people 'making money' who end up in a position to save lives (most drug research is probably not motivated by a desire to help humanity) - people pursuing their own goals have done more to increase the quality of human life than a thousand Mother Theresas. Secondly, theres no obvious reason why people should care about the life of others in an abstract sense. I doubt most people would pay £1000 to prevent 100 random people being killed in some far off country for instance. It's easy to spout off cliched bromides about the 'intrinsic value of human life', but most people dont really believe them and there arent any good arguments why they should be considered beneficial values to hold. its one thing to care about the lives of those you personally value or can identify with, but quite another to tell yourself that you value 'humanity' as some vaguely defined abstraction.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This is a false dichotomy, since increased hurricanes would have an adverse effect on the economy. It's in the economic interest of the US to decrease damage from natural disasters.

no.
it is bad logic.
but it is only evidence of bad logic.
it also happens to be true.
the answer is simple "just because your singular obsession is economic growth, it does not mean that you are actually good at promoting economic growth"

otherwise I appreciate your energy on the part of your beliefs.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

the answer is simple "just because your singular obsession is economic growth, it does not mean that you are actually good at promoting economic growth"

Well, America has the strongest economy in the world by quite some margin. And theres lots of historical correlation between 'caring about the economy' and 'experiencing economic growth'. So I'm not sure what your point is. Unless youre claiming that ignoring environmentalists is going to have an adverse effect on America's economic growth, which would require some form of evidence/argumentation.

[Cuddley_Battleship]

A hurricane randomly hit a vulnerable area. Nothing to do with climate change.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Well, America has the strongest economy in the world by quite some margin. And theres lots of historical correlation between 'caring about the economy' and 'experiencing economic growth'. So I'm not sure what your point is. Unless youre claiming that ignoring environmentalists is going to have an adverse effect on America's economic growth, which would require some form of evidence/argumentation.

you'd make an average politician

[Texan]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

see

we don't think that you would.

But since the treaty has no actual value, there is no way to know if the United States would sign the treaty if it had value. Except the United States has signed many other environmental treaties that do have value.

(the german minister in question by the way could not be described as a 'european leader'. but we'll let that slide. but but but? do you understand? we forgive you these little mistakes all the time.)

I think Blair, Chirac and Schroeder are the most influential leaers in Europe. Putin, too, if you consider Russia to be in Europe. I am not making a mistake. I am calling it the way I see it. Perhaps you see things differently. What leaders in Europe would you say are more influential than Schroeder?[/quote]

there is a school of thought.

this school thinks: america will never do anything about climate change (like increased hurricanes) because all america cares about is it's economy.

some tough talking members of that school might even suggest that americ will let it's own people die. in their hundreds (or even thousands: it's own people). rather than even admit that climate change has increased both the risk of and magnitude of hurricanes.

it can seem to this school of thought. that there are those in the US who would rather make money than save lives. even given that stark a choice.

that school of thought. it doesn't seem to ever be proved wrong.

What was the economic value of the United States participating in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia? Not much i suspect.

oh it is extreme i grant you. i was brought up to trust the US. that school of thought. why it must be wrong. it must be. but you see. if it is wrong? why has america never proved it wrong?
why has dear sweet america never ever proved that school of thought wrong?

I think it has been proved worng many, many times. It is only that the "school of thought" you are discussing is not really a "school of thought," but a bunch of hysterical wackos who refuse to allow facts to interfere with their "thoughts."

Refusing to sign one lousy (and I mean very lousy) treaty does not exactly equate to never. I think you need to search out a list of the environmental treaties the United States has signed. I'm sure you are familiar with the CIA World Fact Book. You can find a list there. Or you can probably find some far left blog that claims the United States has broken every treaty it has ever signed, even though none of those treaties deal with the environment. Just missile defense, nuclear proliferation, testing and other defense-related treaties.

I realize you are not a far left wing nut case, but I'm sure someone will come along shortly to post a link to their favorite blog with all the "facts" on U.S. participation in environmental treaties.

[Duncan]

a butterfly flapped it's wings in china, it's their fault this happened.

[CamelToe]

Let the gas prices rise. I'm still gonna buy my SUV next week. You know, the one that sucks down 13 miles per gallon. I'll even fill up the tank during the daylight. And then I'll drive around, eating big macs, throwing my trash out the window, and listening to country music the whole time.

I'm rich, bitch.

[CamelToe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

Kyoto isnt perfect, so we better do nothing at all?

pure irony. really.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by CamelToe

I'm rich, bitch.

Originally Posted by CamelToe

eating big macs

Originally Posted by CamelToe

I'm rich, bitch.

Originally Posted by CamelToe

eating big macs

For some reason I don't believe you.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by Cuddley_Battleship

A hurricane randomly hit a vulnerable area. Nothing to do with climate change.

I'm waiting for someone to rip this to shreds.

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

Your post, whilst informative, fails to deliver any real substance.

Much like Dove shampoo adverts.

See you in court.