There are plenty of beaches in Hawaii, they should close this beach to the public and let all the Plastic drift in, control it, in other words "use it for a dump".

There are to many people in the world.

Nothing is forever (where are the dinosaurs) in ten million years the earth will still be here but it will be a whole new ball game.

__________________
Stupid Harry Boy

Littering should be encouraged and promoted, especially littering of plastic. After awhile, the litter will be our environment, and then there won't be an issue.

MMGW, and it's doomsday rhetoric, are so transparent. Whenever someone talks doomsday, or uses the phrase "the greater good" while holding a microphone, I cringe. If this were more about the environment, then they'd have an easier sell, the problem is, it's not. It's about socialism on a global scale. No thanks.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing"

Wiser men than me will have to figure it out, I don't litter (my wife won't let me) but how do we stop the Third World Darlings from throwing their dead dogs and cows in their rivers, we can't scold them or punish them like we do the American Neo Con, it wouldn't be "politically correct", we can't risk "offending them".

Damn Americans we have to much freedom, the Death Penalty should be mandatory if a person is caught throwing a beer can in the ocean.

Castro's people still have chickens running through their bedrooms.

__________________
Stupid Harry Boy

Ocean litter is a big problem. With more and more boating and shipping in the oceans, more and more trash is simply dumped over board, as it is the easiest, laziest way to get rid of unwanted garbage.


//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

Carbon Tax... this is what it means.

Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax...

OH taxes are a needed thing.

yeah... right.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah Terry, very insightful.

So what, we should take behavior we want to discourage, and give the perps a tax break?

If I need to pay half the cost of my pack of smokes in a "sin tax," I'm not quite clear on how that differs from disincentivizing carbon outputs.

As to the (usual) right wing complaint that the US isn't allowed the same emissions as developing world nations (notably China,) the US is the only major Western nation that does not recognize this distinction between developing world and first world.

It is interesting to note, for context. Everything is not a zero-sum game. If we cut emissions to X right now, but China has Y years to get there but must get there by the terms of the same instrument, we still achieve Chinese cooperation moving toward that goal in the interim.

I admit, if we define "fair" as "equal, disregarding activities previous to... synchronize watches...righhhhht...NOW!", China is getting a break. But if you go by what the US has already belched out there, that is not the case. Quite simply, China's in our early-mid 20th century. Japan's in our 22nd century, but we may pick up a decade on them if they have to reboot or something.

I mention the remainder of the industrialized world other than the US, because we have the same interests as they do vis a vis greenhouse emissions. So a bad deal for us, is also a bad deal for them. Why, then, do other industrialized nations see no problem in signing onto an accord which places restrictions on the long-industrialized nations first?

We have, after all, been pumping out more greenhouse gases for longer.

PFnV

never entered this thread, because by the thread title, alone, i could tell it was complete and utter GOP roadblocking bullshyt... anyhow, i knew it...

Sen. Inhofe’s misleading climate denial “report.”
...

Yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) released a “report” claiming that “over 400 prominent scientists disputed man-made global warming claims in 2007.” The Washington Times described the report as “Scientists doubt climate change.” But, according to TAPPED’s Kate Sheppard, many of the scientists quoted in Inhofe’s report don’t actually doubt that “climate change is real and a problem“:

The 400 scientists they characterize as disputing man-made climate change include mostly folks no one has ever heard of, and the quotes they cherry pick aren’t all expressing doubt about whether climate change is real and a problem — many are simply expressing differing opinions about the degree of warming and the consequences of that warming. Others simply cited phenomena that might be causing warming in addition to that caused by greenhouse gases.

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Al Gore, told the Times that “25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.” Adam Siegel has more debunking of Inhofe here.

UPDATE: Joe Romm takes a closer look at some of the members on Inhofe’s global warming deniers list.

“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable” (though not the N.Y. Times‘ Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?

__________________
w
a
t
c
h

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, NYT.
"They have redefined General news."

Climate is something that happens ALL the time, this has always been the case. The Climate is a complex, chaotic system (mathematically speaking) it has a lot of degrees of freedom. No one says the climate isn't changing. What is being disputed is whether the climate change is due to human activity, natural processes, and whether the reults will be negative.

What we do know is that during the past 1 million years we have experienced ice ages with only 100,000 years of whether like we see today. We also know that during the last interglacial period the temps have been 3-4C warmer than we currently and as opposed to being catastrophic the results was the growth of human civilization not the destruction of the environment.

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

Hey, that sounds like the logic behind Amnesty.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing"