Toni Vernelli, 35, hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum, the Mail reported. The environmental advocate also sees having children as an egotistical act.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," Vernelli told the Mail, adding she believes bringing new life into the world only adds to the problem.
I classify this under extreme extremists.
Extreme Go Green
Extreme Go Green
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
-
drumbunny1
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:29 am
Extreme Go Green
Wow...she sure is assuming a lot isnt she? Just because shes so bitter that she can't get a date...she doesn't have to call people selfish who want to have children....true I agree there's a lot of people who have way more children then what they can "afford"...I'm not going to think someone is selfish or egotistical who wants to have children...personally I can't wait for the day...I mean...I can....
but I can't!
Plus theres other things she should be worrying about......we're not yet to the "Soylent Green" stage! :sneaky:
but I can't! Plus theres other things she should be worrying about......we're not yet to the "Soylent Green" stage! :sneaky:
Extreme Go Green
Well each their own I suppose..........
Good job her mammy didnt share the same view????
Good job her mammy didnt share the same view????-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Extreme Go Green
OTOH, there's no sustainable way for the planet to support all these people.
Extreme Go Green
So the most extreme green way would be to bump yourself off and leave the rest of us in peace to suffer our doom.........:sneaky:
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Extreme Go Green
FUBAR;837485 wrote: So the most extreme green way would be to bump yourself off and leave the rest of us in peace to suffer our doom.........:sneaky:
Well, that's moderate.
Extreme would be to kill a few hundred thousand people first ... perhaps Iraqis.
Strange, what with being the only country holding out on Kyoto, I'd never thought of Bush as an environmentalist.
Well, that's moderate.
Extreme would be to kill a few hundred thousand people first ... perhaps Iraqis.
Strange, what with being the only country holding out on Kyoto, I'd never thought of Bush as an environmentalist.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Extreme Go Green
Bored_Wombat;838321 wrote: Well, that's moderate.
Extreme would be to kill a few hundred thousand people first ... perhaps Iraqis.
Strange, what with being the only country holding out on Kyoto, I'd never thought of Bush as an environmentalist.
:wah: What a fun game this must be. Let's see how many different subjects we can use to bash bush.
I wonder if you guys do this away from the computer as well.
"More potatoes, dear?"
"I'll bet more Iraqis can have second helpings, thanks to Bush killing of half."
Extreme would be to kill a few hundred thousand people first ... perhaps Iraqis.
Strange, what with being the only country holding out on Kyoto, I'd never thought of Bush as an environmentalist.
:wah: What a fun game this must be. Let's see how many different subjects we can use to bash bush.
I wonder if you guys do this away from the computer as well.
"More potatoes, dear?"
"I'll bet more Iraqis can have second helpings, thanks to Bush killing of half."
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Extreme Go Green
I'm too busy to check, but a day or two I heard something interesting about Kyoto. Although we hadn't joined, we are the only industrial nation that has reduced our carbon footprint. Other industrialized nations are trading carbon credits to comply. They are not really decreasing their levels.
Anyone with good resources checking ability and time to verify this?
Anyone with good resources checking ability and time to verify this?
Extreme Go Green
Wild Cobra;842467 wrote: I'm too busy to check, but a day or two I heard something interesting about Kyoto. Although we hadn't joined, we are the only industrial nation that has reduced our carbon footprint. Other industrialized nations are trading carbon credits to comply. They are not really decreasing their levels.
Anyone with good resources checking ability and time to verify this?
I think that the practice of trading carbon credits is a disgrace. I know the that the company I work for, year after year comes in under the emissions requirement, and although approached, refuses to sell credits (even though it could be profitable). There was a big debate about it at management, and the vote was not to sell credits as it allows others to avoid making changes to business practices to reduce emissions.
Anyone with good resources checking ability and time to verify this?
I think that the practice of trading carbon credits is a disgrace. I know the that the company I work for, year after year comes in under the emissions requirement, and although approached, refuses to sell credits (even though it could be profitable). There was a big debate about it at management, and the vote was not to sell credits as it allows others to avoid making changes to business practices to reduce emissions.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Extreme Go Green
mikeinie;842562 wrote: I think that the practice of trading carbon credits is a disgrace. I know the that the company I work for, year after year comes in under the emissions requirement, and although approached, refuses to sell credits (even though it could be profitable). There was a big debate about it at management, and the vote was not to sell credits as it allows others to avoid making changes to business practices to reduce emissions.
Sounds like a poor business practice, but hey.. A great thing I think!
I see carbon credits as a joke, and say "follow the money" on them. Who's really making money here?
Sounds like a poor business practice, but hey.. A great thing I think!
I see carbon credits as a joke, and say "follow the money" on them. Who's really making money here?
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Extreme Go Green
Wild Cobra;842467 wrote: I'm too busy to check, but a day or two I heard something interesting about Kyoto. Although we hadn't joined, we are the only industrial nation that has reduced our carbon footprint. Other industrialized nations are trading carbon credits to comply. They are not really decreasing their levels.
Anyone with good resources checking ability and time to verify this?
I can verify that's it's very difficult to believe. Kyoto requirements are based on 1990 levels.
As at 2004 the USA had a 21.1% increase in emissions since 1990.
The EU-15 averaged a 2.6% reduction since 1990.
I doubt that the USA has effected a 24% decrease since 2004.
Anyone with good resources checking ability and time to verify this?
I can verify that's it's very difficult to believe. Kyoto requirements are based on 1990 levels.
As at 2004 the USA had a 21.1% increase in emissions since 1990.
The EU-15 averaged a 2.6% reduction since 1990.
I doubt that the USA has effected a 24% decrease since 2004.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Extreme Go Green
Bored_Wombat;847429 wrote: I can verify that's it's very difficult to believe. Kyoto requirements are based on 1990 levels.
As at 2004 the USA had a 21.1% increase in emissions since 1990.
The EU-15 averaged a 2.6% reduction since 1990.
I doubt that the USA has effected a 24% decrease since 2004.
Where did I say we reduced our levels from 1990? I didn't. It was more recent years that we have reduced our impact more than other industrialized nations that did sign treaty.
There are some reports I have followed since maybe 2000 to about two years ago. They showed our CO2 output increasing ever so slightly with all other greenhouse gasses declining. Without a nuclear and hydrogen energy system, or serious loss of population, I don't think it's possible for us to get below our 1990 levels.
As at 2004 the USA had a 21.1% increase in emissions since 1990.
The EU-15 averaged a 2.6% reduction since 1990.
I doubt that the USA has effected a 24% decrease since 2004.
Where did I say we reduced our levels from 1990? I didn't. It was more recent years that we have reduced our impact more than other industrialized nations that did sign treaty.
There are some reports I have followed since maybe 2000 to about two years ago. They showed our CO2 output increasing ever so slightly with all other greenhouse gasses declining. Without a nuclear and hydrogen energy system, or serious loss of population, I don't think it's possible for us to get below our 1990 levels.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Extreme Go Green
I'll bet you would like to discredit the place I found this in, but this is probably what I heard was based on:
Yale University’s professor Daniel Esty, chief author of the World Economic Forum’s very useful Environmental Performance Index (EPI), a new iteration of which appeared in January of this year, notes an interesting irony on this point. In the EPI’s 2005 ranking of 133 nations, the United States placed 8th, based on the study’s comparison of 16 key indicators. When he presents these findings in the United States, Professor Esty reports, audiences often ask how it is that the United States scores so poorly. Americans, after all, are used to appearing at or near the very top of all international rankings of good things.
In Europe, Professor Esty says, audiences wonder how it is possible that the United States scores so high. Surely there must be some dreadful mistake in the methodology that gives the United States the unjustified high rank of 8th place! More congenial to popular European opinion is the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), the product an NGO called Germanwatch.1 Here the United States ranks 52 nd of 53 nations according to three broad measures of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use. Even China, which now rivals the United States as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases, does better, coming in at 29th place. (An even more typical example of popular wisdom is the Happy Planet Index, where the United States is ranked 150th of 178 countries terms of “the average years of happy life . . . per unit of planetary resources consumed,†chiefly on account of America’s carbon footprint.)
This focus on GHG emissions points to the (endangered) elephant in the room of most environmental discourse these days, namely, the way in which nearly all environmental issues are subsumed in the dominant issue of climate change. The well-known and universally criticized reluctance of the United States to participate in the Kyoto Protocol lends sustenance to the perception that the United States is an environmental laggard if not international scofflaw. Yet a significant recent fact has drawn insufficient notice: U. S. GHG emissions fell by 1.5 percent in 2006, the first time U.S. GHG emissions have fallen in a non-recessionary year. It is likely that the United States is the only industrialized nation where GHG emissions fell in 2006. (Emissions data for other nations for 2006 are not yet available.)
Moreover, during the last decade the United States has had the best record among industrialized nations in restraining GHG emissions. Between 1997 and 2004, the last year for which comparative data are available:
—global GHG emissions increased 18 percent;
—emissions from Kyoto Protocol participants increased 21.1 percent;
—emissions from non-Kyoto nations increased 10 percent;
—emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.
Seems like to me what many say is true. The trading of carbon credits just become a license to pollute!
This comes out of the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators: 2008 Report from The Pacific Research Institute.
I just downloaded the 2008 report, so I haven't read it yet. I don't have the 2007 report, but I have the 2006 report and many earlier on my computer.
Yale University’s professor Daniel Esty, chief author of the World Economic Forum’s very useful Environmental Performance Index (EPI), a new iteration of which appeared in January of this year, notes an interesting irony on this point. In the EPI’s 2005 ranking of 133 nations, the United States placed 8th, based on the study’s comparison of 16 key indicators. When he presents these findings in the United States, Professor Esty reports, audiences often ask how it is that the United States scores so poorly. Americans, after all, are used to appearing at or near the very top of all international rankings of good things.
In Europe, Professor Esty says, audiences wonder how it is possible that the United States scores so high. Surely there must be some dreadful mistake in the methodology that gives the United States the unjustified high rank of 8th place! More congenial to popular European opinion is the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), the product an NGO called Germanwatch.1 Here the United States ranks 52 nd of 53 nations according to three broad measures of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use. Even China, which now rivals the United States as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases, does better, coming in at 29th place. (An even more typical example of popular wisdom is the Happy Planet Index, where the United States is ranked 150th of 178 countries terms of “the average years of happy life . . . per unit of planetary resources consumed,†chiefly on account of America’s carbon footprint.)
This focus on GHG emissions points to the (endangered) elephant in the room of most environmental discourse these days, namely, the way in which nearly all environmental issues are subsumed in the dominant issue of climate change. The well-known and universally criticized reluctance of the United States to participate in the Kyoto Protocol lends sustenance to the perception that the United States is an environmental laggard if not international scofflaw. Yet a significant recent fact has drawn insufficient notice: U. S. GHG emissions fell by 1.5 percent in 2006, the first time U.S. GHG emissions have fallen in a non-recessionary year. It is likely that the United States is the only industrialized nation where GHG emissions fell in 2006. (Emissions data for other nations for 2006 are not yet available.)
Moreover, during the last decade the United States has had the best record among industrialized nations in restraining GHG emissions. Between 1997 and 2004, the last year for which comparative data are available:
—global GHG emissions increased 18 percent;
—emissions from Kyoto Protocol participants increased 21.1 percent;
—emissions from non-Kyoto nations increased 10 percent;
—emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.
Seems like to me what many say is true. The trading of carbon credits just become a license to pollute!
This comes out of the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators: 2008 Report from The Pacific Research Institute.
I just downloaded the 2008 report, so I haven't read it yet. I don't have the 2007 report, but I have the 2006 report and many earlier on my computer.
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Extreme Go Green
Wild Cobra;847764 wrote: Where did I say we reduced our levels from 1990? I didn't. It was more recent years that we have reduced our impact more than other industrialized nations that did sign treaty.
Oh. It sounded like you were talking about the Kyoto footprint, when you said: "I heard something interesting about Kyoto. Although we hadn't joined, we are the only industrial nation that has reduced our carbon footprint."
There are some reports I have followed since maybe 2000 to about two years ago. They showed our CO2 output increasing ever so slightly with all other greenhouse gasses declining. Without a nuclear and hydrogen energy system, or serious loss of population, I don't think it's possible for us to get below our 1990 levels.
It seems possible for many Kyoto nations. Some examples from the David Suzuki Foundation. (Disclaimer: these figures are a couple of years old).
The U.K. has already surpassed its Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% and is on track to reduce them by 23-25% by 2010.
France has reduced its GHGs by about 2%, already surpassing its Kyoto target of maintaining emissions at the 1990 level.
German emissions are 18.5% below 1990 levels, within reach of its 21% emission reduction target.
Sweden’s emissions are 2% below the 1990 level even though it is allowed under burden sharing to increase emissions by 4%.
Oh. It sounded like you were talking about the Kyoto footprint, when you said: "I heard something interesting about Kyoto. Although we hadn't joined, we are the only industrial nation that has reduced our carbon footprint."
There are some reports I have followed since maybe 2000 to about two years ago. They showed our CO2 output increasing ever so slightly with all other greenhouse gasses declining. Without a nuclear and hydrogen energy system, or serious loss of population, I don't think it's possible for us to get below our 1990 levels.
It seems possible for many Kyoto nations. Some examples from the David Suzuki Foundation. (Disclaimer: these figures are a couple of years old).
The U.K. has already surpassed its Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% and is on track to reduce them by 23-25% by 2010.
France has reduced its GHGs by about 2%, already surpassing its Kyoto target of maintaining emissions at the 1990 level.
German emissions are 18.5% below 1990 levels, within reach of its 21% emission reduction target.
Sweden’s emissions are 2% below the 1990 level even though it is allowed under burden sharing to increase emissions by 4%.
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Extreme Go Green
It is likely that the United States is the only industrialized nation where GHG emissions fell in 2006.
Right. But taking into account that the United States had record increases in emissions in 2005.
The 2006 decrease might merely be an accounting problem.
Right. But taking into account that the United States had record increases in emissions in 2005.
The 2006 decrease might merely be an accounting problem.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Extreme Go Green
Bored_Wombat;848228 wrote: It is likely that the United States is the only industrialized nation where GHG emissions fell in 2006.
Right. But taking into account that the United States had record increases in emissions in 2005.
The 2006 decrease might merely be an accounting problem.
I don't think that's the case.
I meant to find the chart I saw before, but I don't remember where it was. It had a pretty steady increase to 2005, then a drop off for 2006. I don't know the numbers.
Consider this... Pick any number and add say 3% to it. They next year, add another 3% to it. Keep doing this fo a few years. The rate was steady, but what does the math do:
Amount Increase
100 0
103 3
106.09 3.09
109.2727 3.1827
112.550881 3.278181
115.9274074 3.37652643
119.4052297 3.477822223
122.9873865 3.58215689
Now even though we had the same rate of increase, each increase is larger than the previous. Each year, a new record is set. The article doesn't break it down year by year, so I cannot trust it's validity.
Right. But taking into account that the United States had record increases in emissions in 2005.
The 2006 decrease might merely be an accounting problem.
I don't think that's the case.
I meant to find the chart I saw before, but I don't remember where it was. It had a pretty steady increase to 2005, then a drop off for 2006. I don't know the numbers.
Consider this... Pick any number and add say 3% to it. They next year, add another 3% to it. Keep doing this fo a few years. The rate was steady, but what does the math do:
Amount Increase
100 0
103 3
106.09 3.09
109.2727 3.1827
112.550881 3.278181
115.9274074 3.37652643
119.4052297 3.477822223
122.9873865 3.58215689
Now even though we had the same rate of increase, each increase is larger than the previous. Each year, a new record is set. The article doesn't break it down year by year, so I cannot trust it's validity.