<p>I will voluntarily give up the toxic additives imported from China and added to pet food sold by US companies.</p>
<p>If I wanted to have toxins in my pets food, I don’t have to go to China for it, I could just give her onions .</p>
<p>I will also support an additonal tax on products manufactured overseas.</p>
<p>You will need to give up lots more than that. Since alternate energy supplies might cost twice as much, we could just start by raising taxes on petroleum and natural gas. How about the equivalent of $6-10/gallon for gasoline? I wonder how many poor retirees would freeze each winter.</p>
<p>That would depend on how willing we were to let them.</p>
<p>
Predictions can be wildly inaccurate but I think the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ) states that the temp increased by 1.2 F degrees between 1900 and 2000 so that’s 0.12 degrees per decade.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ipcc.ch/[/url]”>http://www.ipcc.ch/</a></p>
<p>The latest on the latest IPCC from the NYT:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/science/04climate.html?_r=1&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FE%2FEnvironment&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/science/04climate.html?_r=1&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FE%2FEnvironment&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>So Mini, the vast country of India is too weak to make its own decisions on farm economics and it must follow the lead of that old tobacco farmer Al Gore. Please show the country some respect. They are big enough to own up to their own problems and from what I read many of the problems with prawn farming have solutions–other than going back to low value rice farming.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.worldfishcenter.org/Naga/Naga25-3&4/pdf/NAGA_25no3n4_features_c.pdf[/url]”>http://www.worldfishcenter.org/Naga/Naga25-3&4/pdf/NAGA_25no3n4_features_c.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/environment/aquaculture.html[/url]”>http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/environment/aquaculture.html</a></p>
<p>Let me take you there, and I’ll show you.</p>
<p>There are now 24 countries in the world where coastal land has been turned into toxic waste. It is theoretically possible to restore the land, but there is no country anywhere in the world that has done so.</p>
<p>If you knew even the first thing about the operations of the Indian government, you’d know how foolish you sound. (By the way, in 1996 the Supreme Court of India ruled the operation of prawn farms anywhere outside of 500 meters from the shoreland illegal, and ordered restitution made to the tens of thousands of villagers who lost their land. To date, not a single rupee has been paid, and not a single farm closed as result of the order. However, now, hundreds of farms are being closed - they give out it in 7 to 10 years, leaving behind a lunar landscape.)</p>
<p>Multinational corporations are good at what they do; that’s what made them successful. And Al Gore provided the conditions under which they can operate so effectively. I’m surprised you give capitalists so little credit for knowing what they are doing.</p>
<p>You set the date, and I’ll take you there. Alternatively, you can read my book for the documentation. And if you don’t like India, I’m sure a visit to southern Mexico or El Salvador can be arranged.</p>
<p>In our area, utilities give help to low income families/seniors etc for bills.
It also isn’t that cold here- we don’t ever turn our furnace on, why do you think REI fleece is so popular? ;)</p>
<p>gas is already almost $4 a gal, which undoubtably will impact food and housing costs- especially for goods that have to travel.</p>
<p>If we take the conservative estimate “according to several authors,” costs would be about 20 million barrels/day x 45 gal/barrel x 365 x $1. That works out to about $4000/year for a family of 4. Would it would be worth it? Maybe, if that “solved” the global warming issue. Unfortunately, those are only the annual costs which would be needed until 2030 just to reduce the CO2 emissions to levels we had 7 years ago. That is a pretty modest impact.</p>
<p>Yes, India has been a puppet of the US for years. Now that sounds silly. Not buying it. If they made poor economic decisions–they are not the first country. Overall India is entering a higher level of prosperity and I am sure their leadership is happy with the overall impact of going more global.</p>
<p>A good overview of the situation.<br>
<a href=“http://www.aprnet.org/index.php?a=show&t=journals&c=Volume%2011%20December%202004&i=20[/url]”>http://www.aprnet.org/index.php?a=show&t=journals&c=Volume%2011%20December%202004&i=20</a></p>
<p>New updated article on global warming.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html[/url]”>http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html</a></p>
<p>What kind of crappy magazine is this? How do they expect to sell magazines with a common sense approach and no sensationalism - although I did like the girls in bikinis. This kind of publication is not going to help interest in international conferences or research funding for global warming. Some of us might even think global warming is a good thing.</p>
<p>Yes Der Spiegel is the National Enquirer of Germany. Oh those frisky Germans.</p>
<p>Al Gore must have let his subscription to Der Spiegel lapse.</p>
<p>Welcome a new member to the club to stop global warming – Rupert Murdoch. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/05/09/murdoch/[/url]”>http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/05/09/murdoch/</a></p>
<p>Here is some nice film footage of my “family” in India, where I have been working for some 30 years, as well as some pictures of prawn agriculture (thank you, Al Gore):</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.lifeonlens.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=37[/url]”>http://www.lifeonlens.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=37</a></p>
<p>Uh, Barrons and edad,- did you read the article? Some highlights;
Maybe if you live in Germany the net increase in tourism at North Sea resorts is an adequate offset for drought in the US and deaths from heat prostration (Oh, I forgot - we’ll all just take siestas!) but on the whole, I think the world - and particularly the US - will not have quite such a happy balance of burdens and benefits. I bet they’re even more pro-global warming in Greenland!</p>
<p>edad, I’m not sure I follow your math up there about the “cost” of reducing CO2 emissions, and I’m pretty sure that you’re relying and at least a couple of false assumptions, but let me put in perspective the burden you seem to feel is intolerable: the sum you quote is less than the interest payments we make each year on the national debt run up by Reagan, Bush, and Bush. And we’re not getting anything in return for that fiscal hangover (unless you’re a member of the $1M per year income club and got yours at the source.) Put it another way: If it weren’t for Reagan’s “voodoo economics”, and the Bushes continuation of Reagan’s policies, we could accomplish the goal with our current resources - and have money left over. The difference is that the effect of that investment would benefit everyone, not just the wealthiest among us.</p>
<p>Food for thought.</p>
<p>Yes, Greenland could go back to farming as they did hundreds of years ago. The main point was some of the early dire predictions were overstated. That would impact exactly how much money you wanted to commit to the problem. You don’t spend $100 Billion to fix a $10 Billion problem. Maybe you assist those in the worst impacted areas to relocate–as society has done for centuries as the climate shifted all on its own.</p>
<p>You have NO idea exactly how the economy would be today without the economic policies of the past. The debt as a % of GNP is within averages and many do not see it as a problem to the economy.</p>