U.S. Losing Battle Against Aquatic Invaders

Comments on “U.S. Losing Battle Against Aquatic Invaders”

1. Judith Sonder December 12, 2011 at 12:00 am

   It took till the end of your wrap-up to discover the truth – that the economics of green, the money baby, is what will drive all this. Sad but true.

   Reply ↓
2. Ron December 13, 2011 at 12:00 am

   I agree with, Judith. But with, what, 12-climate events creating over $1billion each in damages (not to mention loss of life) in 2011 in the U.S. alone, will the economics of the cost of generating energy (including artificial prices through lobbied subsidies and unseen costs such as spills, water pollution etc)be the driving economic factor? It will be a tragedgy to have waited that long.
   Forward thinking seems to be a natural resource desperately undeveloped.

   Reply ↓
3. GAMessier December 14, 2011 at 12:00 am

   There’s no shame in the US position. Unlike the developing world, developed countries have enormous wealth invested in energy infrastructure, from power plants to telephone poles. It makes sense for developing countries to embrace decentralized solar, wind, etc, as they will in all likelihood never develop an infrastructure comparable to ours. Forget about giving them $100B in “reparations”. Were it not for those evil polluters these past 200 years, the world would still be groveling in the dark, and these new technologies would never have been developed in the first place. Conversely(for those so inclined): go ahead. What’s another $100B in worthless fiat paper money.

   Reply ↓
4. RL January 12, 2012 at 12:00 am

   How did China and India even get into the debate as the world’s biggest emitters? To put this in perspective, the world’s biggest emitters in per capita CO2e are Australia (20.83 tons/capita), United States (19.18 tons/capita), Canada (17.27 tons/capita), Saudi Arabia (16.56 tons/capita), and Russia (12.29 tons/capita). Most European nations are between 5-10 tons/capita, China at 4.91 and India at 1.31 !! It seems to me that by focussing on total emissions by country, the Durban deal is infact accepting to arrest the development of countries that have previously been exploited through colonialism, slave trade, structural adjustments… Why is are the European countries championing this? Because this is not a climate change argument, it is about controlling economic development of the ‘rest of the world’ and prevent the poorer nations nearing a more equal state. Can we as citizens of this world let such injustice happen?

   Emissions database: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html

   Reply ↓
5. Rona Fried January 12, 2012 at 12:00 am

   RL, China may not be among the biggest emitters per capita, but as a country it is now the largest emitter in the world. Your argument is the same one the developing countries use- that they should be allowed to develop as others have done. It is not about controlling their economic development – they can certainly develop by leapfrogging old, polluting technology and use clean technology to do it. The point of the Green Fund is for advanced countries to help with that. The atmosphere simply has no more “room” to hold any more emissions – we cannot let earth fry in order to let developing countries catch up.

   Reply ↓
6. funka lishes February 6, 2012 at 12:00 am

   i think that canada should of extended the kyoto protocol, because there maybe benefits towards it that they maybe missing out on???

   Reply ↓