Poland blocks carbon targets

gumishu 13 | 6,140

27 Jun 2011 #1

An attempt by European Union environment ministers to strengthen EU action to combat climate change was blocked by Poland last night, prompting a swift rebuke from the energy minister Chris Huhne.

"I'm deeply disappointed that the only country in the EU that could not accept a good compromise on how we can move Europe to a low carbon economy was Poland," he said in a statement.

independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/poland-blocks-carbon-targets-2300729.html

read the comments below the article too :P

Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,149

27 Jun 2011 #2

Holy s*hit, Tuskists make some sense finally :)) Let's hope that EUnuchs won't corrupt them.

Monia

27 Jun 2011 #3

I can`t understand why politicians still believe in this " global warming " propaganda stirred by corrupted UN researchers who get millions of dollars for their worthless research long time rebuted by geologists who proved it has everything to do with Earth moving and other natural factors .

POSITION OF THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE COMMITTEE OF THE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ON THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING

climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3310

The climate change of our planet, which can be observed more frequently in recent years, has become alarming for public opinion. Various methods to remedy the situation are elaborated on the international level by decision makers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (operating since 1988) and different ecologic organisations.

Having a part in this significant debate, the Geologic Science Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences wishes to turn to 10 fundamental aspects of the problem closely related to the functioning of geosystem - the complex interdependence of processes occurring in the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere. The knowledge of these factors should be the foundation for any rational and careful decisions, which could interfere in the geosystem.

You can find those 10 aspects in the above statement .

Barney 15 | 1,591

27 Jun 2011 #4

" global warming " propaganda

Hell yeah, I'd always believe a random person than NASA any day.

Ashleys mind 3 | 452

27 Jun 2011 #5

natural factors .

Natural and man-made factors.. ;)

We're trying to push through a Carbon Tax... Though by the sounds of it I think it might hurt people more than starvation and drought...

Hey, either way we're going down. Brazil are selling the Amazon by the pound... And as the world's fifth largest economy, good luck to them.

Most people like the heat anyways...

Monia

27 Jun 2011 #6

May you kindly read through the statement before you make any assumptions .

alexw68

27 Jun 2011 #7

It says nothing, Monia. As any *-ologist active in the relevant fields will tell you, these are chaotic systems about which full understanding is a theoretical pipe-dream. The statement is a bland press-release and not atypical of 'authoritative' scientific bodies who don't actually do much original research ;)

Anyway, global warming is a red herring: a convenient macro-explanation for what are often as not local phenomena. Polar melting, ozone holes are an empirical fact. So are the effects of crop monoculture and deforestation on habitats and soil stability. Likewise, the presence of industrial pollutants in the water table. Whirling islands of domestic rubbish in the Pacific, too.

Frankly: who needs global warming to see there's a problem here?

Monia

27 Jun 2011 #8

Polar melting, ozone holes are an empirical fact.

Where did it form , some millions years ago as it is has been proved and repeats in cycles .

Do you want to be wiser than geologists who have been doing their research for years . If you use a common sense you will come to the same conclusions . Just think reasonably - where and why the money are spend for "researching of this topic " and who is the beneficiary of this heretic theory . Cows make more devastations in Earth`s atmosphere than we- human beings ,

alexw68

27 Jun 2011 #9

Cows make more devastations in Earth`s atmosphere than we- human beings ,

And who or what is directly responsible for the explosion in dairy/beef farming over the last century?

Again, think local please. The biggest expansion is taking place in the Amazon basin where forest has been cleared to make way for pasture which is exhausted within three years, requiring the creation of more pasture from virgin forestland.

The Polish committee's statement is scientifically valid, but pragmatically irrelevant. I repeat: these autorytety are, by and large, NOT doing original research in the field.

Ashleys mind 3 | 452

27 Jun 2011 #10

May you kindly read through the statement before you make any assumptions .

Sorry Monia, I studied Environmental Science and Ecology for 4 years... I know exactly what this is about.

Of course there are always two versions of the truth, but just a few extracts from your article strike me...

''before man inhabited the Earth.''

''At the end of the last ice age,''

Hmm... so the earth was once a fire ball with levels of Carbon dioxide much higher than present...? Don't you wonder *why* man didn't evolve in these conditions...? Other forms of life did, yes. But not Homosapiens... us. *This* is our niche...

Man has succeeded in a very short space of geologic time... in a period of constancy called the Holocene... Really. You can chart *all* man's progress in this narrow time frame. Epic.

" global warming " propaganda stirred by corrupted UN researchers who get millions of dollars for their worthless research long time rebuted by geologists who proved it has everything to do with Earth moving and other natural factors .

Not all reasons for climate change or their phenomena are fully known yet. Yes. We are still learning about the ways in which we are altering the planet...

Ever heard of the Anthropocene...?
Unfortunately... All we know is the past... but we weren't around then. That was a different world.. a different time. And sometimes our *own* priorities don't always seem to be our long term survival...

And anyway, this article seems to be saying that because we don't know *everything* about this issue, we should discount our contribution and carry on as normal...

Do you agree with that?

I think we can all agree with the underlying statement of this article... but not if it is to defend apathy, or worse.., business as usual! As it is almost *certain* that man has had an impact on climate change... read the IPCC report... That is the least bound by political bias.

The fact is we *don't* know how we will adapt.. But studies of other species present a case that doesn't look too promising...

Of course we have money and an *ability* to migrate... But how *mobile* are we...? Society is severely stratified... this leads to underlying problems of climate justice. Who will allow future mass migration if necessary...?

We are bound by our physiology *and* our psychology...

But we are like herds on the plains of time... And it *may* be getting short...

Barney 15 | 1,591

27 Jun 2011 #11

May you kindly read through the statement before you make any assumptions

Point # 9

There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions. It is equally important to take up and pursuit appropriate adapting actions that will mitigate the effects of the current warming trend.

No point me typing what has been written elsewhere

There is plenty of room for argument about the rate at which the world is warming, the degree to which humans are culpable, the likely outcomes and the most effective steps to be taken. But there is not much argument about the big picture.