🚀 go-pugleaf

I have just read the various messages that are on this page, and I cannot
comprehend how Mr. Russell can continue to deny the existence of global
warming in the face of various pieces of irrefutable evidence.  He refers
to the various AMERICAN climatoligists and meteorologists who deny that the
concept exists.  This is hardly a surprising piece of information as of all
the countries, America is the only one not to recognise global warming's
existence.  Could this possibly be because of the influence of the US's
industries who stand to lose millions of dollars if they are forced to
significantly reduce their emissions?

Mentioned elsewhere was the Rio Earth Summit.  This conference was not just
about climate change it dealt with important policies relating to other
life issues as well.  Mr. Russell cites an article from Washington, Feb
27th 1992.  It tries to claim that environmental activists were running the
Earth Summit, anyone who knows anything about UNCED knows that activist
participation was severely limited.  Admittedly the article was written
before Rio actually occurred so I am hopeful that the scientists changed
their minds.  Also most people are aware that the majority of the Rio
discussions took place in the two years before the actual summit at various
preparatory committees.  Activist groups were NOT allowed admittance to
these meetings, so how could they have overly influenced the results?  

Also mentioned in this article was the fear that Rio would place "onerous
taxes on energy fuels, the population of the United States and other
industrialized nations".  If these taxes are ever implemented, they would
be due to the rapidly reducing resource levels throughout the world, not
due to some feeble attempt to negate the effects of global warming, that
would just be pathetic!  

I would also like to respond to the section referring to the policy
initiatives being based on the assumption that catastrophic global warming
follows from the burning of fossil fuels.  The policy in this instance
being some form of method to reduce fossil fuel consumption.  Even if by
some highly unlikely event the global warming theory is proved to be
invalid, fossil fuel consumption must be slowed.  This is necessary to
prevent further particulate pollution, and to slow down resource pollution.
 This is partially to do with the concept of sustainable development, how
can we possibly justify depleting all the available resources without at
the very least providing alternative energy sources.  (Current most
commonly held definition of sustainable development: meeting the needs of
the current generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs as defined by the Brundtland Report
1987)  Surely depleting our own oil and gas reserves contravenes this
concept.  That in itself is an argument for conservation of resources.

"activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth"  I find this
statement completely unjustified.  The various reasonable activists (we are
not talking Earth First! here!!) are not trying to prevent energy
development and economic growth, they are merely attempting to find more
sustainable and environmentally friendly methods.  This can only be
beneficial in the future.   My final comments are in relation to the last
sentence.  The most important document to come out of Rio was Agenda 21. 
The countries that have already implemented this concept, developing and
developed, have already noticed an improvement in general standards of
living and quality of life.  It cannot be said that Rio was worthless.  

I hope that all of the above demonstrate why I believe your chosen citation
to be worthless and lacking in valid arguments.  As a result I challenge
you Mr. Russell to once again try and prove your stand point.  


Andrew Russell <arussell@BIX.com> wrote in article
<6a6h1u$lp8@lotho.delphi.com>...
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992</B>---As independent scientists,
> researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the 
> agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and 
> Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and 
> certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to 
> convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global 
> environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on 
> the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.
> 
> Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific 
> theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that 
> catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels 
> and requires immediate action. We do not agree.
> ..
> 
> We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic
> growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice 
> of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to 
> impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world 
> economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most 
> severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.
> 
>