New import laws

[fivebob]

For those that don't want to give up their cars, here's a simple solution to lowering humanity's contribution to global warming

Children 'bad for planet'

By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London

May 07, 2007 12:00am
Article from: The Australian

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.

"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.

Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.

The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

[anthonym]

Also, to cover my buttocks

No wonder you message is so muffled and incoherent then .

The scientific case for human-induced global warming, particularly WRT CO2 emissions, is so flimsy you could pin a tail on it and call it a 350hp CT26.

[Norty]

Grow More trees. for a long time now we have been cutting down trees on mass around the world.

Global warming can be solved by stopping the cull of trees in the world and regrowing more to replaced what we have killed. why do you think this carbon credits thing is being done. Because they all know that its due to a lack of trees on the planet. just study since the start of the industrial revolution tree decline with rising co2. sure we burn and create co2 but if we had the mass trees to balance it all out it would not be an issue, and our o2 levels in the air would rise.

o2 has been on the decline because of lack of trees as well as c02 increasing.

We did cause this but not from driving a car.

Those in power will trick you into what they want you to think to keep you in fear and rely on them to solve the issue while draining your wealth and lining their fat pockets with your hard earned cash. holding the wealth is what keeps those in power in power when it was them and their forefathers which cause this issue to begin with. they used your hard money to destroy the planet to get rich and now to stay rich they will save the planet because they have created a market and fear to do so..

Global warming.

[Mr Revhead]

you know, no matter what the subject.... blind rhetoric always switches me off.....

almost sounds as if you have a "big brother" complex there mate.

you could pin a tail on it and call it a 350hp CT26.

and the award for quote of the month goes too.......
anthonym

[mister2]

No wonder you message is so muffled and incoherent then Wink.

The scientific case for human-induced global warming, particularly WRT CO2 emissions, is so flimsy you could pin a tail on it and call it a 350hp CT26.

Ah yes, the witty riposte. But still no published, peer reviewed papers supporting your conclusion?

My message is quite simple really.

[vvega]

No wonder you message is so muffled and incoherent then Wink.

The scientific case for human-induced global warming, particularly WRT CO2 emissions, is so flimsy you could pin a tail on it and call it a 350hp CT26.

Ah yes, the witty riposte. But still no published, peer reviewed papers supporting your conclusion?

My message is quite simple really.

hmm
my message is simple as well
work things out for yourself based on sience and facts
i like to think for myself and draw my own conclusions and when a topic liek this arises i like to air these views...
IMO you have no right to have a opinion if your not willing to stand buy you thoughts and be called a herotic or a hero

covering your arse is just a way of never been wrong or admitting you have fault

just my thoughts nothing personal mate

BTW forums are a form of pair review that is as far as im aware there orogin....expect they used to be bbs mailing servies...(im sure fivebob will correct me )

[Norty]

No i don't have a "big brother" complex, i don't believe i am being watched. or that they will come probe me in the middle of the night.

Its blind of you to think that those who have power don't lie or trick to keep that power, history tells us this, USA in IRAQ, Fall of Enron, No Vitamin C in Ribena

Look at North Korea's people, on NAT GEO "Inside North Korea", if you told them anything that goes beyond what they believe they too "switch off".

Fact is with all the reports out either in support or against global warming.

They all Agree they still have alot to learn about how this planet truly works.

Another thing also to note is that the Co2 level is the highest right now that its ever been. its never been this high, its 3-4times higher than what is was during the medieval warming period, yet the temp right now is still cooler than that period, i have always found that rather interesting since old Al Gore said that when Co2 rises so does the temp (remember his line graph), so really those ice caps should of melted by now, (looks at watch)

Oh FYI the study on this done by Harvard University and published in Energy and Environment.

[mister2]

work things out for yourself based on sience and facts
i like to think for myself and draw my own conclusions and when a topic liek this arises i like to air these views...
IMO you have no right to have a opinion if your not willing to stand buy you thoughts and be called a herotic or a hero

covering your ar*e is just a way of never been wrong or admitting you have fault

just my thoughts nothing personal mate

BTW forums are a form of pair review that is as far as im aware there orogin....expect they used to be bbs mailing servies...(im sure fivebob will correct me )

Fair enough. My perspective on this is that I do not have time or inclination to do the years of research that it takes to become a world expert in climate science, so I 'stand on the shoulders of giants' and rely on the information that world experts have published in relevant journals, where it has been scrutised by other world experts in the field.

Cheers

[pc]

Hmmm... my opinion (the short version)
- I believe most of the stuff in Al Gore's video (inconvenient truth)
- The planet will be fine, whatever we do, it will recover.
- There are too many people... much like a virus, we will breed until that which supports us will collapse and everyone will die at once (ish)
- there is no need for emission control if there are less people to drive cars

as you were.

[vvega]

work things out for yourself based on sience and facts
i like to think for myself and draw my own conclusions and when a topic liek this arises i like to air these views...
IMO you have no right to have a opinion if your not willing to stand buy you thoughts and be called a herotic or a hero

covering your ar*e is just a way of never been wrong or admitting you have fault

just my thoughts nothing personal mate

BTW forums are a form of pair review that is as far as im aware there orogin....expect they used to be bbs mailing servies...(im sure fivebob will correct me )

Fair enough. My perspective on this is that I do not have time or inclination to do the years of research that it takes to become a world expert in climate science, so I 'stand on the shoulders of giants' and rely on the information that world experts have published in relevant journals, where it has been scrutised by other world experts in the field.

Cheers

lol you and i both know experts are not always right
i mean hell the world is round...and you dont get warts on your hands from wanking :d
i take a lot of what ive lernt off this from liek you other peoples lernign ....
from the men that used to predict teh weather fron teh sun and from the proven history of teh earth
obviously i didnt resherch that for myself i took it on good faith that histy is a good referance and the applied simple logic not tring to read between the lines to much
not tring to be insulting bro.i know your not silly just having a good eholsome educational debate with ya over somethign that for a change atually mattters :d


wayne

[vvega]

Hmmm... my opinion (the short version)
- I believe most of the stuff in Al Gore's video (inconvenient truth)
- The planet will be fine, whatever we do, it will recover.
- There are too many people... much like a virus, we will breed until that which supports us will collapse and everyone will die at once (ish)
- there is no need for emission control if there are less people to drive cars

as you were.

al gores video did more to disprove teh c02 issue than prove it in my eyes.....its atually shows teh c02 as a after effect of teh temp rising

[BZG Wagon]

Back to the import laws... Would it be reasonable to believe GTT will be worth a few more $$$ this time next year?!?
It happened to my Corolla with the frontal import laws (sold it 2 years 8 months and 50,000kms later for $300 more than what I bought it for).

[mister2]

lol you and i both know experts are not always right
i mean hell the world is round...and you dont get warts on your hands from wanking :d
i take a lot of what ive lernt off this from liek you other peoples lernign ....
from the men that used to predict teh weather fron teh sun and from the proven history of teh earth
obviously i didnt resherch that for myself i took it on good faith that histy is a good referance and the applied simple logic not tring to read between the lines to much
not tring to be insulting bro.i know your not silly just having a good eholsome educational debate with ya over somethign that for a change atually mattters :d

Haha good wholesome educational debate eh. Fair enough, agree to disagree on this one.

[anthonym]

No wonder you message is so muffled and incoherent then Wink.

The scientific case for human-induced global warming, particularly WRT CO2 emissions, is so flimsy you could pin a tail on it and call it a 350hp CT26.

Ah yes, the witty riposte. But still no published, peer reviewed papers supporting your conclusion?

Actually the onus is on you to provide published, peer reviewed papers (even links will do) proving that anthropogenic carbon has any effect on climate at all since you are the one making the claim.

After you've done that how about finding a paper that proves the measured 0.7deg temperature rise in the last century, is a: relevant, b: nothing at all to do with the sun and c: nothing at all to do with the end of the little ice age, or indeed anything other than human activity.

[chch34]

Back to the import laws... Would it be reasonable to believe GTT will be worth a few more $$$ this time next year?!?
It happened to my Corolla with the frontal import laws (sold it 2 years 8 months and 50,000kms later for $300 more than what I bought it for).

I think its a fair bet you wont loose money on it...

I dont think it'l change the value of my dx much though..

A good point from this though, is that im guessing non compliable imports will be cheaper than they are now. ie an evo 6 could end up being a pretty cheap track car...

[TRD Man]

Prices didn't increase at all when the Frontal Impact Laws were introduced.
As someone has already stated, it only take s a couple of years for the market to "catch up" to the new law's requirements and there is enough residual stock in the system to cater for that interim period.
If anything, with dealers unable to import the cheaper non compliant vehicles the prices of newer stock actually dropped a little to satisfy those with budgetry limitations.

[BZG Wagon]

Prices didn't increase at all when the Frontal Impact Laws were introduced.

I agree and disagree. Yes, prices didn't go up, but I would argue on the basis of age car prices have been rising over time.

I.e. in 1999 my mate bought a 10 year old 1989 Honda Civic Si, mags, exhaust, 90kms for $4.5k from a dealer. Its now 2007; and you would be hard pressed to find a 10 year old equivalent Honda Civic for the same price.

1996 BZ Corolla's were going for roughly $9k in 2001. Its now 2007, and the now equivalent 2002 Fielder Z or RunX Z's are starting at $15k. Even if you take out inflation thats a rise.

I guess the economy has been strong the last few years and there are probably a few other reasons contributing to the 'rise', but I still attibute a part of it to the frontal impact legislation. I know a few people like me who have owned their cars for 3ish years, and finding they are not losing much money when selling (like I said in my earlier post - I gained $300).

[slighty_sykotic]

Hmmm... my opinion (the short version)
- I believe most of the stuff in Al Gore's video (inconvenient truth)
- The planet will be fine, whatever we do, it will recover.
- There are too many people... much like a virus, we will breed until that which supports us will collapse and everyone will die at once (ish)
- there is no need for emission control if there are less people to drive cars

as you were.

Got it perfect there. Its the amount of people.

Hence, legalise suicide. They don't want to pollute the world, let them. Second, don't save people with self inflicted sickness such as smoking caused shit unless they want to pay for it themselves (quickly get rid of a shit load more people).

Then

Kill criminals that steal cars/murder people.

Then you can start to kills groups/areas like the gangs in wanganui but then you start being called hitler.....


I guess you could go as far as kill the weaker, bad gentics etc (thats me included then ), or at least sterlise them etc etc.


But it doesn't change the fact that its correct.

--Sykotic

[pc]

Hmmm... my opinion (the short version)
- I believe most of the stuff in Al Gore's video (inconvenient truth)
- The planet will be fine, whatever we do, it will recover.
- There are too many people... much like a virus, we will breed until that which supports us will collapse and everyone will die at once (ish)
- there is no need for emission control if there are less people to drive cars

as you were.

Got it perfect there. Its the amount of people.
Hence, legalise suicide. They don't want to pollute the world, let them. Second, don't save people with self inflicted sickness such as smoking caused sh*t unless they want to pay for it themselves (quickly get rid of a sh*t load more people).

Then
Kill criminals that steal cars/murder people.
Then you can start to kills groups/areas like the gangs in wanganui but then you start being called hitler.....

I guess you could go as far as kill the weaker, bad gentics etc (thats me included then ), or at least sterlise them etc etc.

But it doesn't change the fact that its correct.

--Sykotic

I find it amusing that everyone assumes reduction in population requires killing people... sad but true. Because the real solution is too horrifying for anyone to comprehend.
Sustained reduction in breeding.

[big_boy]

Sustained reduction in breeding.

then what are we ment to do with our free time

i personaly dont know were i stand on the topic as i havent had anuf time to work it out & think it thro but i do in some way beleave the bit that were not the cause of the CO2 rate