www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...60,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95260,00.html)

Curious to know if ytrok supports Europeans killing their own by imposing high taxes on energy that could save them.

When everything gets taxed like crazy middle class people suffer the most since it causes them to not be able to afford things other than food, water, and a piece of shit house and cannot afford air conditioning or the energy to run it so they die of heat, it's that simple.

Heh thousand's die because they lack a fucking air conditioning, that is a joke to me....less US Soldiers died in the Iraqi war that euro's opposed, but then they turn around put like 500% tax on everything so a regular person cannot afford even a ghetto ass piece of crap air conditioning unit and thousands die cause it's too hot for a couple days, lol.

Man, I was in Italy for the last two weeks, and it was *brutal*. Maybe not as bad as some other places, but all you had to do was step outside and you started sweating like a pig. We had to change clothes three times a day it got so bad.

it's too hot for a couple days
Been 4 months, with... 1hour and 20 mins of rain for this period(at least where I live).

And dieing people aren't the "middle class that can't afford AC", more old people living in places where normal avg temperature is 26/27° celsius (you'll make the conversion ;) ) and got for 1 full month an avg of 38/39° (north of France).

Why buy AC if you live somewhere you won't need 10 years but 1? Oh yes the "high tax", of course!

Next?

Average of people that died to it were 65+. Most houses don't have AC here and its not because of taxs, its because its useless 99% of the time. Just for the record the last time a heatwave happened it was in 76, I was't even born. Why would I buy something I ll need 3x times in my life?

Cluesless tards like usual.


Edit: After reading that article, I thought I d add one thing. Europe actually tries to be a bit more carefull about the planet unlike the usa which don't give a shit. Just the cars poluate much less and consume average 2/3x less gas than in the usa. Relatively speaking, france poluate 4X less than USA. By that I mean if france was as big as the USA it would poluate 4x less. Naturally with our size the difference is much bigger than that.

Most of the US is more decentralized and spread out than most of Europe, I think. People here need to travel more to get the same things done, and mass transit isn't always a viable option in many places due to the layout. It's not just people's attitudes but also some old design decisions (which in turn influence people's attitudes) that are to blame.

One of the reasons for high energy tax in Europe is to make our energy consumption more efficient.
It means there is less pollution and more to go around. And it hardly effects the middle class, just teaches us to turn off uneccessary lights or not filll the kettle to the top every time we make a brew.
In most parts of mainland Europe, it very rarely gets hot enough to warrant kitting out every house with air conditioning. So lowering energy tax would be disastrous. Usually a fan will do the job.

On the plus side Kinu..

I hear France is gonna produce some REALLY kick ass wines this year from the heat..

My question is..

Can ya hook a brother up??

And yes Im serious.. I want to pay you to ship me some damn wine..

Better wine (lots of sun), but less production (not enough rain), Order Now!! :smokin

Don't blame us SUV driving pigs for your heat wave crisis..blame your exceptional health care system that europeans are so proud of.



www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1027219,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1027219,00.html)



Ibudin

Is this actually a news story or is this some "fun" article written by a comedian?
This article is so full of assumption and faults that I can't believe any professor would be so dumb as to write it.
It lacks any scientific foundation and the assumption are just plain silly.

European cities are virtually devoid of air conditioning in large part because the energy to run them is so expensive.

European cities are virtually devoid of air conditioning, in large part because they have never needed it.
The last heat wave was in 76 thats 27 years ago.
Most modern buildings (build in the last 10 years) do have airconditioning or it is availlable as an option.
So if you want it you can get it easy.
All retirement homes build in the last decade have air conditioning, the same goes for hospitals, public buildings and offices.
When you own an air conditioner you do not have to use it all the time. You use it only when you need it and that is once every 27 years.
Believe me when I say that the extra cost for the energy does not play a part when you need to use it.
Then youre just glad you have it and dont care about the 10 euro extra on youre monthly bill.

Europe has effectively imposed a continuous blackout on air conditioning, and now it is paying the price

If the tax on energy is the reason why Europeans do not have air conditioning, why then start making it readely available and implement it on a large scale after these higher taxes are imposed and not before?
Simple we never needed it.

The way to stop global warming, of course, is to restrict the use of fossil-fuel energy, which can only be accomplished by raising the price to a level at which people begin to self-ration their consumption.

Ever thought about making the applications more energie efficient?
Depending of the application a large part of the energy is lost due to inefficiency. Sometimes this can be up to 95% of the energy used. Find a way to not waste energy and you have solved most of the problems.
And yes the price off energy plays a part in this.
Say you have the choice between 2 airconditioners, both preforming the same.
Only difference is that one uses 50% less energy.
You're gonne choose the one that uses less energy.
Unless energy is free then you dont care.
In short Cost of ownership playes a huge part in the decision making proces.

And as for the heat-prostrated people of Europe, it's too bad that the Kyoto Protocol will do nothing measurable about the Earth's mean temperature for the forseeable future

It took us 100 years to get to this lvl off pollution.
What makes anyone think that it can be resolved in the forseeable future?
Even if we implement the most stringeant measures it would take over 2 centuries to repair the damage all mankind has done. That is no reason to do nothing about it.

People who study mortality and climate have known for years that most temperate-zone cities have had some "threshold" temperature at which daily mortality suddenly begins to skyrocket. People who study economics will argue that this is a market ripe for adaptation.

How have Americans adapted to our warming cities? They stopped dying. Even though the local temperature keeps going up and up, the threshold at which deaths skyrocket has become higher and higher, and now is beyond the highest temperatures


Interesting enough no link to air conditioning is made here.
Based on this I can also make an assumption.

"The reason why americans have stopped dying is because they have had time to adapt to the higher temperatures over a period of time. This is generally known as evolution.
The reason why europeans have died is the sudden rise in temperature to which they are not adapted."

Christ sake people.
Buy a fucking fan.

Buy a fucking fan.

People can't afford the energy to run a fan since energy taxes are so high.

People can't afford the energy to run a fan since energy taxes are so high.
Can you tell me please the tax rate on Energy in Europe cause I really have no clue...

one MILLION dollars

Uh, Dr. Evil...

Can you tell me please the tax rate on Energy in Europe

We had an entire discussion in which, I believe, both of us posted articles on this - more specifically, on the energy tax rates in your country.

You know, when Pinatubo/Hudson erupted in 1991, there was a 50% depletion of ozone over the antarctic, and 15-20% ozone loss at high altitudes worldwide. Pinatubo alone released more sulfur dioxide(the main greenhouse gas released by coal burning facilites) than the entire US releases in 2 years. It seems to me that if just those two eruptions did that much damage, and how many eruptions there have been in history(eruptions on the scale of pinatubo happen every 100 years or so)...there's a little too much stock put into humanity's effect on the climate, and "global warming".


Quite a few people think the earth is cooling instead of warming. The NOAA(national oceanic and atmospheric administration) for example showed a half a degree decrease in ground temperatures from 1945 to 1968(surely if the global warming theory was correct, it would have increased due to large jumps in greenhouse gases from explosive industrialization..no?). Oddly enough the warming for the last century occured primarily between 1910 and 1940, when the global co2 levels increased from 293ppm to 300ppm...and the temperature remained steady from 1940 to 1980 while the co2 levels increased from 300ppm to 335ppm.

Another item to factor in is that manmade aerosols do not remain in the atmosphere long at all, most fall out in rain or by themselves rather quickly. From 1940 to 1980 while the northern hemisphere's average temperatures remained the same the southern hemisphere's temperatures rose, despite the fact that the northern hemisphere is where the vast majority of manmade aerosols are released(keep in mind they do not remain in the atmosphere long).

What I'm getting at is that Europe's high energy taxation is quite possibly based on hasty, incorrect assumptions about a contested theory on global climate that quite a bit of hard data goes against.

Of course, some references:


1. Halpert, M.S. and G.D. Bell, 1997: Climate assessment for 1996. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 1-49.

2. Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell, 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change.Contribution from the Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge Univ. Press) 572pp.

3. Schimel, D. et al. 1996. Radiative forcing of climate change. In (2) Houghton et al. 1996, 65 -131.

4. Braswell, B.H., D.S. Schimel, E. Linder and B. Moore, 1887: The response of global terrestrial ecosystems to interannual temperature variability. Science, 278, 870-872.

5. Weir, A. 1996. IPCC second assessment. Climate Change Newsletter (Aust. Dept Primary Industries & Energy), 1-4.

6. Hengeveld, H. and P. Kertland 1995. An assessment of new developments relevant to the science of climate change. Climate Change Newsletter (Australian Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra), 7, August, 24p.

7. Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.J. Francey, and R.L. Langenfelds, 1998. Atmospheric methane between 1000 A.D. and present: evidence of anthropogenic emissions and climatic variability. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 15979 - 93.

8. Keeling R. et al. 1996. Nature, 381 , 218.

PM me on board L2. EWboard.