Gerritt,
It's all good. Whenever I see arguements against changing our ways in the name of preseving mother earth, I feel like I'm being told what I stated in my original post. It seems no one argues that the climate is changing or that we can control it to some degree. But many choose to argue that we caused it and against ways of changing it. I've never understood that logic, but then I'm not the brightest candle on the cake either.

I care very much about leaving a better world for my children. I also believe strongly that humans have accelerated the pace of global warming, if not caused it completely. One of my daughters is in college majoring in weather/weather control. The other is studying to become an editor. Both are very interested in global warming and weather trends. The boy, well he's still stuck on the sofa playing CounterStrike. Oh well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad?

"... But many choose to argue that we caused it and against ways of changing it..."

Finallement vous avez raison mais l'être humain reste et restera un être humain. Seule une volonté politique pourra (faire) changer les choses et nous sommes loin, très loin du compte: voyez la pression sur le secteur agricole pour utiliser ses productions dans le but de fabriquer du bio-carburant. Dans 10 ans nous verrons des hommes mourir de faim à côté d'un réservoir de bio-éthanol!!! Vous riez ? Regardes les prix que les céréales ont atteints ces derniers temps et le prix du pétrole n'a quasi rien à voir avec cette hausse.
Si l'on veut que nos enfants et au-delà puissent au moins se chauffer, se soigner et se nourrir il très grand temps de changer TOUTES nos habitudes de vie , consommation, déplacements, loisirs, voyages, de façon drastique.

Bonne continuation!

Jean-Pierre,
Sorry, I didn't take French (?) in High School. But, with my limited US understanding of languages, I think you agree with the gist of it doesn't matter who or what caused it, we can make changes, through better homes, consumption and alternative fuels, and that we continue the conversation, or continue the race... I'm not sure.

On a side note, if a person that speaks three languages is trilingual, and one that speaks two languages, bilingual, what do you call someone that speaks one language?
A white American. Sorry, but for the most part still true, except for parts of Texas, California and South Florida.

Back to "Global Warming". The biggest issue NOW, and in the near term isn't whether or not your beach front property will become a skidoo track, but the effect that warming has had on the global weather paterns over the last 50 years or so, and at times in the past (back when umteen jillion years ago, the Sahara was a rain forest). There are HUGE economic and political changes taking place due to changing weather paterns. It is due to mass emigration from areas that had major drought that has led to some of the most politically charged, as well as henious acts against people in several areas; Darfur comes to mind. Canada, USA, Russia, Northern European Countries, et al, are all fighting (diplomatically for now) over oil fields and other resources that were frozen under ice year round, and now are partially accessable.
Climate change has and continues to be a major contributory factor in human conflict, and to a major degree, survival. When we can all recognize this, and respond to it in a rational manner, we will still have winners and loosers, but can make better decisions.
As Sam Kineson (sp) said, " We have deserts in America; we just don't live there...AH, AH, AHHHH". Well we have the option to move about, and even then it hasn't been easy.
Let us all take a breath and think....while we can.

BTW, I kind of like Sander bringing this up. It means that us techno-trolls can communicate within an environment that we trust, and due to the multi-cultural, multi-national makeup of HWA, better understand the viewpoints of others....even if I can't understand French.

Gerritt

I never wanted to say anything else ...

Have a nice day

I hard translation using Babylon translation of "jean-pierre liebaert"´s quote...

"Finallement you are right but the human being remains and will remain a human being. Only a political good-will will be able (to make) to change the things and we are far, very far from the account: see the pressure on the agricultural sector to use its productions with an aim of manufacturing bio-fuel. In 10 years we will see men dying of hunger beside a bio-éthanol tank!!! You laugh? Look at the prices which the cereals reached lately and the price of oil does not have quasi anything to see with this rise. If it is wanted that our children and beyond can at least heat themselves, to look after and nourish it very great time to change ALL our practices of life, consumption, displacements, leisures, voyages, in a drastic way. Good continuation!"

sorry I don´t understand french...

from Brazil

It's a real red herring to bring up reasons like “it just needs to be done” or “what about the children?” or even go on about conspiracies and political dogma.
There’s so much modern technology and findings relevant out there that get excluded/ignored and even a few old ideas jammed down and purposely forgotten.


How about looking at it from a science technical view? Is it ok to suppress or ignore real data gathered from satellites or other new ways of reading earths temperature and workings with modern technology?


I sure don’t see any mention of the Argo units that have been traveling the oceans taking temperature for the last 5 years and say the oceans are cooling?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=8c21e2dd...7c415f5a6b


Not much about the probes on mars measuring natural global warming that’s happening, the same as we’re experiencing.

http://www.athenapub.com/marsody1.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece




And I don’t hear much about the radiation/neutrinos from the sun being felt and studied underground here on earth called a “Borexino Detector”?

http://www.aspera-eu.org/index.php?Itemid=98&id=133&op...;task=view


http://physics.princeton.edu/borexino/




Or a more complete picture of the cycles of the sun in any AGW infested supported data?

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf



Where’s the full explanation for why the oceans are lowering, not rising?

All Proven by atomic clocks, we’ve been spinning faster in the last few years.

That said, here’s site the believes in global warming, but can’t explain why the earths not spinning slower because of more water around the equators?

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=3238

And here’s the reason why we’re spinning faster that makes sense.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf


Real satellite imagery showing large ice build ups on the pole, being written over saying “the pictures are faulty coming from the analyses on computers.”?

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/loonie-antarctic.jpg



Here is where it is from,

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html




This site also explains in simple terms the science and stage of events that has occurred.



Computer science isn't the catch all for understandings unknowns of science and relying on just computer models and then ignoring real data? Is not only unscientific, it’s fraudulent. So someone is lying or at least, incompetent as a scientist. And I’m thinking it’s both.


Oh by the way, thanks for letting me post this in your forum, there’s not may sites that allow open dissenting comments on AGW.

Cheers to you all!

Lance,
Who's paying your mortgage?
In one post you claim that the earth is spinning faster, then slower, or visa versa.
The town I come from had 14,000 people in it when I left, it now has over 140,000 people in it. This is one growth area within the USA. Were I live now, has had a 76% incease in population over the last 3 years....we don't have an impact?!?!
When I left my home town, with 14K people, I could dig down 3 feet and get ground water. Since then you have to go down over 60 feet to get to ground water...this is since 1990.
Where I live now, you can't put down a well, because if everyone did it, we'd be in a desert.

If Global Climate Change hasn't hit you, feel lucky. There are 100s of millions that are impacted now, much less the future.

Just like we went from GNP to GDP, the way you calculate the return is based upon the statistical evaluation. It doesn't change the fact that climate change has driven political and economical rifts. So we have to respond to the rifts in our own country, as well as politically, and economically to other countries.

Gerritt

I'm originally from the WI, USA and now living in South Australia. I'm fortunate that I've traveled around a bit including 38 states in the USA (lived in 4 of them for a few years). I've also spent some time in Canada, Mexico, China and Japan.

I remember in the mid '70s traveling from San Diego, CA to LA every few weekends for a couple years. Around an hour south of LA, the sun disappeared in the smog. You couldn't see the sun again until getting somewhere north of Pacoima. It's better now than it was then as CA has taken the problem seriously. But it's still pathetic. LA is the one city I avoid like the plague as I can't stand the smog. Unfortunately I fly into and out of it a couple times each year. I figure that smog does as much damage to my health as smoking a pack of cigarettes every day for 20 years. Being from a small town in WI originally, I'm probably more sensitive to smog than the average city dweller. Hard to believe we haven't made a serious impact on the earth after seeing that city.

Ever been to Beijing? It's no joke that Olympic athletes may not be able to complete endurance events due to the smog in the air. Beijing is another pathetic city, almost as bad as LA used to be and quickly becoming worse.

Now South Australia isn't very polluted but has been in a drought for the past decade. Sure, droughts come and go naturally, but drinking water is already a limited resource in Australia. The water tables are almost non-existent and the damns (where drinking water comes from) in SA are at 50% capacity. Recently we had a record number of days over 35C (15 days), with most being around 40C and slightly over (It was roughly 100F - 115F for you yanks that don't understand degrees C). Do you realise how fast water evaporates at that temperature? The damns were at 78% prior to the 3 weeks of high temps. At that rate, SA would run out of drinking water after a couple more months of high temps. Scary. Luckily we're coming into winter, which is the rainy season.

I have no doubt that global warming is real. I have no doubt that the earth would not be full of smog if people didn't inhabit it. I don't know how much smog effects the ozone and global warming, but I do know that people used to run around in nothing but a pair of shorts with no fear of skin cancer in WI. Not anymore. Whether people choose to believe we caused global warming or not, trying to find a cure ASAP is just being responsible IMO. Even if it's a natural occurance, the world may not be inhabitable by humans fairly soon. One can argue all they want that it may not happen, but what if it does? By the time we know for sure it's happening, it may be too late to do anything about it. So why wait?

It makes me sick to think that the USA and Australia are among the few civilized countries not to sign Kyoto. Our politicians have lost the plot.

The earth is spinning faster just to make that clear, why don’t you just read the link I posted? You may get some understand of the science?
. Never mind, I really hold out no hope for you ever looking at facts.

Who pays my mortgage ? I pay MY mortgage sunshine , yeah and I pay the taxes on all aspects of my life and family in my country and have since I was born just like my parents did. That includes environment taxes for strict laws(courts) to stop offenders , costs for recycling, School/bus service for economical and social reasons, a social Medicare system for everyone, for our forests and fisheries, roads/bridges/infrastructure, environmental clean up, social services, police/fire/coast guard/ armed forces, municipal/provincial/federal tax, liquor/fishing/camping/ hunting taxes and tons more.

My province is completely hydro electric and we have over 300,000 in a small town where I live, it’s cleaner now then it has been in 50 years. Both in the visual destruction from deforesting, littering or air particulate on the environment, but also in a steady rise in wildlife numbers.
Have more people destroyed the town or environment because of more smog or cars? NO, but less trees do effect it! So that's why we have to have so much green space on every lot or property. I’m happy to pay and I see the progress, a win win.

But I refuse to bow down to another government force outside me country for a fake problem that would usurp the control from the people to outside our county.

If you want to talk lies(BS) in my country, you go right ahead, you have every right. Just remember we’re a democracy and don’t be surprised if it gets you a bloody mouth for your deceit and lies.
So you just go worry about your own county and pollution mate. My conscience is clean , is yours?

Lance,

I questioned your mortgage as an indication that I suspected that you joined HWA for the sole purpose of undermining the discussion so as to support a personal or corporate viewpoint. This is my suspicion, not a statement of malfesence or an official viewpoint of HWA.

What we seem to disagree on is whether or not humans have enough control over our environment as to make a positive change....I think we can, even if we are ultimately doomed, I'd like to extend the timeframe as much as I can, if not just for my children, but for you and yours.

I question your rational for the postings that you've made, as well as your science.

I've read all of the articles in your post and have come to the conclusion that you do not understand some of the aspects of the findings.
You posted a link to an article on solar cycles. The findings indicated that there was NO WAY that the cyclic solar radiation output could produce the ever increasing delta T (tempuratures) being observed.

Additional posted links are to editorial pieces wherein the writer is miss-interpreting some of the data quoted within the piece itself, thus leading you to believing that the earth is spinning faster, where ALL reasonable data indicates that days are longer now. Even within the article, it is a .1ms increase in the speed of rotation over a period of a century delta over what was expected, which is a 2.4ms DECREASE in rotational speed over the same time period, so we are slowing at 2.3ms not at 2.4, thus the earth is not spinning faster, just not slowing down at the rate we expected....if the underlying principles are sound.

Some of the other postings question or debunk the actions of humans as a "ROOT CAUSE" of Global Warming or Climate change. In this I do agree; We humans are not root causes, but contributary or accelerants to pre-existing trends.

One of the postings was by a speciallist in field geology with 30+ years of study in his area of speciallization. In that Sea levels are rising, vs. Coastal areas being geologically subducted, may have some merit in indicating that global climate change is not the ONLY factor, nothing in his self supporting documentation actually indicates that there may be a rise in sea levels in addition to the subduction of coastal areas though much slower than some of the more popular viewpoints, some with political underpinnings.

I do believe that there are definately people out there with an agenda to increase fear, and thus support certain political or social agendas twisting the facts and science to support thier own point of view, but, there are definate indications that the human factor as pertains to global or even local climate change can be modified, or decreased to a level that will support a better environment than we now have, or could have in the future, with minimal change in our habits.

Gerritt

Post edited multiple times for spelling

Do I believe Global Warming is happening? Yes. All one has to do is look at the basic facts, that the global temperature is already on the rise. Maybe not significantly, but it's definitely going to be out of regular parameters if this trend continues.

Do I believe Global Warming is partially man's fault? Yes. I base this on the fact that CO2 is a proven green-house gas, and (not only through cutting down forests, but essentially manufacturing CO2 and other greenhouse gases full-time for 100 years straight) we have done plenty to our environment to make global climate change probable.

That being said, that is ONLY MY OPINION. I base it off the facts and evidence I've seen, and my own personal experiences (Southern California hasn't had decent rainfall in 6 years; we're overdue for an El Nino/La Nina cycle by 5 years; this has never happened before). Now, your facts can be different. I think Colbert did a good thing in coining the term 'truthiness'. It applies very well to the Global Warming debate. There's lots of 'truthiness' coming from both sides.

What I don't understand is the unwillingness to try to minimize our impact on the world. What could possible be the harm in reducing our CO2 emissions?

Even if Global Warming isn't our fault, why can't we at least make sure in the future we aren't to blame for a cataclysmic climate change?

WHAT COULD WE POSSIBLY LOSE?

Carter,

I believe that we are in agreement.
Even if we are not the "culprits", we are the victims, and possible champions of changing global physical conditions.
I'm suprised that Lance hasn't responded....mayhap I was, ummm, right?

Gerritt

You are very wrong for a multitude of reasons. I will deal with them one by one.

"Never mind that there are greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, gases that are more potent by several magnitudes."

You are correct that there are others, but your conclusion is incorrect. Check this list: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html . You will see that carbon dioxide has a three times larger effect as a greenhouse gas currently than Methane (CH4) has. Also note that carbon dioxide is very stable in the atmosphere. It will be absorbed by oceans, and released somewhere else, but it does not break down by itself. It needs to be split by plants into oxygen and coal, and the coal then stored under ground.

To give you a clue as to why carbon dioxide is important and CH4 is less so is that the amount of coal that has been bound in fossil fuels has been accumulated over 300 million years. We burnt that fossil fuel in 200 years. If we make a line, a couple of mm wide to correspond to the 200 years, a similar line in scale to represent the 300 million years would traverse one third of the US land mass. (west-east)

There is not enough land mass on earth to plant trees to reduce the CO2 level to where it was before 1970. Not by several orders of magnitude. It would take millions and millions of years. What we have done seems to be irreversible. You see fossil fuels are stored solar energy. Plants use light to split carbon dioxid into carbon and oxygen. The amount of energy needed to do that again to the carbon we have added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is staggering.

Isn’t it reasonable to think that a process that has taken 300 million years, and is reversed in only 200 years, has a huge effect on the planet? Could you be wrong in your assumption that we’re doing nothing dangerous at all by burning fossil fuels?

“Never mind that just about every living organism generates carbon dioxide and has been doing so for billions of years.”

You are comparing an ant to the moon. The carbon dioxide that the living animals produce is absorbed by the current amount of plants without a problem. That is, animals do not contribute to the increase in carbon dioxide concentration. Carbon dioxide is part of an energy transfer system in many living things. That doesn’t mean that carbon dioxide isn’t dangerous when you put absolutely enormous quantities of it in the atmosphere!

Burning fossil fuels has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. That is an increase of 36 %. Luckily that doesn’t mean 36 % higher temperatures, but it will increase the temperature for sure. Without green house gasses our planet would have a mean temperature about 200 degrees C colder than it is today. That is a fact. Look up green house effect on wikipedia for starters and verify your sources. Look it up for yourself. When you come to the conclusion that this is correct, think about what will happen if we increase the carbon dioxide concentration with 36 %? Will it not have a tremendous effect on our entire climate? Weather patterns? Amount of rain and snow? Ice on our poles? Glaciers? Will all these changes effect the wildlife? Will it effect ourselves?

“Never mind that a forest fire, or a mild volcanic eruption, generates more carbon dioxide than we do as a species in a year.”

That is incorrect, humans by burning fossil fuels currently release 130 times more carbon dioxide per year than volcanoes do. See for example: http://www.theclimatepost.com/more-info/common-misconceptions.html

“Never mind that we only have accurate worldwide temperature data for about the last 150 years at best.”

We can see other things that are dependent on temperature. At what temperature zone does certain trees grow etc. But the important issue is how fast the temperature is changing and has already changed. We will see the effects of this increase in temperature over decades. The climate system will take some time to balance out. What will happen is uncertain.

“Never mind that the Earth's average temperature has fluctuated enormously throughout history with the first few billion years not even a car, or a fossil fuel burning energy plant, in sight.”

Looking at the beginning of Earth’s life and comparing it to our present time is irrelevant. We depend on our climate to be stable and reasonably predictable. What kind of temperatures we’re supposed to have in the summer, how much rainfall etc. What we have done is to change the equilibrium that took many, many years to form. And we have done it within 200 years. It is the scale of time we’re dealing with that is notable. That temperatures varied wildly before humans even existed doesn’t mean that we aren’t the ones who are changing the temperature right now.

“So in light of all this it is clear to me that this is just another way for the politicians, and other interest groups, to be able to steer the public into a certain direction.”

It is very dangerous to base your conclusions upon some general idea and not scientific facts. Also scientists are usually willing to change their opion when they’re proved wrong. That is a fundamental scientific value and you be wise to adopt it as well. If you can admit your mistakes and correct your knowledge of the world you will never have to fight to keep thinking backwards. I urge you to look at the available data and revoke your conclusion in this article. Preferably to even update the article as you go along discovering new ideas, problems and facts. If you need further facts or just want to have someone to debate the issue with I’m all up for it.

“So I am sure we can all agree the world is warming up, most likely caused by a natural global temperature cycle that takes 100s, 1000s or even billions of years and to which we as humans are not really a contributing factor, nor of any influence if we wanted to.”

No I can not agree. You have given me absolutely no evidence of this conclusion what so ever. Your conclusion does not carry any weight at all.

A cycle that takes perhaps 1000s or millions of years would not likely change the temperature very fast, not at the rate we’re seeing now. It would be more gradual. There is no other thing found by science that can explain the temperature rise than carbon dioxide concentration of our atmosphere. Other factors effect the climate as well, including volcanoes and solar activity, but both these factors should have caused a cooling effect in the last 20 years, not a warming effect.

Your efforts to conserve energy, and the fact that you use a fuel efficient car is absolutely great, I salute you!

To Lance lamont:
"All Proven by atomic clocks, we’ve been spinning faster in the last few years.
That said, here’s site the believes in global warming, but can’t explain why the earths not spinning slower because of more water around the equators?"

The report you linked to: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=3238 actually says that warming of the ocean causes water to move towards the poles which would make the earth spin faster, so a faster spinning earth means we have warming of the oceans. That's the opposite of what you wrote.

Fredric,
I believe that we are on the same side of the debate, but you've overstepped a bit in your analysis. We've been using fossil fuels, which include hard and soft coal for a lot longer than 200 years, we've just accellerated our use of them during the "industrial revolution" or the timeframe quoted. Before this acceleration, humans burned primarily vegitative matter which released CO, CO2, and other compounds into the atmosphere that also led to not only deforestation, but severe health impacts on the using communities over time.

Deforestation can also be traced to using wood as a construction material as well as the advent of a agricultural vs hunt/gather environment. The situation on Easter Island, as well as in the North American Middle-lands shows that a civilization that grows beyond a certain point can no longer be supported through harvesting without replanting (there was a tribe/nation in the Mid-North American (Illinios area/nation) that exceeded 1 million persons in a single city in pre-historic times, until the wood ran out).

We, as "developed" nations need to act in a way that supports our longterm survival, and the survival of all peoples...to a point. Population density and lack of resources in the same area is what is leading to most of the problems in the world today. If we had 2 billion to take care of, instead of 6 billion, we might have a chance as a race, but which 4 billion should die for the rest, and how would the rest live with the decision?

Gerritt

Gerritt:
Please tell me where "I overstepped". I deliberately added one false fact to see if the author of the article would check my facts. To see if he would learn the lesson I think most of us need to learn - that we must seek truth, by science, and not let our beliefs stand in the way.

Basing one's opinions on beliefs, not fact, is taxing for anyone. To continuously defend a position where the only evidence you have is you own personal belief is, as I said taxing. The reason is that if someone tells you you are wrong, and can show you evidence, you have to either change your mental image of the universe which is always challenging, or you have to ignore indisputable facts and try to forget about the discussion ever taking place. One might be able to do it for a while, but I'm pretty sure the burden becomes very tough to carry over time.

I'd say that you have overstepped in your reply by saying that 4 billion people has to die. I haven't found any conclusive evidence of that. But you're spot on with resources being our next major problem. Primarily - lack of oil. I'm pretty confident that the countries that actively research and develop sustainable alternative energy resources will fare very well in the coming years as oil prices continue to increase. I think we will get a global wide race to reach sustainable energy production using solar, wind and water within 10 years. The economy to be worst hit, and first, by the increasing costs of resources, will be the US. No doubt about it.

My main reason for saying that there is no reason for 4 billion people to die, is that the assumption rests on the belief that all humans will use as much energy as people do in developed countries. As resources gets scarcer, the price will increase to a point that most people can't afford them and the consumption will decline.

Also I sincerely hope that humans realise that that the one who has bought the most stuff during his/her lifetime is not a "winner". There is so much more to life on Earth. This change of mentality, from consuming - to living, can cause a substantial decrease of consumption as well. The numbers I've seen is that we're using about 5 times the amount of resources the earth can replenish. If everyone decrease their consumption to 1/5th, that problem is solved. Unless the population continues to increase, which seems to be the case...

My town, a small town of 15k inhabitants, is currently building 9 wind mills, which will be able to supply all homes with electricity. If you buy a share in the mills, your price for electricity will be equal to the operational costs + mortgage etc, well below the price offered by national suppliers.

I am still in the early stages of creating http://www.theclimatepost.com but I intend to continue my efforts to make it a good starting point for anyone interested in Peak Oil and Global Climate Change. But I could really use a hand or two, as I'm full time employed and can not spare much time.

Fredric,
My appologies for seeming to attack you, it was not my intention, it's just my style of thinking/writing. You do seem to agree that you mistated a fact in order to accomplish a statement in point, but isn't this what "the other side" is continually doing in order to undermine the actual supportive science of the global climatic trends?

I just watched a program about the construction of one of the most consumer centric products built, the Queen Mary II, in which it was stated in passing that the average wave sizes in the Atlantic have increased by as much as 40% over the last 50 years or so, thus requiring a more robust hull. So business can accept science, when it lowers their operational exposure to liability. The QMII being the single largest and most expensive passenger liner built at the time of the programs production.

My, and I repeat, MY, 2 Billion mark as being sustainable is, while perhaps low, indicates a level of human population that permits a sustained increase in quality of life for the entire population through better utilization of resources, while at the present population levels, to exclude the expected growth, everyone CAN survive, but at a lower quality of life than is present, especially in the areas of smallest population growth for the betterment of all. I don't expect that the most affluent, and smallest growth areas, will be willing to continually support those areas of highest population growth at their own cost in quality of life is all.
Just my take on the human condition. You've had the opportunity to live in an enlightened area/country that permits the utilization of wind or solar resorces, where I live in an environment that the establishment of a wind farm 2+ miles from shore are shot down because someone might see them, and thus reduce property values. Bah...Mayhap we can start trimming there.

And you think you're frustrated......

Gerritt

Fredric Georgsson said:

Now you've gotten my attention!

I'd like to know what you base that on. The USA economy may see the biggest difference since they've been spared the adjustment all along, but they'll be far from the 1st to see it. Face it, you're spoiled.

Do you have any idea what other countries have been paying for gasoline for years? AU has been over $1.15/liter since I've been here (just over 5 years). I have no idea how long it was that way before I got here, but i didn't hear anyone complaining about it like it was a new situation. Currently we're paying $1.50+/liter. If you convert that to USD/gallon, we were paying roughly $4/gallon for years, and are now at $6/gallon. Still, I don't hear many Ozzies complaining. Americans are still nowhere near what we've been paying, let alone what we are paying. I think the USA will be among the last to experience the repercussions as they just keep pumping their economy with worthless money (thank Nixon for taking you off the gold standard to implement a quick fix which has amplified the inflation problem over the years). When the levy breaks, you'll have no place to go. Some in the world would call that justice.

This is why the rest of the world is seriously considering changing over to the euro, which may be the best thing to happen to the global economy but will wreak havoc on the USA's and China's economies.

The difference is that the AU economy has gotten stronger as the USA economy has weakened. Why? I'm no expert, but I think the main reason is that the AU government has been passing on the rewards of a strong economy to their people. The USA government just sees a strong economy as a chance for legislators to spend more money, rather than passing it on to the people.

Currently AU minimum wage is $15.50/hr. That's almost as much as I made as a production supervisor in the USA for 17 years ($35-42k/yr). I don't remember ever getting much of a raise there other than 2-4% cost of living annually. My Ozzie wife just got a 15% bonus at her job on top of her annual salary increase. She's making more $ as a help desk/IT assistant in AU than I ever did as a plant manager in the USA. Our computer business is icing on the cake. Most people in the USA are struggling to build a retirement nest egg. I was amazed at how many Australians have enough to survive comfortably at retirement by the time they're 40.

And before someone says the USD goes further than the AUD, that's no longer true for most things. In '02 the AUD was 68% of the USD. It's now almost 1:1. Cars still cost a bit more here than they do in the USA, but housing has evened out with USA cities for the most part, and we pay roughly the same for groceries that you do.

People in many countries feel the USA has been the biggest culprit for pollution and waste, and gotten off the easiest for way too long. You may not hear that on your local news as it's all filtered, but this kind of talk is common in world news. I find it hard to argue that point after seeing how the other half lives. Obviously China has been a bigger contributor to environmental problems, but their people haven't lived as luxuriously as Americans either.

I'm from a small town of 2500 in WI, Wisconsin Dells. I also lived in NM, CA, and MD for a few years each. I lived in the USA for 40+ years. I still like to go back and visit, and WI will always be home. I believe the USA has dug themselves into a hole with pollution and the economy. I expect it'll get much worse before it gets better. What comes around, goes around. Here's hoping that Americans can overcome as well as other countries already have.

But don't kid yourselves that your the 1st country to experience the repercussions of the weakened USA economy. Other countries have already been paying for your mistakes, and some have even prospered along the way. Time for the USA to catch up a bit to the rest of the world and learn to adapt. Your fall may be farther, but that's only because you've been spared the adjustment all along.

Dark,
Yes we have "the USA" been taking more and more of the worlds resorces.
I have not been able to get a job in the USA in the last 5 or 6 years.
Niether I or my spouse will ever be able to have the capability to retire at any reasonable age. You're right. I hate it, but I'm the only one that seems to see it.

Gerrittt

dark41:
I'm not from the US if you thought so? I'm from Sweden.

I think they will be worst hit because:
* Americans are used to extreme consumption, a "liberty"/"right".
* Americans are used to cheap gas prices, even tough their national reserves ran out in the 1970's.
* Americans in general seem to have a low level of education and too much faith in gods.

The cost of the Iraq war now exceeds $500 billion. That is roughly 3,5 % of the GDP. I guess you could say that Americans have had to sacrifice 3,5 % of their wage this year, but of course that would be too simple of a picture. Also they make absolutely horrifying economic decisions. Some time in august 2007 during two days the amount of dollars in the system was increased by 10 - 15 %. That will cause inflation. Usually if I understand this correctly, that is countered by an increase of interest, but the FED lowered the interest rates instead. Many times. I'm pretty sure the dollar will continue to decrease in value because of this. To lend money, from other countries, and from the future generations, can cause a dramatic decrease in consumption and perhaps even an economic depression. All done to be able to continue to consume in unsustainable amounts right now, for a little longer. What really upsets me is how private investors get filthy rich in the process. Blackwater, Haliburton etc.

Gas prices in Sweden can be adjusted somewhat, we're currently paying $ 2,20 per litre. We've had this prices for many years. Half of it is taxes. I'm confident this has put a great force behind innovation. Much of our goods is transported by railway, and the gov is looking into extending the railway network to further simplify goods being transported by railway. Unfortunately much of our former municipal transports are now in the private sector and the prices have gone up considerably. Definitely a big problem I don't know how to solve.

Our gov is running a test on the island of Gotland where all new municipal cars are electric vehicles, consuming locally produced wind power. I hope this test fares well and that other counties here in Sweden will take a similar approach.

I just can't see how the Americans would be willing to give up their SUV:s and muscle cars, how they would change their consumption patterns to the degree that Swedes are. Granted, there's a whole lot of blind stubborn people here as well, pretty much a whole generation says: "It's too late, let's just party like hell until the planet implodes." But they're a minority.

Perhaps I don't have enough evidence to be able to say that the US will be the first to fall, and the hardest. But it seems logical when looking at it's current economic strategies.