• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Japan's PM backs US rejection of Kyoto treaty

E

etech

Lifer
U.S. Heartened by Japanese Support on Kyoto

On Saturday, after meeting with Bush at the Camp David presidential retreat, Koizumi said he backed the U.S. president's effort ``to create means which will be more effective in dealing with the global warming issue.''

``I am not disappointed at the president's position'' to renounce the Kyoto agreement, Koizumi said. He also said he would not proceed ``without the cooperation of the United States.''

Now that the Kyoto treaty has been seen for the mess that it was perhaps a workable and realistic plan can be developed.
 
And you know what? I can't find any reference to this on MSNBC.com. I love the mainstream media! They aren't biased AT ALL!
 
The topic is all wrong, he did not say that he backed up the US rejection, only that he understood them. Just seems that Japan's PM doesnt see the point of the Kyoto accord without the country responsible for 25% of all the pollution the accord is about.
 
WASHINGTON - Japan's support for the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto global warming treaty apparently ensures the pact will not take effect, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news - web sites) said on Sunday.

Abraham welcomed the backing of Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for President Bush decision to withdraw U.S. support for the treaty, instead concentrating on alternative ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


Czar, Did you read the same story that I did?
 
etech, yes I did, and I read that Reuters thinks Japan suppords the rejection but I dont see any quote from Japan's PM stating that he supports it.


<< ``I am not disappointed at the president's position'' to renounce the Kyoto agreement, Koizumi said. He also said he would not proceed ``without the cooperation of the United States.'' >>


They are just not taking sides.
 
Notice:

Everyone agrees, if the US doesn't abide by the Kyoto Accord, the Accord is useless. So yes, if the US rejects the Accord, everyone else and their God will reject it as well. This doesn't mean, however, that the majority don't like the Accord, refuse to abide by it, or think it's too flawed. They just understand the US's importance in making an endeavor like this work.

 
Did you know one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gasses(Cabon Monoxide, Dioxide, Sulferis Acid) than humans produce in 50 years?

Food for thought...
 
<<Did you know one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gasses(Cabon Monoxide, Dioxide, Sulferis Acid) than humans produce in 50 years?>>

Yes, but you'll never hear that from the media. The eruption in the Phillipines a few years ago (Mt Pinatubo?sp.) released something like 1000 times more gasses than mankind has EVER produced.
You won't see that printed many places either.
 
While i'm certainly not in favor of the Kyoto treaty as written, and also agreeing that your statement is correct, i should point out that we don't have any control over volcano eruptions, whereas we do (to some extent) over manmade greenhouse gas emissions. That being said, the cost to benefit value in reducing manmade emissions has yet to be established. The main question to answer should be to what extent we would be willing to sacrifice economic growth to achieve lower emissions, if any.
 


<< Did you know one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gasses(Cabon Monoxide, Dioxide, Sulferis Acid) than humans produce in 50 years?

Food for thought... >>


Some things we control and some things we dont. Understand that and try to change what we can change.
 
Im just pointing out that reducing Emmissions my a MAX of 10% over TEN YEARS will do nothing as far as global warming is concerned, because Volcanos will still be erupting. All Kyoto would have done was cost the US economy Billions and possibly Trillions, all the while China and India would be exempt. Us Produces 25% of emmisions by Humans, but the Overall figure is humanity as a whole prduces only 5% of greenhouse gasses, the other 95% are produced by nature. Do the math...





 
Nice unbiased source Etech.😕 That can surely be spun into fact,even though you neglect to point out this is only an interpration from a bush administration spokesman.

And it sounds like an outright lie when compared to what mainstream news reporters say after interviewing the Prime Minister directly.

>>Koizumi told reporters he would urge the United States to adhere to the Kyoto climate treaty, which calls for reduced emissions of heat-trapping gases believed to be warming the Earth's atmosphere. <<source

BTW,I'm not totally enamered by the Kyoto treaty either. I don't think it is strong enough. Also, we can't do anything about what mother nature does,but we can damn sure do a better job about our own polution of the environment. If we can put a man on the moon, we can do far better for humanity here on earth than what we have been doing.

 
Stuff it back where the sun don't shine TS, Reuters is the source of the quotes. Would you like to argue that Reuters does not constitute mainstream news source? Please do, I havn't shown your lack of intelligence in at least a week or two.

How do you explain this quote from the Japanese PM.
``I am not disappointed at the president's position'' to renounce the Kyoto agreement, Koizumi said. He also said he would not proceed ``without the cooperation of the United States.''

From your source.
When asked by reporters on his reaction to Bush's skepticism of the Kyoto climate treaty, speaking through a translator, Koizumi said, &quot;I am not disappointed in the president's position. (He) is enthusiastic about environmental issues, and there is still time to discuss this issue.&quot;


There are better ways of dealing with pollution then having a few of the industrialized countries of the world destroy their economy to reduce CO2 emissions. Especially when China and India were not covered by that agreement. Where do you think the industries would go when they were shut down in the US. Bingo, China and India.

Europe would also get a boost. They have thousands of old inefficient plants in the old East Germany. Guess what, shut a few of them down, modernize a few and Germany has met their goals. France shuts downs a few oil or coal fired electricity generating plants and puts a few nukes on line, they are in compliance while England only has to shut down a few coal mines.
Australia gets to increase their emissions.

This was an unrealistic, unworkable treaty that would have greatly harmed the US and it's economy and worst of all - There is no proof that it would accomplish anything at the end of it all.




 
etech

The Kyoto accord will NOT destroy ANY economys. Well the few countries that have started on their own are not showing any sign of weakness.



<< The UK will continue to roll out its own climate change programme. Our legally binding target is a cut of 12.5% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2008-2012, compared to 1990. But we are on track to achieve a 23% reduction, to use for future commitment periods.

The real challenges will be ensuring that the EU as a whole meets its 8% reduction target, and in the longer-term moves towards cuts that will need to be made. Scientists tell us that cuts of 60% may be needed globally to avoid dangerous climate change. >>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,514262,00.html
 
Czar, comparing England to the US is idiotic(not saying your an idiot). We aren't the UK, just because the UK isn't effected by it, doesn't mean the use will have the same success.
 


<< Scientists tell us that cuts of 60% may be needed globally to avoid dangerous climate change. >>



Well then, pray tell, why don't we cut back 100% and go back to living in caves and eating roots and berries? Your argument is rapidly becoming absurd when you quote such obviously bogus numbers as this, and you'll lose any opportunity whatsoever to put through a treaty which has any impact at all :|
 
All this Save the Planet talk and the agreement is total BS! READ the details! It is a transfer of wealth plain and simple and it IS NOT about saving the earth! READ the details...
 
heh, Japan loves our Republican Presidents.

They gave Reagan millions of dollars for all of the good stuff he did for Japan at the expense of American workers.
 
as i recall reagan started a trade war with japan.

i don't know why everyone keeps blaming bush in this. the senate ratifies treaties, not the president. it has to pass a 2/3 vote. clinton was in office for 3 years after this treaty was signed, but did you see him push to ratify it into law? no.
 
>>Stuff it back where the sun don't shine TS, Reuters is the source of the quotes. Would you like to argue that Reuters does not constitute mainstream news source? Please do, I havn't shown your lack of intelligence in at least a week or two. <<

Blood pressure rising Etech? You get called on a pure deception and you get froggy? Jump,boy,jump!

You are the one with a lack of intelligence thinking that we would buy the source as Reuters when it quotes Abraham --(Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.. said on Sunday) Abraham is a mouthpiece for the administration. Where did Rueters get the quotes?

Why Fox news network,of course. You can't get much more right wing wacko than that ,bucko. &quot;Yahoo&quot;, I sure want all my knowledge to come from a search engine cut and paste shop.Then I can be as pasty brained as you,Mr. Myopic.

Now you put it where the sun don't shine, Etech. Any time you want me,come get some! 😀
 
TS, when you recover from the cranal-anal inversion you have going on you will notice that this quote is from both sources.

Koizumi said, &quot;I am not disappointed in the president's position. (He) is enthusiastic about environmental issues, and there is still time to discuss this issue.&quot;


I'm really didn't mean for you to take my suggestion so literally. Now try pulling your head out and proving that Reuters took that quote from Fox network. If you can't I will just add this to the list of times that you were challenged by the truth. If you need that explained let me know.

Believe me, I don't want you. I am not saying that your lifestyle is wrong. It's just not for me. Thanks anyway, but no thanks.
 
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sreview/Archive/XXIIIno2/opinion.html



<< Measurements of greenhouse gases are new and fairly limited, beginning only in the late 1950's in the South Pole and at Mauna Loa. However, most scientists today agree on some general statistics of sources for individual gases. Only 3.5 to 5.4 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions are generated by humans, while the bulk that enters the atmosphere comes from the planet's natural &quot;carbon cycle&quot; from animal metabolisms.

About seventy percent of the methane in the atmosphere, however, comes from human sources, while the rest is from natural emissions form wetlands, termites, and aquatic life. Thirty percent of the atmospheric nitrous oxides, which have 200 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide, are due to human activity, and CFCs are entirely man-made. Some of these CFCs, however, have a cooling effect, rather than a warming one.

To further complicate the issue, the warming effect of a particular greenhouse gas is difficult to measure. For example, though carbon dioxide is a less powerful warming agent than methane, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is methane, which is only a trace gas. Nitrous oxides, similarly, are greater warming agents than carbon dioxide, yet make up only .0000001 to .00000000001 percent of the atmosphere by volume, compared to carbon dioxide's .034 percent. Thus the cumulative effects of the methane versus the carbon dioxide are difficult to determine.

Since the human contribution percentage-wise of methane is larger than that of carbon dioxide, but the carbon dioxide makes up a larger portion of the atmosphere, it is even more difficult to determine the potential for human activity to effect the greenhouse effect.
>>

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top