Kyoto Protocol is DOA - time to move on...

[heartsurgeon]

Seven years after hosting the Kyoto Protocol conference and pledging to cut greenhouse gas emissions 6 percent by 2012, Japan finds itself in the embarrassing position of having increased levels of emissions

kinda says it all..

The government reported last month that greenhouse gas emissions for fiscal 2002 came to 1.33 billion tons, 7.6 percent higher than the 1990 level.

remember that China and India are "exempted" from Kyoto reductions....yikes!
they represent the two largest countries measured by population, and together they have a GDP roughly equal to the U.S.

The Kyoto Protocol is DOA.

 

[Pepsei]

So you're jumping for joy because of the increase in gas emissions? You're a heartless man.

 

[XZeroII]

Who is jumping for joy?

 

[3chordcharlie]

I don't want to start an argument over kyoto, because I have my doubts over whether it is an appropriate plan or not.

But the protocol hasn't even been implemented because certain nations (namely one of the USA or Russia) would have to sign on to meet minimum total population commitments before the whole shebang would kick in.

I'm not saying you (or they) should join, but Kyoto doesn't even exist at the present time, so countries can't very well miss their targets.

 

[3chordcharlie]

yeah, supporter of kyoto or not, this isn't exactly good news for anyone - sorry my other post did sound a bit argumentative and there's no reason for it to be that way.

 

[AFB]

Hahahaahahahahahahaha

Yes, we should reduce our emissions, but this is so funny.

 

[glenn1]

The Kyoto Protocol is DOA.

And since I presume you were among those who supported pulling it off life support, I would expect you have been hard at work formulating an alternative that addresses your concerns and that you would be able to support along with the original Kyoto parties?

 

[heartsurgeon]

i wish i had a link to the Wall Street Journal editoriial about "global warming"

i believe the title of the article was "So would you pefer global cooling/"
the gist of the article was that there would be econimc advantages to having a warmer planet...gotta love the WSJ.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I don't want to start an argument over kyoto, because I have my doubts over whether it is an appropriate plan or not.

But the protocol hasn't even been implemented because certain nations (namely one of the USA or Russia) would have to sign on to meet minimum total population commitments before the whole shebang would kick in.

I'm not saying you (or they) should join, but Kyoto doesn't even exist at the present time, so countries can't very well miss their targets.

I thought that certain countries were trying to meet their 'Kyoto deadlines' already, but most were missing it?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Certain countries are, but there's nothing like 'no possibility of enforcement or even significant peer pressure' to make targets seem unimportant.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Certain countries are, but there's nothing like 'no possibility of enforcement or even significant peer pressure' to make targets seem unimportant.

I'm not too familiar with the Kyoto treaty, but why does only the inclusion of the US or Russia make the targets important? Shouldn't they be trying to meet the goals of it if anyways?

 

[Jmman]

I did a 25 page paper on Kyoto a couple of years ago. There are so many flaws and omissions I am surprised anybody takes it seriously......

 

[boran]

Originally posted by: Jmman
I did a 25 page paper on Kyoto a couple of years ago. There are so many flaws and omissions I am surprised anybody takes it seriously......

I dont know about that, but you have to agree that we'd have to reduce our emmissions, for two reasons:

- greenhouse effect
- reliance on oil

the first is often refuted, but you cannot deny the second advantage, now with the oil prices rising again after the attacks on the pipelines in iraq the oil reliant industries are feeling the hurt again, or what if something like the 70ies happens again, a massive rise of oil prices by the OPEC.

and the fact still remains that one day it's going to be up, and over.

so imho better start soon, because you cant switch in one year, not even one decade, belgium is reducing it's reliance sicne the 70ies because half our industry went down during that oil crisis, now about 60% of our industry is reliant on oil, compared to 95% in the pre-70ies era.

 

[Painman]

The sicker we are, the more the healthcare providers profit.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Where are all the neo libs admitting they were wrong for supporting this? Didnt they want this for America as well?

It didnt work for those that signed up and it wouldnt have worked for us.

 

[arsbanned]

i believe the title of the article was "So would you pefer global cooling/"

I think there's more to Global Warming then the planet simply warming up a few degrees. Even a mild change in temperature creates a domino effect planet-wide.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jmman
I did a 25 page paper on Kyoto a couple of years ago. There are so many flaws and omissions I am surprised anybody takes it seriously......

Kyoto is a start not a solution.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
I did a 25 page paper on Kyoto a couple of years ago. There are so many flaws and omissions I am surprised anybody takes it seriously......

Kyoto is a start not a solution.

So lets start over again. Kyoto II! actually lets find a better name instead

 

[heartsurgeon]

the Kyoto Protocol is actually a foreign aid package disguised as a"enviromental" treaty.

the two fastest, largest populated countries, India and China are exempt from any emission reductions...and the "industrialized" countries are penalized monetarily for not reducing emmmisions below 1990 levels (meanwhile our GDP has doubled).

it's an unobtainable goal at present, it ignores the "elephant" standing in the room (China and india), and it basically is a scam to make "industrialized" countries fund others, presumably to industrialize!! heck! it may even result in greater pollution by hastening the development of unregulated industries in "emerging countries"

 

[3chordcharlie]

The Kyoto protocol; or at least its final implementation depended on a certain target population of the countries involved (actually, it's *just* possible I am misremembering, and it was a target total amount of 'starting pollution' but I think it was population).

Countries should be reducing emissions, and supporting alternative energies for many reasons, including local air quality, reliance on oil, and potential long-term effects on the environment. We already have some evidence of destabilized weather in temperate regions (for example, tornadoes in parts of Canada which have never been prone to tornadoes in recorded history).

 

[heartsurgeon]

the Kyoto Protocol is actually a foreign aid package disguised as a"enviromental" treaty.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

the Kyoto Protocol is actually a foreign aid package disguised as a"enviromental" treaty.

That is far from being untrue... while it purports to suppor collective action, it sets targets for some under-developed countries that are clearly designed to allow 'credit-selling'.

I wouldn't *quite* call it foreign aid, but it's pretty damn close.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

remember that China and India are "exempted" from Kyoto reductions....yikes!
they represent the two largest countries measured by population, and together they have a GDP roughly equal to the U.S.

And yet we still have more emmisions than any other country in the world....

 

[3chordcharlie]

Don't feel too bad (but don't feel too good either), I think last time I checked that Canada actually has more per capita emissions than the USA; we use a lot of energy both heating and cooling our houses in this climate, and many of us are not willing to make simple adaptations to reduce energy use.

 

[heartsurgeon]

And yet we still have more emmisions than any other country in the world....

currently that may be accurate...but give it 10 years, and the chinese alone may emit more than we do.