Kyoto Protocol

[Mayfriday0529]

why doesnt the U.S. want to join?


------------------------
Locked7 yr Necro

EK
Admin

 

[maddogchen]

so many reasons...let me see if I remember

Hurts our economy too much
we'll never meet the requirements
hurts Bush's corporate buddies
is seriously flawed, even Clinton admitted it and asked that it be revised

 

[Mayfriday0529]

Well that sucks, and i don't mean it sucks that we won't join but thats its flawed.
i really think that by 2100 the world will be more messed up, then again i'm probably going to be dead by then.

I think we need to find a new planet.. soon.

 

[maddogchen]

too bad Bush is not a very environmentally friendly president. although yes Kyoto was flawed, we should have gone back to the drawing table and brokered out a new proposal that the US might accept. But I don't think thats likely in the next 4 years.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
why doesnt the U.S. want to join?

Because it's not even aimed at reducing pollution. We are doing things to reduce pollution.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
why doesnt the U.S. want to join?

Because it's not even aimed at reducing pollution. We are doing things to reduce pollution.

It dropped from 1998 to 2001... how are things now?

 

[ChrisIsBored]

Also keep in mind the research provided that the Kyoto treaty was based-upon is data over the past 20 years or so. The world doesn't exist in a constant temperate, it moves in cycles. The degredation of our ozone layer is perhaps a big sign we're doing damage, but then again in the early 1900's the global climate was going through this same type of little heat wave we're in now, which was followed by a few decades of colder temperatures.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
why doesnt the U.S. want to join?

Because it's not even aimed at reducing pollution. We are doing things to reduce pollution.

It dropped from 1998 to 2001... how are things now?

I can't find the article right now, but its continued to drop some more.

 

[KMurphy]

It doesn't reduce the amount of global pollution. All it does is shift emissons of carbon dioxide (non-toxic) to other countries that don't abide by the lame protocol; causing even more lost manufacturing jobs in countries the emissions production fled from.

 

[beer]

Because other countries that agreed to Kyoto have no history of supporting already existing environmental laws. The United States does.

And you're exempting 2 billion people between China and India that pollute more than western europe and the US combined, now. Wait until they develop more industry with absolutely no environmental controls - which is the way it has been happening.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: KMurphy
It doesn't reduce the amount of global pollution. All it does is shift emissons of carbon dioxide (non-toxic) to other countries that don't abide by the lame protocol; causing even more lost manufacturing jobs in countries the emissions production fled from.

exactly.

 

[Kibbo]

Leftie enviro weenie here, and even I think that Kyoto has issues. Even PIPA (the org that makes all the global warming estimates, some of which are inflated) predicts that Kyoto will do hardly anything for overall emissions.

All nations, however, do need to address the global warming issue. And working together will work better than working on it separately. Simple restrictions on emissions, especially in the rediculous framework of the Kyoto protocol, are probably not the most efficient way to do it.

And overreacting on the whole climate change thing is least efficient of all.

 

[charrison]

linkage

Global warming has become the obsession of our time. From governments and campaigners meeting for the climate summit in Buenos Aires right now we hear the incessant admonition: making global warming our first priority is the moral test of our age.

Classified Motoring

Yet they are wrong. Global warming is real and caused by CO2. The trouble is that the climate models show we can do very little about the warming. Even if everyone (including the United States) did Kyoto and stuck to it throughout the century, the change would be almost immeasurable, postponing warming by just six years in 2100.


Likewise, the economic models tell us that the cost is substantial. The cost of Kyoto compliance is at least $150billion a year. For comparison, the UN estimates that half that amount could permanently solve the most pressing humanitarian problems in the world: it could buy clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education to every single person in the world.


...
ome of the world's top economists ? including three Nobel Laureates ? answered this question at the Copenhagen Consensus last May, prioritising all the major requirements for improving the world. They found that dealing with HIV/Aids, hunger, free trade and malaria were the world's top priorities. This was where we could do the most good for our dollar. Equally, the experts rated urgent responses to climate change at the bottom. In fact, the panel called these ventures ? including Kyoto ? "bad projects", simply because they cost more than the good they do.

[/quote]

 

[ReiAyanami]

There is nothing we can do to save precious Earth. New World Order Now, Bring It ON!!!

Better to be sorry than safe, brings new world order sooner the better.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
There is nothing we can do to save precious Earth. New World Order Now, Bring It ON!!!

Better to be sorry than safe, brings new world order sooner the better.

There is lots we can do, kyoto is just an ineffective plan.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
There is nothing we can do to save precious Earth. New World Order Now, Bring It ON!!!

Better to be sorry than safe, brings new world order sooner the better.

There is lots we can do, kyoto is just an ineffective plan.

And which solutions has Bush proposed or looked into?...list them off, you seem knowledgable

Also with reference to China and India polluting more. That is because all of OUR manufacturing is going over there, plants are closing down here. By not signing onto any global pollution agreements, no other country will do this...absolutely no leverage. How can you expect the third world to implement if you are not implementing yourself?...Also the population difference is huge, you cannot expect nations producing your stuff and theirs to create less pollution than you (2billion ppl vs. 0.3 billion). You get the benifit of cheaper goods, would it not be worth the minor effects of a potentially slowed economy at home to get these countries to decrease emissions?...also...a person from Canada or America consumes 15 times more energy than a person in india and china.

You can point fingers all day guys...but something needs to be done.
Bash Kyoto all you want...i want to hear practical effective solutions. (apparently there is lots we can do)

use your brains to be progressive rather than finding scape-goats (disproving pollution effects, lame protocols, culprits of pollution).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
There is nothing we can do to save precious Earth. New World Order Now, Bring It ON!!!

Better to be sorry than safe, brings new world order sooner the better.

There is lots we can do, kyoto is just an ineffective plan.

And which solutions has Bush proposed or looked into?...list them off, you seem knowledgable

Also with reference to China and India polluting more. That is because all of OUR manufacturing is going over there, plants are closing down here. By not signing onto any global pollution agreements, no other country will do this...absolutely no leverage. How can you expect the third world to implement if you are not implementing yourself?...Also the population difference is huge, you cannot expect nations producing your stuff and theirs to create less pollution than you (2billion ppl vs. 0.3 billion). You get the benifit of cheaper goods, would it not be worth the minor effects of a potentially slowed economy at home to get these countries to decrease emissions?...also...a person from Canada or America consumes 15 times more energy than a person in india and china.

You can point fingers all day guys...but something needs to be done.
Bash Kyoto all you want...i want to hear practical effective solutions. (apparently there is lots we can do)

use your brains to be progressive rather than finding scape-goats (disproving pollution effects, lame protocols, culprits of pollution).

Off the top of my head.

New very restrictive rules for off road desiels
slightly higher cafe standards
clear skies to reduce emission from coal plants(democrats put forth a very similar plan, but had co2 controlls)


China has the brown cloud, not the US.
The US continues to become less polluted and we need to continue on that track.
We need to lead the way on clean technologies.

I am all for less pollution, kyoto is just a bad plan.

 

[imported_Condor]

The requirements are tailored by the countries ability to meet them, not by the needs of the environment. Drive through the US and then drive through Russia or Mexico and then think about your question.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
too bad Bush is not a very environmentally friendly president. although yes Kyoto was flawed, we should have gone back to the drawing table and brokered out a new proposal that the US might accept. But I don't think thats likely in the next 4 years.

Like Clinton signed it!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Condor
The requirements are tailored by the countries ability to meet them, not by the needs of the environment. Drive through the US and then drive through Russia or Mexico and then think about your question.

Outside of mexico city there is a thing called fecal snow. I somehow doubt high CO2 levels are at the top of their agenda of things to fix.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: maddogchen
too bad Bush is not a very environmentally friendly president. although yes Kyoto was flawed, we should have gone back to the drawing table and brokered out a new proposal that the US might accept. But I don't think thats likely in the next 4 years.

Like Clinton signed it!

Like clinton could sign it. The senate approves treaties

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: ChrisIsBored
Also keep in mind the research provided that the Kyoto treaty was based-upon is data over the past 20 years or so. The world doesn't exist in a constant temperate, it moves in cycles. The degredation of our ozone layer is perhaps a big sign we're doing damage, but then again in the early 1900's the global climate was going through this same type of little heat wave we're in now, which was followed by a few decades of colder temperatures.

We couldn't monitor the ozone back then. Radio HF propogation cycles are a taletell though and the propogation effects went through some amazing changes 50 years ago compared to now.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Condor
The requirements are tailored by the countries ability to meet them, not by the needs of the environment. Drive through the US and then drive through Russia or Mexico and then think about your question.

I dont care how much pollution they are pumping out relative to the US.
I want to know how pollution can be reduced in these nations...you seem to think they produce a lot.

They make your stuff...so you SHOULD care, as it is your pollution.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
There is nothing we can do to save precious Earth. New World Order Now, Bring It ON!!!

Better to be sorry than safe, brings new world order sooner the better.

There is lots we can do, kyoto is just an ineffective plan.

And which solutions has Bush proposed or looked into?...list them off, you seem knowledgable

Also with reference to China and India polluting more. That is because all of OUR manufacturing is going over there, plants are closing down here. By not signing onto any global pollution agreements, no other country will do this...absolutely no leverage. How can you expect the third world to implement if you are not implementing yourself?...Also the population difference is huge, you cannot expect nations producing your stuff and theirs to create less pollution than you (2billion ppl vs. 0.3 billion). You get the benifit of cheaper goods, would it not be worth the minor effects of a potentially slowed economy at home to get these countries to decrease emissions?...also...a person from Canada or America consumes 15 times more energy than a person in india and china.

You can point fingers all day guys...but something needs to be done.
Bash Kyoto all you want...i want to hear practical effective solutions. (apparently there is lots we can do)

use your brains to be progressive rather than finding scape-goats (disproving pollution effects, lame protocols, culprits of pollution).

Drive through the United States and compare it to 30 years ago. What we are doing is working now! You should read your own words and comply with them:

"use your brains to be progressive rather than finding scape-goats (disproving pollution effects, lame protocols, culprits of pollution)."[/b][/i][/quote]

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Condor
The requirements are tailored by the countries ability to meet them, not by the needs of the environment. Drive through the US and then drive through Russia or Mexico and then think about your question.

Outside of mexico city there is a thing called fecal snow. I somehow doubt high CO2 levels are at the top of their agenda of things to fix.

Like I stated, we are ahead of the game in pollution and have been working the issue since before the rest of the world even admitted that there was an issue. Mexico has known about the fecal pollution since I lived there in 1983 through 1987 and still haven't managed it.