Kyoto

[irwincur]

It is true that China/India were given an exception from Kyoto, but I highly doubt they are prevented from doing what they can to reduce Greenhouse Gas emmissions.

Yeah, I am sure that they are voluntarily going to basically reduce their economic output by around 3%. This was the estimated cost of Kyoto to world economies, 3% of economic output. That my friends is not a cheap or feasible plan. If China and India are exempt, it would basically give their economies a relative 3% boost. If anything, it would bring more business and pollution their way.

How many producers from around the world would make the immediate exodus? Lets see, work in Kyoto country and pay millions/billions for regulations. Move to China/India, not only save those millions/billions, but not worry about pollution, and pay your workers nothing. Sorry, but the Western industrial world would probably collapse.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: irwincur
Kyoto = Anti US indutrial world tax.

As much as I like its ideals at the face, this is the truth. They really should have made it fair--there could then have been a slim chance of the US signing.

Made it fair my behind.
USA == 1/4th of the worlds greenhouse gasses.
Rest of the World == 3/4th
Now where is the fairness in that?

 

[EagleKeeper]

There were no provisions to address the problem of the large developing nations like China and India. They were being given a free ride with no oversight and conditions that had teeth behind the guidelines.

Also, some of those standards would have crippled the US economy and/or economic output.

For those countries that had the least to be impacted, they had the most to gain politically and socially.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
There were no provisions to address the problem of the large developing nations like China and India. They were being given a free ride with no oversight and conditions that had teeth behind the guidelines.

Also, some of those standards would have crippled the US economy and/or economic output.

For those countries that had the least to be impacted, they had the most to gain politically and socially.

Hey, don't blame us because you've been ignoring the environment for decades...

Regarding China and india, just getting them to sign up is good, since the deal will probably be altered to stop them from going "nuts" with Co2 and stuff. As long as they're in, they stay in.

 

[Forsythe]

6,379,157,361 people in the world
293,027,571 In the USA

Meaning you are 0.045935153252602134703790700233833% of the entire worlds population.
Go stick your fairness up somewhere incomfortable.
Now if you go saying that "IT'S MADE UP BY EVAL COLONIALIST AMERICAHATING LIBS", you might just be right. But some say that, and that it is just natural, most say the other. So listen to the goddamned chances of it. It's not gonna happen in my time, but if it does happen it'll prolly be ion my chrildrens time (of which i have none yet, thank god).

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I am disappointed that Australia didn't sign up.

I'm not, it means that i can still drive around in thumping great V8's with having anybody make policy to stop me

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

6,379,157,361 people in the world
293,027,571 In the USA

Meaning you are 0.045935153252602134703790700233833% of the entire worlds population.
Go stick your fairness up somewhere incomfortable.
Now if you go saying that "IT'S MADE UP BY EVAL COLONIALIST AMERICAHATING LIBS", you might just be right. But some say that, and that it is just natural, most say the other. So listen to the goddamned chances of it. It's not gonna happen in my time, but if it does happen it'll prolly be ion my chrildrens time (of which i have none yet, thank god).

Do they still teach math in Denmark?

(US makes up a bit more than four-hundredths of one percent of the world population - maybe move the decimal a few spaces to the right?)

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Forsythe

6,379,157,361 people in the world
293,027,571 In the USA

Meaning you are 4.5935153252602134703790700233833% of the entire worlds population.
Go stick your fairness up somewhere incomfortable.
Now if you go saying that "IT'S MADE UP BY EVAL COLONIALIST AMERICAHATING LIBS", you might just be right. But some say that, and that it is just natural, most say the other. So listen to the goddamned chances of it. It's not gonna happen in my time, but if it does happen it'll prolly be ion my chrildrens time (of which i have none yet, thank god).

Do they still teach math in Denmark?

(US makes up a bit more than four-hundredths of one percent of the world population - maybe move the decimal a few spaces to the right?)

Why shouldn't they teach math? Just forgot to alter it, just got up, still tired and half-way drunk.

You are 4.5935153252602134703790700233833% of the entire worlds population.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Forsythe

6,379,157,361 people in the world
293,027,571 In the USA

Meaning you are 4.5935153252602134703790700233833% of the entire worlds population.
Go stick your fairness up somewhere incomfortable.
Now if you go saying that "IT'S MADE UP BY EVAL COLONIALIST AMERICAHATING LIBS", you might just be right. But some say that, and that it is just natural, most say the other. So listen to the goddamned chances of it. It's not gonna happen in my time, but if it does happen it'll prolly be ion my chrildrens time (of which i have none yet, thank god).

Do they still teach math in Denmark?

(US makes up a bit more than four-hundredths of one percent of the world population - maybe move the decimal a few spaces to the right?)

Why shouldn't they teach math? Just forgot to alter it, just got up, still tired and half-way drunk.

You are 4.5935153252602134703790700233833% of the entire worlds population.

Just messing with ya. Much better.

 

[Genx87]

Kyoto didnt do much with the supposed problem. Selling credits to industrialized nations is nothing more than extortion.

I am glad we didnt sign a treaty that would allow us to stay at the present level of output but be forced to pay agricultural nations to do it.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Kyoto didnt do much with the supposed problem. Selling credits to industrialized nations is nothing more than extortion.

I am glad we didnt sign a treaty that would allow us to stay at the present level of output but be forced to pay agricultural nations to do it.

My @ss.

Nobody forces you to pay other countries to kep their Co2 emission below a certain level, it's an option, not something forced.

But are you saying that if you couldn't do that you'd be willing to sign? Wtf?

 

[Genx87]

So what happens if you dont make your quota?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So what happens if you dont make your quota?

nothing, everyone realises that the goal is kinda unrealistic but countries are still willing to do what they can to reach the goal

 

[Genx87]

nothing, everyone realises that the goal is kinda unrealistic but countries are still willing to do what they can to reach the goal

No legal binding?

What is the poiint then?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

nothing, everyone realises that the goal is kinda unrealistic but countries are still willing to do what they can to reach the goal

No legal binding?

What is the poiint then?

point?
to cut emmissions, thought that was painfully obvios

 

[Jack31081]

I see a lot of misunderstanding of the Kyoto Treaty.

here's a useful graphic: http://www.space-for-a-name.net/Assets/kyoto.gif

Here's what it shows:

- China and India, the 2nd and 3rd largest polluters on the planet, don't have to do a thing because they are labeled as 'developing' countries. Any actions they take are completely voluntary.
- Countries like Russia, the Ukrain, Poland and the UK can increase emissions between 2008 and 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.
- Russia in particular can increase emissions by more than the US would have to decrease theirs between 2008 and 2012.
- Even though many countries ratified the Kyoto treaty, only 11 countries are bound by it.

What the graphic doesn't show is that countries that have lower emissions now than in 1990 get 'credits', which they can use to increase their emissions...or sell to other countries, so those countries don't have to decrease their emissions as much.

Now if American ratified the treaty, we would be perfectly within the bounds of the treaty to just pay Russia for all their credits. We then wouldn't have to change one thing. Now if the US did ratify the treaty, which do you think is more plausible? That American corporations would spend billions to lower their emissions, or that the governemnt would just shell out taxpayer dollars to let the corporations continue as before?

Reducing greenhouse gases is great and work should be done to that end, but Kyoto would just have stolen money from US taxpayers.

And let's not even get into what the effect of the Kyoto protocol would be, because frankly, no one even knows if it would have much of any effect at all.

My opinion is that the world will change to less polluting sources of energy on its own long before global warming becomes the catastrophic crisis that environmentalists are claiming it to already be. We used to use horses to pull carriages. We don't anymore. We used to power every boat by steam. Now only a few. New energy sources will replace fossil fuels for reasons other than 'enviromental protection', but the environment will be better off for it.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
I see a lot of misunderstanding of the Kyoto Treaty.

here's a useful graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/...6/business/20050216_KYOTO_GRAPHIC.html

Here's what it shows:

- China and India, the 2nd and 3rd largest polluters on the planet, don't have to do a thing because they are labeled as 'developing' countries. Any actions they take are completely voluntary.
- Countries like Russia, the Ukrain, Poland and the UK can increase emissions between 2008 and 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.
- Russia in particular can increase emissions by more than the US would have to decrease theirs between 2008 and 2012.
- Even though many countries ratified the Kyoto treaty, only 11 countries are bound by it.

What the graphic doesn't show is that countries that have lower emissions now than in 1990 get 'credits', which they can use to increase their emissions...or sell to other countries, so those countries don't have to decrease their emissions as much.

Now if American ratified the treaty, we would be perfectly within the bounds of the treaty to just pay Russia for all their credits. We then wouldn't have to change one thing. Now if the US did ratify the treaty, which do you think is more plausible? That American corporations would spend billions to lower their emissions, or that the governemnt would just shell out taxpayer dollars to let the corporations continue as before?

Reducing greenhouse gases is great and work should be done to that end, but Kyoto would just have stolen money from US taxpayers.

And let's not even get into what the effect of the Kyoto protocol would be, because frankly, no one even knows if it would have much of any effect at all.

My opinion is that the world will change to less polluting sources of energy on its own long before global warming becomes the catastrophic crisis that environmentalists are claiming it to already be. We used to use horses to pull carriages. We don't anymore. We used to power every boat by steam. Now only a few. New energy sources will replace fossil fuels for reasons other than 'enviromental protection', but the environment will be better off for it.

:thumbsup: Good post - I tend to agree with your conclusions.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
:roll: Again with the Kyoto being a conspiracy against the US. This persecution complex is plain stupid.

So why was it voted 97-0 in the US senate if it was not a bad deal for the US?

Because they don't live when the icecaps has melted.

 

[Genx87]

point?
to cut emmissions, thought that was painfully obvios

Apparently you didnt understand my point. If nothing is legally binding. Then what is the point of the treaty? One country can just not make their quota and not care.

Treaty is a bunch of hotair then.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So what happens if you dont make your quota?

You will get a glass bubble above your country so you breathe your own polluted air

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
I see a lot of misunderstanding of the Kyoto Treaty.

here's a useful graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/...6/business/20050216_KYOTO_GRAPHIC.html

Here's what it shows:

- China and India, the 2nd and 3rd largest polluters on the planet, don't have to do a thing because they are labeled as 'developing' countries. Any actions they take are completely voluntary.
- Countries like Russia, the Ukrain, Poland and the UK can increase emissions between 2008 and 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.
- Russia in particular can increase emissions by more than the US would have to decrease theirs between 2008 and 2012.
- Even though many countries ratified the Kyoto treaty, only 11 countries are bound by it.

What the graphic doesn't show is that countries that have lower emissions now than in 1990 get 'credits', which they can use to increase their emissions...or sell to other countries, so those countries don't have to decrease their emissions as much.

Now if American ratified the treaty, we would be perfectly within the bounds of the treaty to just pay Russia for all their credits. We then wouldn't have to change one thing. Now if the US did ratify the treaty, which do you think is more plausible? That American corporations would spend billions to lower their emissions, or that the governemnt would just shell out taxpayer dollars to let the corporations continue as before?

Reducing greenhouse gases is great and work should be done to that end, but Kyoto would just have stolen money from US taxpayers.

And let's not even get into what the effect of the Kyoto protocol would be, because frankly, no one even knows if it would have much of any effect at all.

My opinion is that the world will change to less polluting sources of energy on its own long before global warming becomes the catastrophic crisis that environmentalists are claiming it to already be. We used to use horses to pull carriages. We don't anymore. We used to power every boat by steam. Now only a few. New energy sources will replace fossil fuels for reasons other than 'enviromental protection', but the environment will be better off for it.

good post, the kyoto protocol is flawed in so many ways, but in my opinion the point of it is not that it will work but to bring so many countries together to work on the enviroment, it will hopefully lead to more and better ways to deal with the problem

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

point?
to cut emmissions, thought that was painfully obvios

Apparently you didnt understand my point. If nothing is legally binding. Then what is the point of the treaty? One country can just not make their quota and not care.

Treaty is a bunch of hotair then.

the point is that there is will to do something, the countries involve want it

your argument can be used on just about every international treaty there is, but that doesnt make them pointless

 

[Jack31081]

Here is some more information I got from the graphic after some measurements in photoshop:

link again: http://www.space-for-a-name.net/Assets/kyoto.gif

Taking into consideration all the countries on the graphic, the countries that are emitting more than in 1990 would need to reduce emissions by about 1164 million tons of greenhouse gases. That's a good start. The countries that are emitting less than in 1990 can, within the bounds of the treaty, increase emissions by 534 million tons of greenhouse gases. That gives us a net decrease of 630 million tons if every country reverted to 1990 levels of emisisons. Still sounds like a good figure.

Well here's where it gets interesting.

Most of the countries in the graphic aren't bound by the treaty to do anything, so there's no need for them to change a thing. Now, as a group, the eleven countries bound by the Kyoto Treaty are producing 128 million tons LESS greenhouse gases than in 1990. Huh. That means it's possible for the Kyoto Treaty to be followed to the letter, yet increase global emissions by as much as 128 million tons. Double Huh. Now the US is producing 216 million tons more gas than in 1990. Russia alone is producing 281 million tons less gas, so we could easily buy enough credits just from Russia to satisfy the treaty.

Now I know what some of you might say. Just because a country is emitting less now than in 1990 doesn't mean they're going to produce more emissions between 2008 and 2012. Granted, you're right. But what kind of environmental impact treaty leaves room for any country to do just that? Wouldn't an effective treaty demand reductions from ALL involved countries, not only those that are producing more than in 1990 and are labeled as "industrial" nations?

 

[Genx87]

the point is that there is will to do something, the countries involve want it

your argument can be used on just about every international treaty there is, but that doesnt make them pointless

If a treaty doesnt have teeth then it is pointless. Just a bunch of nice words exchanged between two parties.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

the point is that there is will to do something, the countries involve want it

your argument can be used on just about every international treaty there is, but that doesnt make them pointless

If a treaty doesnt have teeth then it is pointless. Just a bunch of nice words exchanged between two parties.

and would you say the same about every other treaty made between countries?