Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
sad but too true, Unfortunatly we have a bit of a short-sightedness problem here in some parts.
BTW, You all looking for a few extra million square miles worth of states?
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
Go look at who has signed on and who hasnt.Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
No not at all.
I see it more of a 'coalition of the willing'
not colonial at all.
It seems that the coalition is breaking down to as pathetic as the 'coalition of the willing.' The developing nations, oil nations, US, and others joined together to stop further talks about Kyoto.
The US is in the minority.
Technically, the US has signed it.
However, as I stated, it seems that the coalition is breaking down as seen in the recent talks where the US, developing nations, oil nations, and others opposed further talks.
technicaly we have not, as the senate voted in down 97-0 in 1998 i beleive.
I believe that would mean we haven't ratified it. Gore signed it. Technically, Kyoto was never voted down either, it wasn't even submitted.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Yeah im all for those green solutions.
and the goals of kyoto are lofty, i know that.
But kyoto is the engine that creates awareness.
i like the ideas proposed. but developing solutions is challenging.
it is definately a challenge to get the alternate energy sources going...always a good thing
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
sigh you just dont get it.
energy needed to create steel and pump oil and generate electricity is far greater than products that come north...you do the research...prove me wrong...im talking to 4 ppl
make urself useful rather than quoting an article to try to back up your reasoning for not signing on.
3 cheers for zero improvement and disregarding science!
So has the US not decreased emissions?
BTW, since when was 'science' unanimous about Kyoto? Are you saying that the Kyoto Treaty as it is right now is going to have a significant impact on the climate?
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
Go look at who has signed on and who hasnt.Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
No not at all.
I see it more of a 'coalition of the willing'
not colonial at all.
It seems that the coalition is breaking down to as pathetic as the 'coalition of the willing.' The developing nations, oil nations, US, and others joined together to stop further talks about Kyoto.
The US is in the minority.
Technically, the US has signed it.
However, as I stated, it seems that the coalition is breaking down as seen in the recent talks where the US, developing nations, oil nations, and others opposed further talks.
Yeah kyoto has failed already from an emissions perspective...but is trying to create awareness and ignite energy reforms...that WILL hlp the US.
Dependance on oil will not help in the future...maybe not tomorrow...but i think we can all agree on this.
also...russia and eu are below kyoto levels.
all coutries inc. canada and us signed onto this thing.
if you have read the treaty, you would know that there is a clause that allows coutries to punish the ones that didnt follow though.
Should be interesting what EU and russia hve planned for us...
Originally posted by: Stunt
sigh you just dont get it.
energy needed to create steel and pump oil and generate electricity is far greater than products that come north...you do the research...prove me wrong...im talking to 4 ppl
make urself useful rather than quoting an article to try to back up your reasoning for not signing on.
3 cheers for zero improvement and disregarding science!
back up the claims.
Canada imports
machinery and equipment, motor vehicles and parts, crude oil, chemicals, electricity, durable consumer goods
Non of these sound like non energy intensive products.
So time for you to back up your claims.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
sigh you just dont get it.
energy needed to create steel and pump oil and generate electricity is far greater than products that come north...you do the research...prove me wrong...im talking to 4 ppl
make urself useful rather than quoting an article to try to back up your reasoning for not signing on.
3 cheers for zero improvement and disregarding science!
back up the claims.
Canada imports
machinery and equipment, motor vehicles and parts, crude oil, chemicals, electricity, durable consumer goods
Non of these sound like non energy intensive products.
So time for you to back up your claims.
Those are imports from US exclusively?
and you have energy consumption in creating those products?
and yes oil extraction, electricity generation, and steel/mineral extraction are far more energy intensive than those
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
Go look at who has signed on and who hasnt.Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
No not at all.
I see it more of a 'coalition of the willing'
not colonial at all.
It seems that the coalition is breaking down to as pathetic as the 'coalition of the willing.' The developing nations, oil nations, US, and others joined together to stop further talks about Kyoto.
The US is in the minority.
Technically, the US has signed it.
However, as I stated, it seems that the coalition is breaking down as seen in the recent talks where the US, developing nations, oil nations, and others opposed further talks.
Yeah kyoto has failed already from an emissions perspective...but is trying to create awareness and ignite energy reforms...that WILL hlp the US.
Dependance on oil will not help in the future...maybe not tomorrow...but i think we can all agree on this.
also...russia and eu are below kyoto levels.
all coutries inc. canada and us signed onto this thing.
if you have read the treaty, you would know that there is a clause that allows coutries to punish the ones that didnt follow though.
Should be interesting what EU and russia hve planned for us...
Kyoto's now relevant because it raises awareness of a problem? I think that everyone knows that there is a problem of sorts, but did not want to sign on to Kyoto for economic reasons.
The point that you are missing is that your nation ratified a treaty that it could not hope to honor, and has effectively put itself behind the 8 ball, possibly facing sanctions for non-compliance. You cast that fact aside in a nonchalant fashion, but that means $$$ to your country. $$$ means jobs. That means endangering the growing economy in Canada.
Sacrificing your economic well being for environmental feel-good symbolic action is just plain stupid.
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
Go look at who has signed on and who hasnt.Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
No not at all.
I see it more of a 'coalition of the willing'
not colonial at all.
It seems that the coalition is breaking down to as pathetic as the 'coalition of the willing.' The developing nations, oil nations, US, and others joined together to stop further talks about Kyoto.
The US is in the minority.
Technically, the US has signed it.
However, as I stated, it seems that the coalition is breaking down as seen in the recent talks where the US, developing nations, oil nations, and others opposed further talks.
Yeah kyoto has failed already from an emissions perspective...but is trying to create awareness and ignite energy reforms...that WILL hlp the US.
Dependance on oil will not help in the future...maybe not tomorrow...but i think we can all agree on this.
also...russia and eu are below kyoto levels.
all coutries inc. canada and us signed onto this thing.
if you have read the treaty, you would know that there is a clause that allows coutries to punish the ones that didnt follow though.
Should be interesting what EU and russia hve planned for us...
There was awareness before Kyoto. That's such a ridiculous argument.
Do you have any proof that the EU is below Kyoto levels? How can they punish the US when it's not even ratified it and thus not bound to it. I really doubt they would punish a country like Canada... they're looking more for... different countries to punish...
Not when it bankrupts your country. :roll:
Mix in an econ class into your environmental science classes.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
Go look at who has signed on and who hasnt.Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
No not at all.
I see it more of a 'coalition of the willing'
not colonial at all.
It seems that the coalition is breaking down to as pathetic as the 'coalition of the willing.' The developing nations, oil nations, US, and others joined together to stop further talks about Kyoto.
The US is in the minority.
Technically, the US has signed it.
However, as I stated, it seems that the coalition is breaking down as seen in the recent talks where the US, developing nations, oil nations, and others opposed further talks.
Yeah kyoto has failed already from an emissions perspective...but is trying to create awareness and ignite energy reforms...that WILL hlp the US.
Dependance on oil will not help in the future...maybe not tomorrow...but i think we can all agree on this.
also...russia and eu are below kyoto levels.
all coutries inc. canada and us signed onto this thing.
if you have read the treaty, you would know that there is a clause that allows coutries to punish the ones that didnt follow though.
Should be interesting what EU and russia hve planned for us...
There was awareness before Kyoto. That's such a ridiculous argument.
Do you have any proof that the EU is below Kyoto levels? How can they punish the US when it's not even ratified it and thus not bound to it. I really doubt they would punish a country like Canada... they're looking more for... different countries to punish...
They can't punish the US... just hammer Canada. Stunt is Canadian.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
I have taken econ as a minor.
it's not environmental science. It's a thermal systems design class.
course site
Lectures and energy links
Pretty good site for info.
has some interesting topics and graphs.
im only in week2...
so i guess i only have the econ
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Stunt
sigh you just dont get it.
energy needed to create steel and pump oil and generate electricity is far greater than products that come north...you do the research...prove me wrong...im talking to 4 ppl
make urself useful rather than quoting an article to try to back up your reasoning for not signing on.
3 cheers for zero improvement and disregarding science!
back up the claims.
Canada imports
machinery and equipment, motor vehicles and parts, crude oil, chemicals, electricity, durable consumer goods
Non of these sound like non energy intensive products.
So time for you to back up your claims.
Those are imports from US exclusively?
and you have energy consumption in creating those products?
and yes oil extraction, electricity generation, and steel/mineral extraction are far more energy intensive than those
U.S. steel exports to Canada now account for almost 60% of all U.S. steel exports, a significant increase over the level of 33% of all U.S. steel exports less than a decade ago.[
linkage
Electricity - imports 11.725 billion kWh (1998) I am sure these come from the US, as they dont make batteries that big
linkage
virtual one way aluminum trade with Canada
linkage
you were saying?
Originally posted by: Stunt
Wow genious what gave that away...was it my sig...or my revealing profile.
looks like we've got a smart one here
Believe it or not, not everybody knows you here. :roll: I was helping out Canofworms.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
It will not bankrupt if you implement it correctly.
it's not intended to shut down industry...but make industry run cleaner...make ppl energy aware....lower consumption.
These are not hard concepts.
Who knows...could boost a country's revenue. Look at netherlands...#1 producer of winmills...they are doing quite well with that industry.
How much is the US making off selling oil...i'll tell ya...not much...
there's being a consumer and there's being an innovator, leader and producer.
it's not intended to shut down industry...but make industry run cleaner...make ppl energy aware....lower consumption.
These are not hard concepts.
Who knows...could boost a country's revenue. Look at netherlands...#1 producer of winmills...they are doing quite well with that industry.
How much is the US making off selling oil...i'll tell ya...not much...
there's being a consumer and there's being an innovator, leader and producer.
Originally posted by: Stunt
I have taken econ as a minor.
it's not environmental science. It's a thermal systems design class.
course site
Lectures and energy links
Pretty good site for info.
has some interesting topics and graphs.
im only in week2...
so i guess i only have the econ
Ask for a refund. You have obviously learned nothing.
It seems like it's more intended to stunt developing countries..must be why they are now opposing it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter