Russia puts another nail in the coffin of Kyoto Treaty

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kandarp

Platinum Member
May 19, 2003
2,852
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
In 30 billion years who will care? Earth can take care of itself...close yucca mountain welfare project and dump the sh1t in your nearest lake.
F^&K that lets boot that sh&t towards the sun and have ourselves a show..even physicists gotta wonder what will happen when 50 tons of depleted uranium hits the surface of the sun.
 

kandarp

Platinum Member
May 19, 2003
2,852
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
In 30 billion years who will care? Earth can take care of itself...close yucca mountain welfare project and dump the sh1t in your nearest lake.
F^&K that lets boot that sh&t towards the sun and have ourselves a show..even physicists gotta wonder what will happen when 50 tons of depleted uranium hits the surface of the sun.
 

PaperclipGod

Banned
Apr 7, 2003
2,021
0
0
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: burnedout
I guess "teh eval Americans" aren't alone on this issue now.
Actually we may still be.

That the most prosperous nation on earth cannot find the balls to lead the fight to be accountable to the Earth has to be seriously demoralizing to the efforts anyone else tries to lead.

Anyone say anything different has been reading too much of that right-wing redneck heritage foundation propaganda.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual terms of the Kyoto Treaty before flooding this thread with ignorance.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
lets boot that sh&t towards the sun and have ourselves a show..
even physicists gotta wonder what will happen when 50 tons of depleted uranium hits the surface of the sun.

Insugnifigant - there was more material spit out by the Sun in any one of the several 'Sun-Spot' activities
over the last couple weeks than the mass total of the entire planet.
It's solar activity like that that actualy makes tons of depleted uranium and other rare trace elements,
as residue and fragmented remenants when it happens, but not nearly as much as when a star goes Nova.
Main Sequence & Iron Cycle
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: kandarp
Originally posted by: Zebo
In 30 billion years who will care? Earth can take care of itself...close yucca mountain welfare project and dump the sh1t in your nearest lake.
F^&K that lets boot that sh&t towards the sun and have ourselves a show..even physicists gotta wonder what will happen when 50 tons of depleted uranium hits the surface of the sun.
While the journy would be "downhill" so to speak, the energy expended to launch would be more than the waste provided you're trying to get rid of. Don't think we hav'nt thought of this.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: burnedout
I guess "teh eval Americans" aren't alone on this issue now.
So it's the former evil empire (RR's words) we compare ourselves to now?:p;)
Hell, from reading some of the pedantic rants about our country on these boards, one might possibly conclude that we are the most evil civilization ever to inhabit the Earth. ;):p
LOL well, you know, hyperbole has it's place, especially in politics.:D
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: busmaster11

Good job of critical thinking here. But you will find that I am not, can not be the one whose closeminded here. My cynical attitude is a result of knowing that the conservatives here will all ignore the facts and cite things from highly biased sites with political agendas while discrediting mainstream sources that I would cite for example.
But you admitted yourself that you "up [your] minds and are not likely to be persuaded." The problem that I see in this board, at least directed towards me, is that people automaticaly call people "sheep" and "Bushies" if they disagree with them.

Everyday you can find new articles on clearly legitimate news sites such as CNN and BBC that alert us to symptoms of global warming - and from records found in Antarctic and Greenland ice, lead scientists to believe is at least partially man-made. Yet guys like glenn1 will have you believe that more evidence is needed before we take action for something that is clearly irresponsible.
Well, that is his opinion. I have no problem with those who say the opposite. But I can't see why "BUSH IS EVIL" everytime something like this comes up (come to think of it, it's almost EVERY TOPIC that comes up). Global warming did not start in late 2000.

Why have you not criticized him for calling those who defend the enviroment, "bunny huggers"? Are you that objective yourself?
I don't claim to be ultra-objective at all. Glenn1 should not have called them "bunny huggers," that's true.

My biggest issue is with american arrogance. In the eyes of God an american life is no more valuable than that of any other human being - despite what you might have been brought up to believe. We do not have the authority to make the unilatteral arrogant decisions that this regime have made. Might does not equal right.
That is true, in the eyes of God. I have not been brought up to believe that an American life is worth more. I don't know how you came up with that. Where we differ is that you seem to suggest that America should be thinking globally all the time. Unfortunately, it would be to America's detriment if that happened. Last I checked, the US Government should be looking out for US interests first.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Freaking hypocrites in here. They complain about gas prices and the jobs and how our economy suck and our jobs are going overseas...then they turn around and complain that we aren't buying into this Kyoto treaty
Hypocrites...
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Freaking hypocrites in here. They complain about gas prices and the jobs and how our economy suck and our jobs are going overseas...then they turn around and complain that we aren't buying into this Kyoto treaty
Hypocrites...
The economy can do fine if we sign the kyoto treaty. Georgie and Dickie don't want you to believe that because it affects the industries that they're sleeping with every night so they demonize it, just like everything else thats against their political agenda.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Freaking hypocrites in here. They complain about gas prices and the jobs and how our economy suck and our jobs are going overseas...then they turn around and complain that we aren't buying into this Kyoto treaty
Hypocrites...
The economy can do fine if we sign the kyoto treaty. Georgie and Dickie don't want you to believe that because it affects the industries that they're sleeping with every night so they demonize it, just like everything else thats against their political agenda.
Of course the economy can do fine if we sign the treaty. All we need to do is take the approach that is apparently being taken by the majority of the countries in Europe (and now Russia too, if todays reports are accurate) and sign the treaty and then not live up to it. Given that China and India are exempt from the treaty and, by the environmental models that the agreement was based on (which I don't believe are accurate), it only delays disaster by a few years, what's the point?

Note also that the problem is not "Georgie and Dickie", it's the US Congress which must vote on any treaty. The treaty was "signed" by Al Gore as US representative to the conference in 1997, but in the remaining three years of the Clinton administration, it was never submitted to Congress. However, in 1997, the US Senate did have an "advisory" vote on the Treaty. It was rejected by a vote of 95-0. Not exactly a party line vote.


 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Freaking hypocrites in here. They complain about gas prices and the jobs and how our economy suck and our jobs are going overseas...then they turn around and complain that we aren't buying into this Kyoto treaty
Hypocrites...
The economy can do fine if we sign the kyoto treaty. Georgie and Dickie don't want you to believe that because it affects the industries that they're sleeping with every night so they demonize it, just like everything else thats against their political agenda.
No it would'nt unless we shut down the borders to goods made in thrid world coutries who don't have to abide. Then it would be a boom. Whole new industries would sprout up to comply in addition to resurecction of old factories. But the big conglometates don't want compitition nor do they want to play with decressed margins our workers would demand of them. They always get what they want because money talks.
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
The treaty calls for a reduction of emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a pretty huge cutback. The US Dept of Energy study found that gasoline would go up by as much as 53% and electricity by as much as 83% because of the taxes necessary to meet that target. I personally don't want to pay $2.50 or $3 a gallon for gas so the Chinese can pollute as much as they want...........:disgust:
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Jmman
The treaty calls for a reduction of emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a pretty huge cutback. The US Dept of Energy study found that gasoline would go up by as much as 53% and electricity by as much as 83% because of the taxes necessary to meet that target. I personally don't want to pay $2.50 or $3 a gallon for gas so the Chinese can pollute as much as they want...........:disgust:
Kyoto is a bad deal. China is the one with a permanent brown cloud and has one of the largest economies in the world. Tell me again why they are exempt?

If we sign kyoto, watch even more US jobs head to china where things can be made without worry of enviormental regulations.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,536
4,956
126
Originally posted by: Jmman
The treaty calls for a reduction of emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a pretty huge cutback. The US Dept of Energy study found that gasoline would go up by as much as 53% and electricity by as much as 83% because of the taxes necessary to meet that target. I personally don't want to pay $2.50 or $3 a gallon for gas so the Chinese can pollute as much as they want...........:disgust:
Well, that would likely be true if taxes were the only method used to acheive the goal.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Jmman
The treaty calls for a reduction of emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a pretty huge cutback. The US Dept of Energy study found that gasoline would go up by as much as 53% and electricity by as much as 83% because of the taxes necessary to meet that target. I personally don't want to pay $2.50 or $3 a gallon for gas so the Chinese can pollute as much as they want...........:disgust:
Well, that would likely be true if taxes were the only method used to acheive the goal.
And all jobs would go to china and india where no regulations exist. Doing this would solve little, other than to move where the pollution is being generated.

 

Mavrick

Senior member
Mar 11, 2001
525
0
0
What I find funny is that the US has the will and resources needed to lead a "coalition of the willings" to rid the world of terrorist and "evil countries", but simply refuse to take the lead in one of the biggest and broadest international treaty so far conceived directly to assure all of us a better tomorrow on the basis that "it could hamper economic growth" and "it is not PROVED that greenhouse gas cause global warming" (well, it seems to me that is was not proved that Iraq had WMD and helped terrorists, yet, enormous resources were directed there....)

I dream of the day when a President will get elected and help bring back the US to where it should be: The leading nation on earth because of its achievements and maturity like it was in the 50's and 60's instead of it military domination like now.

Don't get me wrong, I do thing a strong military is important for a country to be respected, but unlike USSR
, we should not use it to impose our view on the rest of the world.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,536
4,956
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Jmman
The treaty calls for a reduction of emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a pretty huge cutback. The US Dept of Energy study found that gasoline would go up by as much as 53% and electricity by as much as 83% because of the taxes necessary to meet that target. I personally don't want to pay $2.50 or $3 a gallon for gas so the Chinese can pollute as much as they want...........:disgust:
Well, that would likely be true if taxes were the only method used to acheive the goal.
And all jobs would go to china and india where no regulations exist. Doing this would solve little, other than to move where the pollution is being generated.
Yes, that would have to b addressed.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Jmman
The treaty calls for a reduction of emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a pretty huge cutback. The US Dept of Energy study found that gasoline would go up by as much as 53% and electricity by as much as 83% because of the taxes necessary to meet that target. I personally don't want to pay $2.50 or $3 a gallon for gas so the Chinese can pollute as much as they want...........:disgust:
Well, that would likely be true if taxes were the only method used to acheive the goal.
And all jobs would go to china and india where no regulations exist. Doing this would solve little, other than to move where the pollution is being generated.
Yes, that would have to b addressed.
Which kyoto does not.
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: busmaster11
My biggest issue is with american arrogance. In the eyes of God an american life is no more valuable than that of any other human being - despite what you might have been brought up to believe. We do not have the authority to make the unilatteral arrogant decisions that this regime have made. Might does not equal right.
That is true, in the eyes of God. I have not been brought up to believe that an American life is worth more. I don't know how you came up with that. Where we differ is that you seem to suggest that America should be thinking globally all the time. Unfortunately, it would be to America's detriment if that happened. Last I checked, the US Government should be looking out for US interests first.
Really? We spend millions in the courts and in the media covering the question of right to life for a 40 year old woman in a vegetative state in Florida. When Daniel Pearl was missing in Afghanistan, we poured tons of troops to Jalalabad (wrong city perhaps) and even Jesse Jackson wanted to get involved. Yet billions of pounds of grain rot in our silos that could feed the hungry in Ethiopia or wherever... Yeah, I'd say if you don't feel you were taught an American life is worth more than others, you're either oblivious or you haven't been watching too much media....

American interests are like your interests. There's a cost and a value to every action. If you were to constantly look out for yourself only, you would do many selfish things like lie, cheat and steal. If you're the biggest meanest bully on the block, you will do progessively more of those things once you realize you're not going to get caught. That's where the US is right now. It's a runaway superpower. No one can tell us we can't do something. They can only hope to use diplomacy.

Can you see why the big mean bully who's only looking out for himself will be a problem?
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jmman
The treaty calls for a reduction of emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a pretty huge cutback. The US Dept of Energy study found that gasoline would go up by as much as 53% and electricity by as much as 83% because of the taxes necessary to meet that target. I personally don't want to pay $2.50 or $3 a gallon for gas so the Chinese can pollute as much as they want...........:disgust:
Kyoto is a bad deal. China is the one with a permanent brown cloud and has one of the largest economies in the world. Tell me again why they are exempt?

If we sign kyoto, watch even more US jobs head to china where things can be made without worry of enviormental regulations.
Charrison, let me ask you the same question I raised earlier - if Kyoto adds China, are you in?

No? Then don't use it as an excuse. So far I haven't seen a single one of you smokestack-huggers say that you'll support Kyoto if China and India were included.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jmman
The treaty calls for a reduction of emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a pretty huge cutback. The US Dept of Energy study found that gasoline would go up by as much as 53% and electricity by as much as 83% because of the taxes necessary to meet that target. I personally don't want to pay $2.50 or $3 a gallon for gas so the Chinese can pollute as much as they want...........:disgust:
Kyoto is a bad deal. China is the one with a permanent brown cloud and has one of the largest economies in the world. Tell me again why they are exempt?

If we sign kyoto, watch even more US jobs head to china where things can be made without worry of enviormental regulations.
Charrison, let me ask you the same question I raised earlier - if Kyoto adds China, are you in?

No? Then don't use it as an excuse. So far I haven't seen a single one of you smokestack-huggers say that you'll support Kyoto if China and India were included.
I would be in favor of sound worldwide energy policy(clean coal,nuclear, wind). CO2 is the least of our worries.
Any global pollution control treaty would need to involve china and india.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
I'm with charrison but maybe even a little more concilatory. Even though I don't believe the global warming predictions, if there is a true consensus that this is real and needs to be addressed I would go along with it. That would mean that all countries would have to move to some combination of per energy unit CO2 limitation and there would be no artificial bias against specific CO2 free technologies like nuclear power.

Even though I still might not be convinced it was a technically correct thing to do, at least it would alleviate my concerns that this whole thing isn't really about CO2, it's about altering the world economic structure and penalizing the developed countries.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,536
4,956
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Jmman
The treaty calls for a reduction of emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, a pretty huge cutback. The US Dept of Energy study found that gasoline would go up by as much as 53% and electricity by as much as 83% because of the taxes necessary to meet that target. I personally don't want to pay $2.50 or $3 a gallon for gas so the Chinese can pollute as much as they want...........:disgust:
Well, that would likely be true if taxes were the only method used to acheive the goal.
And all jobs would go to china and india where no regulations exist. Doing this would solve little, other than to move where the pollution is being generated.
Yes, that would have to b addressed.
Which kyoto does not.
No, it doesn't, but why does it have to? It is a trade issue.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY