Russia puts another nail in the coffin of Kyoto Treaty

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
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.

So china's massive pollution and brown cloud is not a envirmental issue, it is trade issue?
 

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: 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.

So china's massive pollution and brown cloud is not a envirmental issue, it is trade issue?
No, US corps(if the US signed Kyoto) relocating to China or India in order to avoid Kyoto obligations is the trade issue.

Let's not forget why India, China, and others were exempted from Kyoto, it was to allow them to develop their economies. The First World can absorb the costs of change, the 2nd and 3rd World can not.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
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.

So china's massive pollution and brown cloud is not a envirmental issue, it is trade issue?
No, US corps(if the US signed Kyoto) relocating to China or India in order to avoid Kyoto obligations is the trade issue.

Let's not forget why India, China, and others were exempted from Kyoto, it was to allow them to develop their economies. The First World can absorb the costs of change, the 2nd and 3rd World can not.
Ok, so say we stop trade with china and india. They continue doing what they do without regulation, and they will continue polluting at an alarming rate. Stop trade with china is not going to make that brown cloud go away.
 

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: 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.

So china's massive pollution and brown cloud is not a envirmental issue, it is trade issue?
No, US corps(if the US signed Kyoto) relocating to China or India in order to avoid Kyoto obligations is the trade issue.

Let's not forget why India, China, and others were exempted from Kyoto, it was to allow them to develop their economies. The First World can absorb the costs of change, the 2nd and 3rd World can not.
Ok, so say we stop trade with china and india. They continue doing what they do without regulation, and they will continue polluting at an alarming rate. Stop trade with china is not going to make that brown cloud go away.
I did not say stop trade. There are ways to stop Domestic corps from relocating to other places, especially to avoid Environmental laws. This is made more complicated by WTO rules and not Kyoto though.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Ok, so say we stop trade with china and india. They continue doing what they do without regulation, and they will continue polluting at an alarming rate. Stop trade with china is not going to make that brown cloud go away.


I did not say stop trade. There are ways to stop Domestic corps from relocating to other places, especially to avoid Environmental laws. This is made more complicated by WTO rules and not Kyoto though.[/quote]

Sure you could tax companies to keep them from going there. BUt china and india are not going to stop their own power production.
Even if all foriegn companies left china and india, there would still be massive pollution there.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,536
4,956
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Ok, so say we stop trade with china and india. They continue doing what they do without regulation, and they will continue polluting at an alarming rate. Stop trade with china is not going to make that brown cloud go away.


I did not say stop trade. There are ways to stop Domestic corps from relocating to other places, especially to avoid Environmental laws. This is made more complicated by WTO rules and not Kyoto though.


Sure you could tax companies to keep them from going there. BUt china and india are not going to stop their own power production.
Even if all foriegn companies left china and india, there would still be massive pollution there.[/quote]

Quit moving the goalposts!! :| ;) :D
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Ok, so say we stop trade with china and india. They continue doing what they do without regulation, and they will continue polluting at an alarming rate. Stop trade with china is not going to make that brown cloud go away.


I did not say stop trade. There are ways to stop Domestic corps from relocating to other places, especially to avoid Environmental laws. This is made more complicated by WTO rules and not Kyoto though.


Sure you could tax companies to keep them from going there. BUt china and india are not going to stop their own power production.
Even if all foriegn companies left china and india, there would still be massive pollution there.


Quit moving the goalposts!! :| ;) :D[/quote]

I am not moving the goalposts, this is the real world.

kyoto is fataly flawed at being effective.
 

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
Ok, so say we stop trade with china and india. They continue doing what they do without regulation, and they will continue polluting at an alarming rate. Stop trade with china is not going to make that brown cloud go away.


I did not say stop trade. There are ways to stop Domestic corps from relocating to other places, especially to avoid Environmental laws. This is made more complicated by WTO rules and not Kyoto though.


Sure you could tax companies to keep them from going there. BUt china and india are not going to stop their own power production.
Even if all foriegn companies left china and india, there would still be massive pollution there.


Quit moving the goalposts!! :| ;) :D


I am not moving the goalposts, this is the real world.

kyoto is fataly flawed at being effective.[/quote]

Just kidding around in previous post.

Kyoto isn't/wasn't perfect, just trying to show that other potential problems can be addressed outside of Kyoto, if the political will exists.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY