• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What Was The Revised Kyoto Protocol About? *Need Info*

D

Dragnov

Diamond Member
I'm trying to find info on this for my class, but searching online doesn't seem to yield any productive results. I know it was about cutting down pollution, and I know Bush didn't sign the agreement. What were his reasons for not signing (well the ones that he says at least) Anybody know of some sites that have more detailed information on this? Thanks.
 


<<

<< What Was The Revised Kyoto Protocol About? >>




EVERYTHING bush is not.



those articles sum it up pretty well. >>


Sortof like this
Kyoto: Cut down pollution because we tell you to.
Bush: Do whatever the hell you want.



ps. Damn I HATE working on a mac, slow pos computer crap

edt.. see it made me do a typo
 
If the plan had gone ahead, the US would have been responsible for much of the reform in the industrialized world. In 1990, the US was responsible for 48 percent of the developed world's carbon emissions, but it would be responsible for 64 percent of the Kyoto reductions. This calculation, however, only tells part of the story. The Europe that has been so scathing about the American decision is actually by far the biggest culprit in the emissions field.

This is because Kyoto did not take account of a crucial scientific fact. Carbon dioxide is not really a pollutant, as the Environmental Protection Agency has labeled it. It is a vitally important contributor to plant life, which uses much of the gas in the atmosphere. Geographic areas with large amounts of plant life therefore act as "carbon sinks," sucking in carbon dioxide from the air.

A scientific paper published in October 1998 ("A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models," Fan et al, Science, Vol. 282, p. 442 ff.) concluded that the North American continent acted as a huge carbon sink, absorbing about 1.7 billion metric tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year. As North America is responsible for only about 1.6 billion tons of carbon emissions per year, the continent is actually a net consumer of carbon dioxide.

 


<< This is because Kyoto did not take account of a crucial scientific fact. Carbon dioxide is not really a pollutant, as the Environmental Protection Agency has labeled it. It is a vitally important contributor to plant life, which uses much of the gas in the atmosphere. Geographic areas with large amounts of plant life therefore act as "carbon sinks," sucking in carbon dioxide from the air. >>


What, have you compared plantlife along side highways to plantlife in unspoiled nature?. Expecialy watch the grass.
 
That burnt grass and vegatation is from over spray of on going weed abaitment by dept.of transportation. They use "round up" and numerous other vegatation killers to control landscape growth.
 


<< That burnt grass and vegatation is from over spray of on going weed abaitment by dept.of transportation. They use "round up" and numerous other vegatation killers to control landscape growth. >>


depends on where you live, here we dont use anything like that, and I was working few years ago for the city cutting grass all over the place and it gets obvios how grass close to roads is thinner, darker and just overall less alive.

What carbon dioxade is is tiny tiny dust and that sets on plants and in their "air holes" and hinders their normal function.

Dont know the exact explination on this in english though.
 
Weed abaitment is an on going project in all transportation districts world wide. Required to reduce or eliminate fire hazzards and maintain safe visibility to minimize safty concerns and possible litigation. Line item analysis of kyoto exposes it's fraudulent intent. And is largely supported by scientific challanged morons or polished grifters who have a financial interest in it's passing.
 
Fact: Carbon Dioxide is natural and is always present

Myth: It is not a polutant

If you alter the atmosphere even slightly the effects can be catastrophic. Too much Carbon Dioxide is bad, mmmmmmmmkay. I'll take the EPA's opinion over some net posters anyday of the week.
 
As I said, it depends where you live, fully live grass does not burn well so that is not much of a fire hazard. To keep the grass to stopping visibility for drivers the grass is cut.

It was a well known fact what carbon dioxide does to plant life well before the Kyoto was brought forward.

One another example when I was working with my uncels(sp?) in gardening work. We had a motorized card thingamagic and we used it to carry sand or gravel or whatever and once we were filling it up and the exaust was directed directly into a bush. We went many trips and few days later every area on the bush that got in the way of the exaust was completely dead.
 
Like I said..kyoto was designed to fool the science challenged. Looks like it's working. You guy's took the bait.
 


<< Like I said..kyoto was designed to fool the science challenged. Looks like it's working. You guy's took the bait. >>


Or the other way around, the ones who fight it are scientificly challanged, looks like it since you just say "its not a pollutant because I say so"
 
Czar, what is photosynthesis and what gases do plants use in that process.

I have never seen so many misconceptions about something by one person in a long time. It's no wonder you bought into the Kyoto line so easily, you have no idea of basic science.

Some of your gems of misinformation...

"What carbon dioxade is is tiny tiny dust and that sets on plants and in their "air holes" and hinders their normal function."

"It was a well known fact what carbon dioxide does to plant life well before the Kyoto was brought forward."


Read this and then come back to this discussion


PHOTOSYNTHESIS

You might also look up why aquarium owners inject CO2 into their fish tanks when they are growing plants.

edit/ I had double pasted the same statement.
 
etech,
then tell me, of all the plants I'v seen with my own eyes literaly die right in front of me while carbon dioxide was being spewed over them, why did they die?
 
Czar, it sure as hell wasn't the carbon dioxide.

You do realize that when you talk you are "spewing" out carbon dioxide gas? Go breathe on a plant and see if it dies. Wait, that may not work in your case.

I'm curious, don't kids have to take a basic biology class in Iceland?
 
etech,
ok I admit, it isnt only carbon dioxide that is the pullutant of cars and such and the main damaging from those pollutants are not carbon dioxide but you also must admit that higher emission standards will result in cleaner air, mostly in big cities.




anyway, gone to school
 
Yes, there are harmful emissions from gasoline. Sulfur is one of the worst.

Guess what, the US has already mandated low sulfur gasoline and diesel to be phased in. They are using the money spent on pollution reduction where it will do the most good and have the most benefits.

eia.doe.gov PDF
 


<< etech,
then tell me, of all the plants I'v seen with my own eyes literaly die right in front of me while carbon dioxide was being spewed over them, why did they die? >>



Are you for real? You said you were putting EXHAUST on them, NOT pure carbon dioxide. Go put pure carbon dioxide on them and tell me if you get the same results.
 
I have a feeling that a very large percentage of people that were yelling for the Kyoto treaty have the same science background as our Czar.

 
Oh damn, waited about an hour to see if I would get any responses with no avail, so I just went to bed. I thought this was a dead thread, but decided to check up on it right now. Wow, so many responses. Thanks guys.

Although I'm against the ratification of the Kyoto Treaty (now that I have a more informative opinon on this matter) I still believe more important steps need to be taken to reduce pollution. Although the U.S. is reducing other pollutants such as sulfur, C02 is still the primary pollutant. The Earth is warming, be it naturally or human caused, and at a faster rate than from history's normality (this is undeniable). The amount of Carbon Dioxide and any other type of pollution in the atmosphere has also increased drastically. It is true that North America/the U.S. is a carbon sink but how long does it take to suck up the carbon dioxide? (Anybody have info on this?!) I would think that we produce carbon dioxide much faster than plant life would be able to use it up... I have no info on this so if someone could prove me wrong...

This is just my opinion from what info I know of now. It will be devloped and more accurate once I learn more about it, so no flaming necessary. =)

[edit] Okay after looking up some more info, its been todl that "carbon sinks" seem to do nothing more than buy time. As time passes by, forests will absorb less Carbon Dioxide (as they absorb most of it while growing) while pollutants will of course be the same if not more (unless we take more drastic methods of course). Any opinions? =) [/edit]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top