Why the Kyoto treaty is a very very very bad idea

[Texmaster]

<< Thats right it says that there are too many factors to do a proper assement so all the evidence you provided is inaccurate cause as my post showed they make too many assumptions and inaccurate projections.
Why? oh why won't the gov't act.
1 Oil man in da house
2 Gov'ts when faced with something that can't be substantiated one way or the other typically choose to do nothing. . . The old addage its better to remain quiet and looked upon as a fool than open you mouth and prove it.
Or haven't you noticed administrations are slow lumbering inefectual?

Hey I'm all for lots of energy projects. I want the gas from Alaska to come down &quot;through Candaian pipelines of course&quot; cause its better produce the energy locally than to have Canada produce it and ship it down through inefficient wires.
Like I said before though I'd rather be a leader in environemntal change than a follower. Gov'ts like being followers cause its often time a lot easier. >>



Are you really that naive?

#1 You haven't proved even remotly if the treaty was emplemented it would help.

#2 You can't answer my question as to why the 2 largest countries in the world are exempt

#3 And you cant give a shred of evidence as to how the American economy would stabilize from such a huge hit.

I guarantee you if Canada was looking to loose 200,000 jobs and 300-400 Billion dollars you would be singing a different tune.

 

[Texmaster]

<< It is amazing to me that conservatives will state that global warming predictions use &quot;fuzzy science&quot; and then give you predictions almost to the penny on what the Kyoto accord will cost.

These are the same people who predicted a national economic disaster when Clinton's budget was first presented. And we all know how well those predictions panned out. Concervatives were so wrong about the country's economic future in the past, how could we possibly think that they could be accurate about the future now? >>



Do you have conclusive evidence that if America followed this treaty to the letter it would work?

No of course not.


You seem to be confused, how does the Repubican's questioning the validility of the treaty have anything to do with the cost estimates? Everyone knows what the treaty is and what it does and more importantly what it costs.


IF you read the reports, many are done by by-partisan groups who have looked over the evidence.


You keep blaming Republicans for things you cant possibly prove.


How very small of you.

Btw, any comment as to why the 2 largest countries in the world are EXEMPT from the treaty?

 

[Elledan]

No offense, but anyone who thinks that the large amounts of CO2 and other gasses, which is then released in the air, will have ZERO effect on the environment, is a complete and utter fool.

It's true that we don't know yet what the effects of those gasses are on this ecosystem we live in, but if we can avoid any trouble, then why should we just be fools and continue releasing gasses like CO2?

 

[desy]

No I'm not nieve but you seem to be ignoring the evidence
I showed you from a gov't study that your projections are flawed yet you continue to use those numbers
Yes the Canadian go'vt is letting agriculture die and people go unemployeed in that sector because the US and Europe refuses to quit susidizing the agricultural sector and Canada has stopped susidizing so it is causing a lot of pain in that sector.

The biggest problem from a taxpayer perspective is the susidies and this is where you should learn something, artificailly propping up certain economies in favour of jobs is not what the free market is about.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy1/


The estimated value for all energy subsidies identified in this report and in EIA's September 1999 report is $6.2 billion in fiscal year 1999 (Table ES3). (6) Fossil
fuels received by far the largest share of these subsidies, nearly half the total. Led by the ethanol excise exclusion, renewables received about $1.1 billion, or about 18 percent of total subsidies. Nuclear, electricity, and end-use programs each accounted for about 10 percent of total subsidies. Conservation programs received about 4 percent of total subsidies. Total subsidies have declined by nearly 16 percent since 1992, a reduction demonstrated across four broad program types (Figure ES2). LIHEAP expenditures have declined by 27 percent and R&amp;D spending by 13 percent.

The total estimate of $2.2 billion for Federal subsidies to energy transformation and end use does not include estimates of support provided through Federal electricity supply programs, because of uncertainties associated with the estimation methodologies. These agencies and programs, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the other three Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs), and the Rural Utilities Service are discussed in Chapter 4. Three alternative methods of estimating support are developed and presented there.

Somewhat the other side showing that oil/gas gets subsidized too much and other renewables are really subsidized too much.

http://www.edj.net/sinor/SFR4-99art1.html
The federal government has subsidized the energy sector primarily (60 percent) through &quot;off-budget&quot; monies, that were never part of the appropriated federal budget.
The oil industry has been the major beneficiary of federal subsidies, receiving half of all funds. The public perception that renewable energy sources have been short-changed at the expense of nuclear power and other energy sources is not correct: Federal subsidies for renewable energy totaled $90 billion, compared to $73 billion for natural gas and less for coal and nuclear. Evaluated against the contributions being made to United States energy supply, oil has received roughly its proportionate share of energy subsidies, while nuclear energy, natural gas and coal have been under-subsidized, and renewables--especially solar energy--have received a disproportionately large share of federal energy incentives. Forecasts through 2010 indicate that the contributions of renewables to energy and electricity production will remain negligible, and research and development investments in these technologies will produce no return on investment.
The debate over industry subsidies and stranded investments in electric utility restructuring must be reassessed on the basis of these findings. Contrary to conventional wisdom, government subsidies for solar and renewable energy will not alleviate global warming in the foreseeable future, and policies based on this assumption must be rethought.

 

[WordSmith2000]

I am saying that they (and you) question the validity of the science in the treaty, and then use your own version of &quot;fuzzy math&quot; to say how much it will cost! Just because you quote &quot;someone&quot; as saying this or that will cost us 300 billion dollars does not mean that it will actually cost that much? Why is it you place faith in conservatives with an axe to grind, but refuse to see that there will be ecological benefits for us to reduce these emissions? You keep asking people to provide &quot;a shred of evidence&quot; and yet all you have done is copy figures that people (with an obvious political and economic agenda) have produced without any methodology listed as backup.

As far as the exemptions for the treaty are concerned, if YOU do not understand why China was not included in this treaty, you know even less about politics than global warming.

Your myopia is amazing. If you honestly thing that your grandkids are not going to be negatively impacted by global pollution, then you try to obtain an education that goes beyond parroting what the conservative pundits say.

 

[rmeijer]

I am still confused. Do you think that we, as a global community, should act aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions or not? Or does it not really matter because we will never know 100% the extend of climate instability these will cause?

 

[rufruf44]

I wonder how much people that quickly bashed everyone that is hesistant to support the Kyoto Treaty, due to various reasons, will react if their family member or themselves lost their job due to it?
The same thing with various hard-liner environmentalist that still drive their car to work, even though it generates LOTS of harmfull polutant. Just like them, I'm willing to make some sacrifice, but not one that will alter my lifestye dramatically. And as long as big countries like China &amp; India are exempt, IMO this treaty will be a losing cause and never going to be effective in reducing polution/emission worldwide.

 

[Urinal Mint]

Global Warming is a bunch of BS. I've researched temperature data for areas of Texas that lie well outside of metropolitan regions, and the average yearly temperature is actually LOWER than it was in 1900, and has more or less decreased steadily over the past century.

I don't count metropolitan regions because they will obviously notice a warming effect due to large amounts of glass, concrete, and steel which reflect and/or soak up the heat of the sun.

This treaty is a joke, and I'm glad GW isn't going to let it just slide on by.

 

[GL]

Urinal Mint, The side effects of Global Warming is that some areas of the world have lower temperatures and others have higher. The net average temperature of the world (i.e. measure thousands of locations around the world and take their average) is higher.

 

[Elledan]

<< And as long as big countries like China &amp; India are exempt, IMO this treaty will be a losing cause and never going to be effective in reducing polution/emission worldwide. >>


Exactly which country was producing the most greenhouse gasses again? That's right, the US. So IMO this treaty will certainly add to a better future and will be effective in reducing polution/emission worldwide.

Once other countries are ready for it, they'll join this treaty as well.

 

[rufruf44]

<< I am still confused. Do you think that we, as a global community, should act aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions or not? Or does it not really matter because we will never know 100% the extend of climate instability these will change? >>



rmeijer, WE should try to aggresively emission &amp; polution, but WE as a global community doesn't just include the developed country (USA,Europe, Japan,etc), WE as a global community includes every other country in this world as well. Make it a standard for the world, and I'll support it as well.

 

[GL]

Texmaster, China and India were exempt because their economies would be negatively affected far more than industriliazed economies by a total ban on greenhouse-causing emissions. The industrialized nations were asked to make a sacrifice and to take a leadership role. Pretty much all the industrialized nations sans the United States said OK.

 

[josphstalinator]

if we wanna end greenhouse gas emmisions we have to end our use of fossil fuels, and at this point in time we just arent ready to do that

especially since the same groups that claim global warming is going to kill everybody think that nuclear energy (the cleanest energy) is worse. i was watching pbs the other day and they had a debate on nuclear energy and this environmenalist said that nuclear waste &quot;kills for millions of years&quot; i must say that was the stupidest thing ive ever heard. as far as industrial waste goes, nuclear waste is the safest. current solutions to nuclear waste keep it safe for 10,000 to 100,000 years. one pint of used motor oil has higher killing potential than one million tons of spent nuclear fuel

i guess i kinda got off track, good post

 

[GL]

(sorry as I've mentioned before I have to cut up my posts at work). The reasoning behind industrialized nations doing this sacrifice is that our economies will spawn demand for alternatives to greenhouse causing gases which we will then force China and India to use. Developing nations tend to pollute because it is cheaper. Kyoto was meant to bring the cost down so that they have no excuses to use the alternatives.

 

[Capn]

GL, greenhouse emissions wouldn't be *banned* by Kyoto, just reduced.

 

[Texmaster]

<< No offense, but anyone who thinks that the large amounts of CO2 and other gasses, which is then released in the air, will have ZERO effect on the environment, is a complete and utter fool.

It's true that we don't know yet what the effects of those gasses are on this ecosystem we live in, but if we can avoid any trouble, then why should we just be fools and continue releasing gasses like CO2? >>



A lot of people are making the WRONG generalization that people against the Kyoto Treaty are against any action.


No where did I say that. Please stop making the assumption.

 

[GL]

Capn, thanks I was under the impression it was a total ban. Still, the reasoning behind the Kyoto treaty is the same - the developing nations can't afford to move over to more environmentally alternatives although industrialized nations can, with a little sacrifice do so. Kind of like the Montreal Protocol in the past, I believe which was largely a success.

 

[OutHouse]

are there any stats on how much pollution the US produces compared to other countries. Im courious on what those numbers are for today compared to 10 and 20 years ago.

For some reason im thinking the amount of pollution the US contributes is less now than 10,20 years ago.

 

[GL]

<-- annoyed about Sympatico DSL form posting restrictions! And once the alternatives come down in price because all the industrialized nations are using them, we can then force the developing nations to use them for they have no excuse.

 

[Texmaster]

&quot;No I'm not nieve but you seem to be ignoring the evidence
I showed you from a gov't study that your projections are flawed yet you continue to use those numbers&quot;

The numbers you give were under the Clinton administration whcih my article proved were innacurate.

&quot;Yes the Canadian go'vt is letting agriculture die and people go unemployeed in that sector because the US and Europe refuses to quit susidizing the agricultural sector and Canada has stopped susidizing so it is causing a lot of pain in that sector.&quot;

So you want to punish America.

&quot;&quot;The biggest problem from a taxpayer perspective is the susidies and this is where you should learn something, artificailly propping up certain economies in favour of jobs is not what the free market is about.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy1/


The estimated value for all energy subsidies identified in this report and in EIA's September 1999 report is $6.2 billion in fiscal year 1999 (Table ES3). (6) Fossil
fuels received by far the largest share of these subsidies, nearly half the total. Led by the ethanol excise exclusion, renewables received about $1.1 billion, or about 18 percent of total subsidies. Nuclear, electricity, and end-use programs each accounted for about 10 percent of total subsidies. Conservation programs received about 4 percent of total subsidies. Total subsidies have declined by nearly 16 percent since 1992, a reduction demonstrated across four broad program types (Figure ES2). LIHEAP expenditures have declined by 27 percent and R&amp;D spending by 13 percent.

The total estimate of $2.2 billion for Federal subsidies to energy transformation and end use does not include estimates of support provided through Federal electricity supply programs, because of uncertainties associated with the estimation methodologies. These agencies and programs, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the other three Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs), and the Rural Utilities Service are discussed in Chapter 4. Three alternative methods of estimating support are developed and presented there.

Somewhat the other side showing that oil/gas gets subsidized too much and other renewables are really subsidized too much.

http://www.edj.net/sinor/SFR4-99art1.html
The federal government has subsidized the energy sector primarily (60 percent) through &quot;off-budget&quot; monies, that were never part of the appropriated federal budget.
The oil industry has been the major beneficiary of federal subsidies, receiving half of all funds. The public perception that renewable energy sources have been short-changed at the expense of nuclear power and other energy sources is not correct: Federal subsidies for renewable energy totaled $90 billion, compared to $73 billion for natural gas and less for coal and nuclear. Evaluated against the contributions being made to United States energy supply, oil has received roughly its proportionate share of energy subsidies, while nuclear energy, natural gas and coal have been under-subsidized, and renewables--especially solar energy--have received a disproportionately large share of federal energy incentives. Forecasts through 2010 indicate that the contributions of renewables to energy and electricity production will remain negligible, and research and development investments in these technologies will produce no return on investment.
The debate over industry subsidies and stranded investments in electric utility restructuring must be reassessed on the basis of these findings. Contrary to conventional wisdom, government subsidies for solar and renewable energy will not alleviate global warming in the foreseeable future, and policies based on this assumption must be rethought&quot;&quot;&quot;


So you dont agree with their numbers even though they were a no partisan group. Fine.

It is still a HUGE amount of money which you seem unwilling to grasp.

Do you think when corporations start to loose money they wont pass it off on consumers? Are you kidding?

Look what that did to California's economy. They tried to cap what companies could charge consumers and companies went bankrupt.

The Kyoto treaty is not talking about mild cuts. These cuts are DRASTIC and under a timeframe.

Again, how would you pay for it?

Who will retrain the workers out of work?

What about the 2 most populus countries being exempt from the treaty? Dont dodge this one again.

And can you even guarantee it will WORK? This is the better question. You keep saying the numbers I've provided are inflated but you cant give me a SHRED of conclusive evidence that the treaty will actally do what it says!

Dont you think thats the more IMPORTANT question?

 

[GL]

<< artificailly propping up certain economies in favour of jobs is not what the free market is about. >>

Better tell your gov that! Your softwood lumber industry (among others) is living off of your taxes and harsh import duties.

 

[Capn]

I don't think Russia had any intention of following the Kyoto protocol either. Basically EU wants the US to do it because we are a world leader and the momentum of the U.S. signing on to the plan would have a lot of weight when trying to strong arm other countries to comply as well.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I am saying that they (and you) question the validity of the science in the treaty, and then use your own version of &quot;fuzzy math&quot; to say how much it will cost! Just because you quote &quot;someone&quot; as saying this or that will cost us 300 billion dollars does not mean that it will actually cost that much? Why is it you place faith in conservatives with an axe to grind, but refuse to see that there will be ecological benefits for us to reduce these emissions? You keep asking people to provide &quot;a shred of evidence&quot; and yet all you have done is copy figures that people (with an obvious political and economic agenda) have produced without any methodology listed as backup.

As far as the exemptions for the treaty are concerned, if YOU do not understand why China was not included in this treaty, you know even less about politics than global warming.

Your myopia is amazing. If you honestly thing that your grandkids are not going to be negatively impacted by global pollution, then you try to obtain an education that goes beyond parroting what the conservative pundits say. >>



Its not just me bud. NO ONE can conclusivly provide ANY evidence that this treaty if implemented will work! Yet we are supposed to risk our economy and the lives of 100s of thousands on a theory?

Fine you dont agree with the number. We can both agree that the number will be HUGE.

How will you pay for it?

How will you counter the unemployment of 100s of thousands of people?

and no I dont know why China and India are EXEMPT from the treeaty even though they are online to outstripping all western countries in greenhouse gas. ENLIGHTEN ME. BACK UP YOUR BS.

And please show me where I said greenhouse has isn't harmful. Jumping to these conclusions with NO evidence doesn't make you look very smart.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I am still confused. Do you think that we, as a global community, should act aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions or not? Or does it not really matter because we will never know 100% the extend of climate instability these will cause? >>



It depends what you mean by agressivly. Be more specific. And do you support the 2 largest countries in the world to be exempt? Answer this please.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Global Warming is a bunch of BS. I've researched temperature data for areas of Texas that lie well outside of metropolitan regions, and the average yearly temperature is actually LOWER than it was in 1900, and has more or less decreased steadily over the past century.

I don't count metropolitan regions because they will obviously notice a warming effect due to large amounts of glass, concrete, and steel which reflect and/or soak up the heat of the sun.

This treaty is a joke, and I'm glad GW isn't going to let it just slide on by. >>



Ok, I remember that study. It was on NPR I think right?