Why the Kyoto treaty is a very very very bad idea

[GL]

Texmaster, I've explained the "official" reasoning behind why developing nations are exempt.

 

[Texmaster]

<< 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. >>



By one degree in over 100,000 years. And since we have only been around recording the temperature changes for about 300 years, how can you expect us to know why its changing?

 

[GL]

Woah, where did you get one degree in 100,000 years? And do you know how many degrees it takes to launch the world into an ice age?

 

[Texmaster]

<< 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. >>



So you are willing to let them keep rolling on to out produce ALL western countries in Greenshouse gas? LOL

And yes the US said no because it impacts us the MOST. WE will loose the money, WE will loose the jobs.

How do you intend to offset the economic impact on a treaty NO ONE can say will conclusively work?

 

[Texmaster]

<< (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. >>



But you cant point to one study that conclusively says it will work! Yet we should sacrifice our economy on a theory?

 

[GL]

Similar initiative have been implemented to combat CFC use and have worked. The American economy isn't in shambles and CFC use has dropped drastically. Stop looking at the nitty gritty details and look at the big picture.

 

[Eug]

While this may not be you, many who are arguing against the Kyoto treaty are arguing against any sort of treaty. While I may have some reservations with it in its current form, I would not want to be a pawn of the US oil lobby groups to have it simply scrapped without any potential other substitutes.

Quite frankly, the US and other Westernized countries are the biggest polluters in the world per capita, and that cannot be denied. Something needs to be done. While global warning is a contentious issue, the environmental impact of pollution in its various forms is something that we're all going to have to live with.

I personally hate the argument that &quot;we're not 100% sure the benefits are as much as the studies say, so let's do nothing&quot;. Please suggest an alternative plan, because as you've stated, you support an active role of the US in attacking pollution problem.

 

[Texmaster]

<< <-- 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. >>


And just how will you enforce them?

What guarantee do you have that their economy can absorb the cost later?

What study can you point to?

What reasurrences do we have they they will comply?

 

[Texmaster]

<< Woah, where did you get one degree in 100,000 years? And do you know how many degrees it takes to launch the world into an ice age? >>



Heard it on NPR this morning.

If you have a different figure then lets hear it.

 

[GL]

Texmaster, read up on the Montreal Protocol.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Similar initiative have been implemented to combat CFC use and have worked. The American economy isn't in shambles and CFC use has dropped drastically. Stop looking at the nitty gritty details and look at the big picture. >>



CFCs didnt run cars, powerplants, heat homes and businesses.

You cant even begin to compare the impact to oil to CFCs.

Another important thing. CFC reform had an alternative. Oil has no alternative as of yet that can be implemented immediatly.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster, read up on the Montreal Protocol. >>



I'm sorry but I dont have time to read an entire site. Please point to what you are trying to address with this link.

 

[GL]

CFCs caused the hole in the ozone layer. They remain in the atmosphere for over a hundred years after their initial use wreaking havoc. They may not be used as much, but I think they had a worse overall impact on the environment. The hole in the ozone layer would have caused the extinction of ocean plankton - the very basis of the food chain.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster, I've explained the &quot;official&quot; reasoning behind why developing nations are exempt. >>



Yes but you fail to adress their own impact.

Saying down the road they will come around or we will force them isn't an answer.

If the enviroment was really your priority, these countries would not be exempt.

 

[Texmaster]

<< CFCs caused the hole in the ozone layer. They remain in the atmosphere for over a hundred years after their initial use wreaking havoc. They may not be used as much, but I think they had a worse overall impact on the environment. The hole in the ozone layer would have caused the extinction of ocean plankton - the very basis of the food chain. >>



I agree but we are not talking about CFCs.

 

[GL]

China follows suit to eliminate CFC useage
India follows suit to eliminate CFC useage

This, from the world bank, the one lending money to help with these iniatives.

 

[GL]

Might I add the Republicans were against the Montreal Protocol - they have gone on official record with their solution. They said if the ozone layer continued to deplete, we should all wear hats. When I get home I can give you the exact quote and reference. Too bad the plankton can't wear hats.

 

[GL]

<< If the enviroment was really your priority, these countries would not be exempt. >>


Like you, I think the economy AND the environment are priorities. You can't attend to one while neglecting the other. The Montreal Protocol shows that a balance can be achieved and individual national interests can be put aside while nobody really suffers.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< If the enviroment was really your priority, these countries would not be exempt. >>


Like you, I think the economy AND the environment are priorities. You can't attend to one while neglecting the other. The Montreal Protocol shows that a balance can be achieved and individual national interests can be put aside while nobody really suffers. >>



Since I dont know this proposal please enighten me.

 

[Nomerc]

Has anyone considered the burning and clear cutting of the our forest and Rain Forests throughout the world, has not only added to the problem but has made it a lot worse?
What removes most of the carbon dioxide in the air?
Just think, in just the time it has taken you have read this, how many trees have burned or been cut down.

I agree with GW on this.
As far as where Clinton/Gore had their heads when they approved this, I would say kissing China's A$$ as they did throughout the whole eight years they where in office.
But then again, they sold everything they could get away with, to China.


Good Post

 

[jonnyfin]

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

 

[Keribeth]

By one degree in over 100,000 years. And since we have only been around recording the temperature changes for about 300 years, how can you expect us to know why its changing?

Observations collected over the last century suggest that the average land surface temperature has risen 0.45-0.6°C (0.8-1.0°F) in the last century.

- Taken from the EPA website

 

[GL]

The Montreal Protocol was an international effort to eliminate the useage of CFCs. Industrialized nations were told to take a lead effort, while developing nations were given a 10 year grace period to follow suit (or probably face stiff sanctions, not sure). In any event, it was a large success. CFC useage has dropped thanks to the development of cheap alternatives and as you probably know, the hole in the ozone layer has stopped growing.

 

[GL]

BTW, the averaged world temperature is 15 degrees C. It takes a variation of a few degrees lower to cause an ice age (I believe the exact figure is 2-3 degrees although I'm not sure). So a one degree fluctuation in the average temperature means a lot. The whole point is the world can probably survive if the temperature increases (and likely has) - but subsequent human generations won't be able to.

 

[WordSmith2000]

<< 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? >>



Actually, I cannot agree that the number will be HUGE. All I have to do is point to the so-called &quot;experts&quot; that said the economy was going to crumble when the buggy whip manufacturers started to go out of business, due to the introduction of the automobile in America. Fact is, you, I, nor anyone else can reliably predict what will happen to our economy if we abided by the Kyoto accord. The job market shifts and moves to retain balance; you push it on this side and it moves that way.

Pollution lowers the quality of life for those who have to live in it. If you do not try to reduce pollution, you assist in making our environment less safe for us, and our children.

China and india are not included in this because, (military notwithstanding) they are third world countries that do not have the technological infrastructure to employ the changes stated in the accord. If you tell someone living in a tin shack that he has to reduce his greenouse gasses (because he is cooking roadkill on a wood stove), how is he going to comply?