Why the Kyoto treaty is a very very very bad idea

[desy]

My aritcle didn't give numbers you said so remember?
It said the were too many variables to predict.
Do you have a problem with the EIA? Which who provided the the study not Clinton.

No I don't want to punish America fool I LIVE in America, 80% of Canadas trade is with the US, NORTH AMERICAN ECONOMY is intrinsically linked.

400 billion is a drop in the bucket to a gov't alone that has trillion s of budget dollars, displaced workers? 200,000 out of 300,000,000 million hmmm seems like a pretty small fraction to me. Lets see we have IT companies laying off 10's of thousands. The only problem might be that it is goegraphically hard, tough like I said, in Agriculture we are going through the same thing.
Fortunatly we are the countries second largest oil and gas producer which helps offset.

Time frame
Lets see the EPA told the outboard motor industry they'd have to meet certain emmission standards by 2005, they already have by changing to 4 stroke and or direct fuel injection which has improve boat engine performance by 35 % TODAY, here, now.
See what can happen when push comes to shove?

Can I guarantee what will happen? no and neither can you predict.
I'd rather be proactive instead of reactive, sorry.
Kyoto isn't a panacea but it is addressing a problem, effective?
Who knows, certainly we can go forever debating.
Sounds like you buy into the fear of change.

 

[NesuD]

Seems to me that the Kyoto treaty is simply an attempt to gain economic and political power at the expense of the U.S. under the guise of saving the environment. I very seriously doubt if environmental concern was the primary motivator of the europeon and 3rd world authors of the treaty. Basically it would saddle us with huge drains on our economic resources and send many industries scurrying to china, india, and europe to set up shop with few restrictions. Looks like a classic power grab strategy to me.

 

[Keribeth]

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

This could explain your findings.

The most important aerosols are sulfates. Power plants that burn coal, as well as copper, lead, and zinc smelters, release sulfur dioxide, which reacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to form sulfates. Sulfates currently reflect enough light back into space to reduce the amount of energy striking the earth's surface by somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 watts per square meter. Unlike CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases, which remain in the atmosphere for decades or longer, most of the sulfates are removed by precipitation within a few weeks of being emitted. As a result, sulfates tend to be concentrated in the areas immediately downwind of major industrial areas.
-EPA

 

[desy]

Yah acid rain was BS too
Remember, Hmmm where did all the frogs and fish go?
They were here yesterday?

 

[rmeijer]

<<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.>>

By &quot;aggressively&quot; reducing emmissions I mean making sure that the world, as a whole, actually reduces emmissions in a tangible expeditious manner.... How much should we reduce emmissions by, in your opinion, and what would be the ideal time frame? If we can establish some goal that we agree on, then we can start discussing Kyoto.

As for India and China - that deals with the Kyoto protocol. We still need to establish whether you think the global commmunity should aggressively reduce emmissions or not.

 

[Eug]

<< 400 billion is a drop in the bucket to a gov't alone that has trillion s of budget dollars >>

I may agree with some of the things you say, but 400 billion is still a lot of money. There's a right to be concerned.

 

[Texmaster]

<< 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 >>



And before that?

 

[Tom]

Texmaster,
in response to your original post that started this topic,

Without regard to the merits of the treaty but rather a comment on your &quot;research&quot;..

when something disagrees with your premise you dismiss it as unproveable or unknowable but your main arguement against the treaty, namely the cost, is just as unproveable and unknowable but you accept speculation about the cost as fact because it supports your position.

In order to calculate the true cost you would need to look at ALL of the costs and ALL of the benefits, which would be almost impossible to do.

For instance, if, hypothetically, global warming is occurring and the measures proposed would prevent our extinction then what would you estimate as the cost of NOT implementing the treaty ?

 

[Sybz]

Although this doesn't add to the answer of Kyoto yes, Kyoto no, the following statements are addressed to how to discuss a certain topic. Saying: 'But this didn't give an answer to that specific part of my argument so your whole post sucks' is not the way to discuss a topic. State which arguments remain open or contain which flaw and say 'ok, good point' when you should. So don't say it IS flawed, but why. And 'numerous' studies doesn't say a thing, refer to them.

Besides, the following statement can easily be bounced back;



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



Well, you can't point to one study that CONCLUSIVELY says it won't work either, yet should we sacrifice our EARTH for a theory? (Estimated costs, still are estimates. We should compare benefits with costs to give a conclusive answer, not just ranting it COSTS or IT SAVES THE WORLD. Proper research considers both)
BTW I'm not pointing fingers or accusing anyone. Nor have I reached a conclusion yet on whether to support the treaty or not

 

[Texmaster]

<< 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. >>



Thats great. What we need now is a treaty that can accomplish the same thing with the same small impact to the economy.

What scares me about drastic costs is what they would mean.

Example, in California right now older and dirtier plants have had to be reactivated because of the demand for energy. California had to bypass its own enviromental laws to get new plants online and to reactivate older plants.

Now think if this was happening everywhere in the US.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< 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? >>



We can certainly p[redict it will cost Billions to implement. To me, thats HUGE.

And we can certainly predict that it will cost 100s of thousands of jobs which will damage the economy.

The problem with the Kyoto plan is that NO ONE, not only single person or group and conclusivly say it will help the greenhouse effect. Rememeber, animals emit far more greenhouse gas than humans and human prodcution.

And its not like America and others are not attacking pollution and looking for alternative fuels right now.

I am not slamming the door on a treaty but I am slamming the Kyoto Treaty in its current form.

As far as your China comment, you are talking about an individual. What about the Power plants in these countries? What about their pollution contributions? The majority of pollution comes from industry not individuals.

If you truely had the enviroment as center in your priority, you would not allow China and India to be exempt not matter what their economic plight.

And when would you enforce the laws against them?

How would you do it?

What guarantee do you have they will comply?

 

[desy]

Eug
Thats his numbers 400 Billion
Which I say is unsubstantiated look at US total GDP
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp101p.htm
we are talking Trillions of dollars

 

[Keribeth]

Before what? Like you said, there's no way to accurately obtain that info. That wasnt the point, however. The point is, you cant beleive everything you hear on the news. You asked for a different figure, I gave it to you.

 

[Eug]

<< Example, in California right now older and dirtier plants have had to be reactivated because of the demand for energy. California had to bypass its own enviromental laws to get new plants online and to reactivate older plants. >>

One of the reasons is because California, despite its so-called environmentalist leanings is still one of the highest energy users in all of the world, on a per capita basis. The fact that California is having so many problems should serve as a warning. Let's try to address this problem now - as it's already starting to get out of hand.

 

[Phokus]

<< I'd say the 2 most populus countries in the world being exempt and a 300-400 BILLION dollar price tag is hardly &quot;weak&quot; evidence. >>



Texmaster, you're a tool, do you honestly believe that countries like China produce more pollutants in the air than we do just because they're more populus than us?

Typical conservative logic.

I suppose all the bikes they ride in china are really producing toxic chemicals.

 

[Texmaster]

<< My aritcle didn't give numbers you said so remember?
It said the were too many variables to predict.
Do you have a problem with the EIA? Which who provided the the study not Clinton.

No I don't want to punish America fool I LIVE in America, 80% of Canadas trade is with the US, NORTH AMERICAN ECONOMY is intrinsically linked.

400 billion is a drop in the bucket to a gov't alone that has trillion s of budget dollars, displaced workers? 200,000 out of 300,000,000 million hmmm seems like a pretty small fraction to me. Lets see we have IT companies laying off 10's of thousands. The only problem might be that it is goegraphically hard, tough like I said, in Agriculture we are going through the same thing.
Fortunatly we are the countries second largest oil and gas producer which helps offset.

Time frame
Lets see the EPA told the outboard motor industry they'd have to meet certain emmission standards by 2005, they already have by changing to 4 stroke and or direct fuel injection which has improve boat engine performance by 35 % TODAY, here, now.
See what can happen when push comes to shove?

Can I guarantee what will happen? no and neither can you predict.
I'd rather be proactive instead of reactive, sorry.
Kyoto isn't a panacea but it is addressing a problem, effective?
Who knows, certainly we can go forever debating.
Sounds like you buy into the fear of change. >>



Lets not resort to name calling ok?

But to say 400 Billion is a drop in the hat is an extremely igorant statement.

Thats more than the yearly Budget of the Department of Energy, Education, and Defense COMBINED.

And even if its less, where would the money come from? Dont just say its there because its not. And if it is WHERE is it?

200,000-300,000 seems SMALL to you? What do you think a dump of that many workers back into unemployment would do to America?

What would it do to the busnisses who let them go?

How would the stock market react?

You really need to think this through. The impact would be ENORMOUS.

And your ship motor example is laughable.

First of all, we are not talking about an industry at the very least 10 times that size and 10 times the impact to everyday life. Look at what oil prices have done just in the last year? The economic growth is almost at a standstill and its not even 1/3 of the impact the Kyoto treaty would have.

To use an automobile analogy, you want to go 80 miles an hour in pitch black without knowing whats ahead and damaging your car in the process.

I want to drive the speed limit with my brights on so I know whats coming up.

The Kyoto Treaty is not the answer. There may be another but this is not it.

 

[Texmaster]

<< 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

This could explain your findings.

The most important aerosols are sulfates. Power plants that burn coal, as well as copper, lead, and zinc smelters, release sulfur dioxide, which reacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to form sulfates. Sulfates currently reflect enough light back into space to reduce the amount of energy striking the earth's surface by somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 watts per square meter. Unlike CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases, which remain in the atmosphere for decades or longer, most of the sulfates are removed by precipitation within a few weeks of being emitted. As a result, sulfates tend to be concentrated in the areas immediately downwind of major industrial areas.
-EPA >>



Actually that doesn't explain the findings because the temperature indicators are still almost 100 miles away from any industrial site so that would have very little impact.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Before what? Like you said, there's no way to accurately obtain that info. That wasnt the point, however. The point is, you cant beleive everything you hear on the news. You asked for a different figure, I gave it to you. >>



But you didnt disprove my findings. Like you said, there is no recorded research. The basis for the evidence I found was a study of rocks and climate over the past 100,000 years.

 

[Texmaster]

<< <<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.>>

By &quot;aggressively&quot; reducing emmissions I mean making sure that the world, as a whole, actually reduces emmissions in a tangible expeditious manner.... How much should we reduce emmissions by, in your opinion, and what would be the ideal time frame? If we can establish some goal that we agree on, then we can start discussing Kyoto.

As for India and China - that deals with the Kyoto protocol. We still need to establish whether you think the global commmunity should aggressively reduce emmissions or not. >>



To begin to reduce sure.

To agressivly reduce risking our ecomony on a theory no one can validiate? No.

As far as my personal goal, I dont know how much or how little would effect the economy. What I do know is that the Kyoto Treaty is far too agressive for a theory no one can conclusivly prove.

There is a way to ease us into better emissions. I think we are doing that now. The problem is we cant relate to Europe because their sheer landsize and populations are far more managable than ours.

we have to do it on our own or Europe needs to recignize we are far different from them.

If America and Europe agree to reduce emissions, it doens't mean much if the rest of the world is exempt.

 

[Keribeth]

To your fist post..I wasnt responding to your arguement. I could not find any reference anywhere to the distance away the temperature readings that someone else collected were from a metropolitan city. I was not arguing his findings, I just thought he would find it interesting.

To the second post, again, I am not trying to disprove you. You yourself did not do the research. Yousaid you eard it on the news and reiterated. Thats fine. You asked for a different number, it was given.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster,
in response to your original post that started this topic,

Without regard to the merits of the treaty but rather a comment on your &quot;research&quot;..

when something disagrees with your premise you dismiss it as unproveable or unknowable but your main arguement against the treaty, namely the cost, is just as unproveable and unknowable but you accept speculation about the cost as fact because it supports your position.

In order to calculate the true cost you would need to look at ALL of the costs and ALL of the benefits, which would be almost impossible to do.

For instance, if, hypothetically, global warming is occurring and the measures proposed would prevent our extinction then what would you estimate as the cost of NOT implementing the treaty ?

>>



Dont make assumptions. I will always question people who cant back up their theories. I conceeded the point earlier that there are different figures as to the cost but the cost reains large regarless and no one has given a place where all these Billions are going to come from.

Can you prove to me that the Kyoto Treaty will lower the greenhouse gasses?

Can you show me who wil pay to retrain all the workers who would be unemployed?

Its not unfair to ask these questions. Just because you dont have an answer for them and you cant back them up with any evidence, dont attack me because I asked the question.

Your theory is just that, a theory. No one can conclusivly back it up so the point is mute.

Can you prove this isn't Earth's natural cycle? No you can't.

You would rather dive into a treaty that exempt over 40% of the world, damages our economy greatly, puts Americans out of work, all for a theory you cant prove.

That is not an option.

 

[desy]

Sorry
But telling me I want to punish America is a elitist, self serving statement. Poor us, the world is against us, I am in the same boat these issues go beyond the borders of Texas.
Canada actually consumes 15% more energy per capita than does the States.
So far the only ones to come to the defense of this argument really is Texans really who do have the most proportinally to lose.
Again trouble with those numbers!
What happens to any population whose workers become unemployed?
Like always they retrain and move into different sectors. Been going on that way for a hundred yrs here.

The &quot;ship motor&quot; is not ships its all pleasure craft which the hunting fishing industry is greater than all other NA recreational activeties combined. It was used to point out that Mercury and Johnson and Honda and Yamaha were satisfied with the status quo because until pressure came from the yuppies who go to the lakes on the weekend and noticed the blue green sheen ruining their lakes finally put some pressure on an Industry that had been using 40 yr old technology.

http://www.maxpages.com/globalwarming/global_warming_facts_to_know
You might like this one it says CO2 isn't responsible at all!
Feel free to use it to debunk Kyoto.

 

[Texmaster]

&quot;Although this doesn't add to the answer of Kyoto yes, Kyoto no, the following statements are addressed to how to discuss a certain topic. Saying: 'But this didn't give an answer to that specific part of my argument so your whole post sucks' is not the way to discuss a topic. State which arguments remain open or contain which flaw and say 'ok, good point' when you should. So don't say it IS flawed, but why. And 'numerous' studies doesn't say a thing, refer to them.&quot;


Dont make Ignorant and Misleading statments. I specifically asked people to back up their arguments as I have. That is how to discuss a certain topic.


&quot;Besides, the following statement can easily be bounced back;



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



Well, you can't point to one study that CONCLUSIVELY says it won't work either, yet should we sacrifice our EARTH for a theory? (Estimated costs, still are estimates. We should compare benefits with costs to give a conclusive answer, not just ranting it COSTS or IT SAVES THE WORLD. Proper research considers both)
BTW I'm not pointing fingers or accusing anyone. Nor have I reached a conclusion yet on whether to support the treaty or not[/i] >>

&quot;&quot;


And you cant point to a study that says it will work!

Saves the world? What evidence do you have that the world is in Danger? The temperature is up a degree since we have been recording granted. But where is the evidence that its purly man made?

And where is the evidence that we can change it?

Did you know that ANIMALS not people or production puts out FAR more greenhouse gas? Should we kill all the animals too?

When I'm spending money and risking the economy and jobs, I want to know it will work, PERIOD. If I dont know for sure, I want more research. Thats not a unfair request.

Looking at your sig, if AMD or INTEL introduces a new chip but no one knows if it works, would you spend your money?

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< Example, in California right now older and dirtier plants have had to be reactivated because of the demand for energy. California had to bypass its own enviromental laws to get new plants online and to reactivate older plants. >>

One of the reasons is because California, despite its so-called environmentalist leanings is still one of the highest energy users in all of the world, on a per capita basis. The fact that California is having so many problems should serve as a warning. Let's try to address this problem now - as it's already starting to get out of hand. >>



We are addressing the problems right now.

But what we dont want to do is go so drastically in one direction, our economy is greatly damaged and many people loose their jobs.

There is a way out there is isn't extreme.

 

[Texmaster]

<< To your fist post..I wasnt responding to your arguement. I could not find any reference anywhere to the distance away the temperature readings that someone else collected were from a metropolitan city. I was not arguing his findings, I just thought he would find it interesting.

To the second post, again, I am not trying to disprove you. You yourself did not do the research. Yousaid you eard it on the news and reiterated. Thats fine. You asked for a different number, it was given. >>



Point taken, but the opinion doesn't go against what I heard so I fail to see why you brought it up, unless it was just FYI. And if it was, I thank you.