NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?

I guess the US should just hobble its economy and let the Chinese have unrestricted growth instead. Sounds like a plan! Remind me to learn Chinese.

Ask Russia and China the same. Now go away troll.

Kyoto agreement...details please.

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?


Well.... yea that was the position the administration took, so doesn't that answer your question.

I guess the US should just hobble its economy and let the Chinese have unrestricted growth instead. Sounds like a plan! Remind me to learn Chinese.

Are you plain blind?

China is going to overtake you anyway, it has already overtaken you in the field of Foreign Investment. Face up to the fact you will not be the sole superpower in the near future.

People may call me a 'commie pinko' by the fact basically every scientist in the World is saying this is the biggest danger to human kind kind of makes me think the World should show some solidarity in combatting it?

Ahh forget it. Americans are stupid ignorant morons.

We're still the only Superpower in the world, for now at least. You don't like it, tough, go cry to Kim Jong or Muammar Khadafi... Maybe they'll join your "I hate the USA" club.

Are you plain blind?

Considering we're reading and responding to what you type.... I'm going to go with no.

China is going to overtake you anywayp

They used to say the same thing about Japan back in the 80's, it remains to be seen who will overtake us (personally, I'm hoping for India).

it has already overtaken you in the field of Foreign Investment.

Probably becuase their economy has room to grow and is not quite at the advanced stage the American one is at, hence the need for more foreign investment.

Face up to the fact you will not be the sole superpower in the near future.

We could be the sole superpower for the next 3 centuries for all we know, everyone accepts we won't be the sole superpower forever, but we really can't say when we will be superceded.

People may call me a 'commie pinko' by the fact basically every scientist in the World is saying this is the biggest danger to human kind kind of makes me think the World should show some solidarity in combatting it?

The problem being not everyone is sure how to combat it, some people just think "it's far away, no concern to me", and some people don't even believe it. You see, in most of Europe and America, we don't say, You do this or you will be tossed aside, we have to come to an agreement (Which for America, happens about every 4 years).

Ahh forget it. Americans are stupid ignorant morons.

Considering your actions and posts in other threads, your accusations don't carry much weight. Would you like to debate me on geography or history? I gaurantee you I will run circles around you.

We're still the only Superpower in the world, for now at least. You don't like it, tough, go cry to Kim Jong or Muammar Khadafi... Maybe they'll join your "I hate the USA" club.


:rolleyes: oh goody...it's CM........ *sighs* I'll refrain from commenting, except to say... giving a damn about the environment isn't anti-american, it's anti-big-corporation... Meh; it doesn't mean we hate the US, even if some of us already do...

Are you plain blind?

China is going to overtake you anyway, it has already overtaken you in the field of Foreign Investment. Face up to the fact you will not be the sole superpower in the near future.

People may call me a 'commie pinko' by the fact basically every scientist in the World is saying this is the biggest danger to human kind kind of makes me think the World should show some solidarity in combatting it?

Ahh forget it. Americans are stupid ignorant morons.

Actually, you bring up an interesting point. The fact is, I am hoping to someday become a Foreign Service Officer in the US State Department, and I've always been of the opinion that China is going to become the most important world power in the near future. So, I was actually planning on learning Chinese anyway. However, it makes no sense for one country which is the rival to another to sabotage itself in its efforts to stave off the supremacy of its rival. Just because I accept Chinese supremacy as an inevitability does not mean that I should not seek to forestall it for as long as possible. Extra time=more opportunities to develop options which might improve the end-game situation for the US. You have to look not just at our current situation and the situation that we expect in the future, you must also look at how we expect to get from point A to point B in the most advantageous fashion.

Please do not generalize and say Americans are dumb. There are still many of us who are just as intellegent as the rest of the world and wish the government would snap out of it and do a good job.

Are you plain blind?

China is going to overtake you anyway, it has already overtaken you in the field of Foreign Investment. Face up to the fact you will not be the sole superpower in the near future.

People may call me a 'commie pinko' by the fact basically every scientist in the World is saying this is the biggest danger to human kind kind of makes me think the World should show some solidarity in combatting it?

Ahh forget it. Americans are stupid ignorant morons.


America is still #1 in foreign investment. Get your facts straight.


1 United States $ 1,260,000,000,000
2 Germany $ 585,000,000,000
3 China $ 397,400,000,000
4 United Kingdom $ 363,600,000,000
5 Japan $ 346,600,000,000
6 France $ 339,900,000,000
7 Italy $ 271,100,000,000
8 Canada $ 240,400,000,000
9 Hong Kong $ 230,300,000,000

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2087rank.html

America is still #1 in foreign investment. Get your facts straight.


1 United States $ 1,260,000,000,000
2 Germany $ 585,000,000,000
3 China $ 397,400,000,000
4 United Kingdom $ 363,600,000,000
5 Japan $ 346,600,000,000
6 France $ 339,900,000,000
7 Italy $ 271,100,000,000
8 Canada $ 240,400,000,000
9 Hong Kong $ 230,300,000,000

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2087rank.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-06-28-investment_x.htm

*Yawns* Didn't I tell you to get back to your trailer?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-06-28-investment_x.htm

*Yawns* Didn't I tell you to get back to your trailer?


I still fail to see how this proves anything.

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?

AH, what alarmism! Sir, I think you overstate the importance of the human race in Earth's affairs. Earth will be just fine. It's more than capable of repairing any damage humans may deal to it. The only future we ought to concern ourselves is with ours when we render Earth unwilling to support human life anymore.

I'm sure Earth will be ready, willing and able to begin again with the ants.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-06-28-investment_x.htm

*Yawns* Didn't I tell you to get back to your trailer?


Stop the flaming and act with some class.

BTW, Those numbers are way off of real investment numbers.

America is still #1 in foreign investment. Get your facts straight.


1 United States $ 1,260,000,000,000
2 Germany $ 585,000,000,000
3 China $ 397,400,000,000
4 United Kingdom $ 363,600,000,000
5 Japan $ 346,600,000,000
6 France $ 339,900,000,000
7 Italy $ 271,100,000,000
8 Canada $ 240,400,000,000
9 Hong Kong $ 230,300,000,000

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2087rank.html

Hah sumones a moron!
and its not the wiccan : )

Why do we need kyoto to do good in the environment?
Shit last time i checked we were making hybrid, battery powered cars, and as our economy expands, so will our nature loving things we do.

AH, what alarmism! Sir, I think you overstate the importance of the human race in Earth's affairs. Earth will be just fine. It's more than capable of repairing any damage humans may deal to it. The only future we ought to concern ourselves is with ours when we render Earth unwilling to support human life anymore.

I'm sure Earth will be ready, willing and able to begin again with the ants.

Look, from what pretty much every well respected scientist has said, Climate Change is the greatest danger facing this planet. We need to deal with it, its vastly more important than whether Mr. $$$ Gets an extra $1,000,000 on top of his pay package this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-06-28-investment_x.htm

*Yawns* Didn't I tell you to get back to your trailer?

I'm afraid you misunderstood the numbers that website provided, or maybe you were arguing a different point than I thought. Those numbers detaile the amount of investment that a nation RECEIVED from international sources, not how much investment that country invested in other countries. The US still leads by far in the amount of money that it invests worldwide, but it is only natural that China should surpass the US in investment received from outside sources, since China is a developing nation while the US is a developed one. China is therefore a far better market for foreign investment because it has far more opportunities. An economy as strong and vibrant as the US's is also strong enough to stave off many foreign investors due to domestic competition. China has no such domestic markets to discourage investment, and so reaps the "benefits" of being an under-developed country.

Notice this quote form the article:
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said the United States was the worst hit by falling inflows of foreign direct investment to its 30 industrialized member countries.

this demonstrates that the phenomenon of diminished investment by foreign countries is not limited to the US, but is representative of a greater trend among all industrialized countries.

And cut the crap with the trailer comments, they ought to be beneath you.

Just so I get this straight, your convinced the US is going down the tubes in terms of world power, but you also believe the US is going to destroy the planet. Now, since you see China as rising to overcome the US (which is what I'm assuming you dragged out the investment numbers for), shouldn't you be pressing China, since they will be the next superpower, and by connection, have the largest economy (and probably most polluting), afaik, they haven't signed Kyoto either.

Hah sumones a moron!
and its not the wiccan : )

Why do we need kyoto to do good in the environment?
Shit last time i checked we were making hybrid, battery powered cars, and as our economy expands, so will our nature loving things we do.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-06-28-investment_x.htm

And you also account for more greenhouse gasses and energy wastage than all of the World.

AH, what alarmism! Sir, I think you overstate the importance of the human race in Earth's affairs. Earth will be just fine. It's more than capable of repairing any damage humans may deal to it. The only future we ought to concern ourselves is with ours when we render Earth unwilling to support human life anymore.

I'm sure Earth will be ready, willing and able to begin again with the ants.

That reminds me, I need to learn Antish as well as Chinese.

Just so I get this straight, your convinced the US is going down the tubes in terms of world power, but you also believe the US is going to destroy the planet. Now, since you see China as rising to overcome the US (which is what I'm assuming you dragged out the investment numbers for), shouldn't you be pressing China, since they will be the next superpower, and by connection, have the largest economy (and probably most polluting), afaik, they haven't signed Kyoto either.

China doesn't account for as much greenhouse gas emmissions or energy wastage. And its much more populated than the US. I know you want to justify the unjusifable (failure to sign Kyoto) - but if you are only going to learn by mistakes, this is going to be a pretty big mistake to make.

ok those are two different charts. One lists the amount of imports and the other lists the amount of foriegn investments based in one organization as far as I can tell. And since im not familar with the organization mentioned I can't really say what they consider to be foreign investsment and whats not considered.

Now the amount of exports for the United States is about 700 billion dollars. Which is a slight decrease in years past but the United States is also coming out of a recession.

ok those are two different charts. One lists the amount of imports and the other lists the amount of foriegn investments based in one organization as far as I can tell. And since im not familar with the organization mentioned I can't really say what they consider to be foreign investsment and whats not considered.

Now the amount of exports for the United States is about 700 billion dollars. Which is a slight decrease in years past but the United States is also coming out of a recession.

Foreign Investment = The amount Corporations spend in a certain country (how many bases they have e.t.c).

China doesn't account for as much greenhouse gas emmissions or energy wastage. And its much more populated than the US. I know you want to justify the unjusifable (failure to sign Kyoto) - but if you are only going to learn by mistakes, this is going to be a pretty big mistake to make.

Ah yes Kyoto would of crippled the American economy forcing unnecessary regulations on already regualted industries. Kyoto itself was a complete and utter failure considering that the Japanese who proposed the treaty refused to ratify it.

China doesn't account for as much greenhouse gas emmissions or energy wastage. And its much more populated than the US. I know you want to justify the unjusifable (failure to sign Kyoto) - but if you are only going to learn by mistakes, this is going to be a pretty big mistake to make.

It isn't more powerful than the US at the moment either, but you said it's going to overtake the US, so what I'm saying is, since they will be overtaking the US (and by connection, presumably in energy wastage and greenhouse gasses), shouldn't you be going after them as well, since if the US is in decline, and global warming could take centuries to set in, they will be the big polluter in the future?

Look, from what pretty much every well respected scientist has said, Climate Change is the greatest danger facing this planet.

Not to disagree with my fellow eminent scientists, but I think what they mean(in their human-centrism) is that Climat Change is the greatest danger facing humanity. Earth will be just fine after we're gone. :D

Beats me. As an American, I don't like it one bit. Frankly, I think the powers that be in America, namely the CEOs, their shareholders, and the politicans in their pockets (henceforth known as "The Man") are just stupid greedy soulless bastards, so they feed us a bunch of misinformation so we think Kyoto's a bad idea 'cause it will hurt the economy. Personally, I'd like to see them run an economy when the oil runs out.

Of course, there are other sources of information. What's more, people don't bother to look at it. Other than the strife inflicted on this planet by The Man, my conclusion is that America, as a whole, suffers from a severe lethargy of the intellect, which I'm sure will be our downfall as a civilization.

Ah yes Kyoto would of crippled the American economy forcing unnecessary regulations on already regualted industries. Kyoto itself was a complete and utter failure considering that the Japanese who proposed the treaty refused to ratify it.


Checkmate! You win.

That reminds me, I need to learn Antish as well as Chinese.

I stopped burning them with magnifying glases almost twenty years ago. I sure hope they don't have long memories. :eek:

China doesn't account for as much greenhouse gas emmissions or energy wastage. And its much more populated than the US. I know you want to justify the unjusifable (failure to sign Kyoto) - but if you are only going to learn by mistakes, this is going to be a pretty big mistake to make.


Honestly either way its not that important to me.
We can definately make changes to the way we treat our environment, but then everyones gas will be much more expensive, cars will be more expensive, and the poor people? will have to ride bikes because they wont be able to afford any of the new technology.
get my point?
getting the US to be better with the environment is progressive. Its not smart to start on such a thing when were in the middle of a recession, lest you wanna talk about our 600 billion dollar deficits instead. Lest you wanna talk about how expensive gas is. Not to mention electricity, or anything that would have to deal with increased costs, which would be passed directly to the consumer.

I agree our environment is extremely important because its where we live.
But we are only killing ourselves not the earth.

Foreign Investment = The amount Corporations spend in a certain country (how many bases they have e.t.c).

It can also mean how much of that country's companies have invested in foreign nations, which is a far better measure of a nation's economy, since it represents how much that country is investing in other countries, which would presume that that country has enough to flow outwards.

It isn't more powerful than the US at the moment either, but you said it's going to overtake the US, so what I'm saying is, since they will be overtaking the US (and by connection, presumably in energy wastage and greenhouse gasses), shouldn't you be going after them as well, since if the US is in decline, and global warming could take centuries to set in, they will be the big polluter in the future?

Thats all hypothetical, I'm talking about the facts at the moment. Osama put it brilliantly:

You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.

I stopped burning them with magnifying glases almost twenty years ago. I sure hope they don't have long memories. :eek:


You think thats bad?

Imagine all the black jelly beans that nobody eats.....well, they're going to revolt against us for eating thier brethren.

I stopped burning them with magnifying glases almost twenty years ago. I sure hope they don't have long memories. :eek:

Luckily I killed all the witnesses of my own little ant experiments (lets just say that they involved, among other things, a great deal of soap, water, and free time). I just hope that they remember that time when I fed the hive a dead caterpillar. They owe me one.

You think thats bad?

Imagine all the black jelly beans that nobody eats.....well, they're going to revolt against us for eating thier brethren.

what exactly is the flavor of the black jelly beans?

Thats all hypothetical, I'm talking about the facts at the moment. Osama put it brilliantly:

You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.




Quoteing Osama is not a good thing. Anyway China,Russia and Japan all have not signed it, So attack them or just shut your uninformed mouth!

It can also mean how much of that country's companies have invested in foreign nations, which is a far better measure of a nation's economy, since it represents how much that country is investing in other countries, which would presume that that country has enough to flow outwards.

True, but you have to face the facts someday - China has limitless potential with its populations and as its economy is growing, so they are taking advantage of this. However, as you are patriotic enough to feel racist - Your views are understandable.

Thats all hypothetical, I'm talking about the facts at the moment. Osama put it brilliantly:

You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.


yeah the industries and companies that fuel the entire world economy.
Lets think of the consequences without these companies?
increased debt, well actually, no money.
no jobs.
no advancement.
Pollution.
No money.
No rich.
all poor
no airplanes, internet, etc......

If you put restrictions which could bankrupt entire corporations, then your digging your own grave.

And like i care what osama bin laden says.
Hes the biggest traitor, liar there is.

True, but you have to face the facts someday - China has limitless potential with its populations and as its economy is growing, so they are taking advantage of this. However, as you are patriotic enough to feel racist - Your views are understandable.


Why are you so hate filled?

Quoteing Osama is not a good thing. Anyway China,Russia and Japan all have not signed it, So attack them or just shut your uninformed mouth!

Erm they have all signed it.

http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

yeah the industries and companies that fuel the entire world economy.
Lets think of the consequences without these companies?
increased debt, well actually, no money.
no jobs.
no advancement.
Pollution.
No money.
No rich.
all poor
no airplanes, internet, etc......

If you put restrictions which could bankrupt entire corporations, then your digging your own grave.

And like i care what osama bin laden says.
Hes the biggest traitor, liar there is.

You dramatise too much. The other nations who have signed it are not experiencing the things you are talking about. And Osama Owns America. Period. And you are one of the most deregulated markets in the World - And look at the abuse of Workers Rights, Consumer Rights and The Environment that comes as a result.

True, but you have to face the facts someday - China has limitless potential with its populations and as its economy is growing,

Limitless potential? They are facing major population problems, if you don't already know, most of China's billion + population is squeezed onto the coastal areas, it also provides big problems for the economy, since it doesn't leave much room for industry. As for it's economy, all economies grow, just like Japan's did in the 80's, it doesn't mean it will continue to grow.

so they are taking advantage of this. However, as you are patriotic enough to feel racist - Your views are understandable.

Again, I wonder how you read my mind oh so well, exactly what have I said that would be considered racist, I swear, you are making stuff up and inserting them into my post's with your own eyes.

Limitless potential? They are facing major population problems, if you don't already know, most of China's billion + population is squeezed onto the coastal areas, it also provides big problems for the economy, since it doesn't leave much room for industry. As for it's economy, all economies grow, just like Japan's did in the 80's, it doesn't mean it will continue to grow.

We shall see, I know you would like the US to remain to current unbalanced superpower that it is - and thus continue its role as the primary terrorist state in the World, but other nations are arising.

True, but you have to face the facts someday - China has limitless potential with its populations and as its economy is growing, so they are taking advantage of this. However, as you are patriotic enough to feel racist - Your views are understandable.

This is bizarre. First of all, no country on Earth has limitless potential, and although China, due to its population, has certain advantages, it also suffers from many handicaps due to its government, foreign policy, and lack of certain significant natural resources (for a look at a country that has great reserves of natural resources but a horrible population problem, ie decreasing, look at Russia). Although I accept it as extremely likely that China will become the world's most powerful nation, I do not accept that the US ought to allow them to become world hegemon. I will fight this outcome for as long as I am able, not because I hate China or even because I dislike them, because both are false, but because it is not in my own interest or in the interests of my country to allow it to happen unopposed.

Secondly, where did this racist accusation come from? Nothing Sword and Shield has said has caused me to believe him to be racist, especially towards China. Your allegation has no merit and no basis in reason. Explain for it or apologize.

Calm down. You're upsetting the ants.

Ok of the countries that have actually Ratified it and not said "sure we like this but we got to think about actually doing it" Only 3 nations would be considered modern nations and actual powers.3 out of 8 nations actually have an effect on the economy in a macroregional setting. They don't have an effect in a global setting.

The rest of the nations havent ratified the treaty or are not even worth mentioning on the global stage.

what exactly is the flavor of the black jelly beans?


Anus.

Thats why no one likes them.

We shall see, I know you would like the US to remain to current unbalanced superpower that it is - and thus continue its role as the primary terrorist state in the World, but other nations are arising.


You are the one supporting Terrorism, Not us.


*Ignored*

We shall see, I know you would like the US to remain to current unbalanced superpower that it is - and thus continue its role as the primary terrorist state in the World, but other nations are arising.

Ah, I forgot your amazing psychic abilities. What makes you think I want the US to remain the only superpower, in fact, I wish there was another superpower around, I miss the days of the Cold War, then at least the Administration might have to consider other people's thoughts on the idea.

You are the one supporting Terrorism, Not us.


*Ignored*

Really?

Supporting of criminal regimes seems to come as first nature to Americans.

Nicaragua (Somoza and Contra Terrorists), Saudi Arabia, Morocco, The KLA e.t.c.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that developing nations, like China, are not bound to limiting their emissions like developed countries. I only bring this up because someone noted that China signed the treaty. The treaty is essentially meaningless to China, so signing was only an attempt to diplomatically embarass the US and other developed nations.

Limitless potential? They are facing major population problems, if you don't already know, most of China's billion + population is squeezed onto the coastal areas, it also provides big problems for the economy, since it doesn't leave much room for industry. As for it's economy, all economies grow, just like Japan's did in the 80's, it doesn't mean it will continue to grow.



Again, I wonder how you read my mind oh so well, exactly what have I said that would be considered racist, I swear, you are making stuff up and inserting them into my post's with your own eyes.


Japan's economy is going into a tailspin that they are going to have a hard time pulling out of. They are suffering from massive overpopulation and in 20 years they will be suffering from underpopulation(because of decreased birth rates)., there country is starting to lose there worth ethic alot of young japanese just dont want to work. A good portion of there corporations are surviving only because of government subsizidies. And in the 1980s they were considered unstoppable during the market upturn.

No one seems to realize that the market fluculates it doesnt keep going up eventually it hits a wall and you have a downfall.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that developing nations, like China, are not bound to limiting their emissions like developed countries. I only bring this up because someone noted that China signed the treaty. The treaty is essentially meaningless to China, so signing was only an attempt to diplomatically embarass the US and other developed nations.


China has weaker regulations than the US does.

China has weaker regulations than the US does.

In China about 40% of there rivers are poisonious due to the amount of pollutiants in them.

Japan's economy is going into a tailspin that they are going to have a hard time pulling out of. They are suffering from massive overpopulation and in 20 years they will be suffering from underpopulation(because of decreased birth rates)., there country is starting to lose there worth ethic alot of young japanese just dont want to work. A good portion of there corporations are surviving only because of government subsizidies. And in the 1980s they were considered unstoppable during the market upturn.

No one seems to realize that the market fluculates it doesnt keep going up eventually it hits a wall and you have a downfall.

That was what I was trying to point out by using 80's Japan as an example. Though your research points it out in detail I couldn't write down.

In China about 40% of there rivers are poisonious due to the amount of pollutiants in them.


And people hate America. :rolleyes:

The points that people have made about China beig essentially limited and perhaps ripe for a downfall are all valid. However, it is my assessment, as well as the assessment of a great many people, that China is currently "undervalued" on the world market. When China catches up with its potential, it will probably be the world's most powerful nation. How long it can remain so is open to interpretation and may be decided by the actions that the US and other nations take before China achieves its goal.

Really?

Supporting of criminal regimes seems to come as first nature to Americans.

Nicaragua (Somoza and Contra Terrorists), Saudi Arabia, Morocco, The KLA e.t.c.

I ask you once again. Please refrain from making such general remarks about Americans. I would have no problem if you were to specify the American government, but you're picking on the people as well.

The points that people have made about China beig essentially limited and perhaps ripe for a downfall are all valid. However, it is my assessment, as well as the assessment of a great many people, that China is currently "undervalued" on the world market. When China catches up with its potential, it will probably be the world's most powerful nation. How long it can remain so is open to interpretation and may be decided by the actions that the US and other nations take before China achieves its goal.


China is overpopulated and is dependent on other nations for energy, It will fall before it gets up.

I ask you once again. Please refrain from making such general remarks about Americans. I would have no problem if you were to specify the American government, but you're picking on the people as well.


Don't feed the trolls.

The points that people have made about China beig essentially limited and perhaps ripe for a downfall are all valid. However, it is my assessment, as well as the assessment of a great many people, that China is currently "undervalued" on the world market. When China catches up with its potential, it will probably be the world's most powerful nation. How long it can remain so is open to interpretation and may be decided by the actions that the US and other nations take before China achieves its goal.

Basically China's economic power is based on a few factors.

1. the Global market at large. Also a change in chinas economic policy on producing unlicensed copies of patented products.
2. There Foreign policy, if they step on to many toes they're toast. Hell they don't want NK developing nukes because that brings unnecessary attention to the region
3. Population control, there growth rate was out of control for years and has forced them to import food to survive.
4. An open revolt against the communist government would cause there entire system to collapse.
5. Hyperinflation in overseas market. This is a distinct possibility. Many theorists predict that in 5 years hyperinflation will make all these outsourced jobs highly expensive to run overseas.

An example is in India the price of the average apartment was risen to nearly double what it was in the big outsourcing towns. In 5 years an apartment in those places will be close to what it is in a major american city due to massive migration. It will become economically unfeasible for corporations to base there support in India where if they based there customer support say somewhere in Alabama they would be able to run it at lower cost.

China is overpopulated and is dependent on other nations for energy, It will fall before it gets up.

The problem is that most (I would almost go so far as to say all, but Russia and a few others would make the case against that) are very dependent on other nations for energy, so this is not a China-specific problem. That is why China and many other industrialized nations have been content to sit back while the US guarantees the world's energy supply, since it can only exhaust the US in the long-run, to the benefit of the other countries. As for the issue of overpopulation: India is far more overpopulated, and even if you consider the possibility that China may decrease in population over the next few years, it will still be one of the world's most populous nations, with a large enough labor pool to accomodate massive production abilities once it has adequately industrialized. Also consider that China has been very successful in implimenting its population control measures, and therefore seems to have the problem under some measure of control.

The problem is that most (I would almost go so far as to say all, but Russia and a few others would make the case against that) are very dependent on other nations for energy, so this is not a China-specific problem. That is why China and many other industrialized nations have been content to sit back while the US guarantees the world's energy supply, since it can only exhaust the US in the long-run, to the benefit of the other countries. As for the issue of overpopulation: India is far more overpopulated, and even if you consider the possibility that China may decrease in population over the next few years, it will still be one of the world's most populous nations, with a large enough labor pool to accomodate massive production abilities once it has adequately industrialized. Also consider that China has been very successful in implimenting its population control measures, and therefore seems to have the problem under some measure of control.

The problem with the Chinese population control methods is that it goes against Chinese culture. In Chinese culture the more children in the family the more honor brought to the family. So telling them they you can only have 1 child conflicts with a 3 thousand year old culture.

The problem with the Chinese population control methods is that it goes against Chinese culture. In Chinese culture the more children in the family the more honor brought to the family. So telling them they you can only have 1 child conflicts with a 3 thousand year old culture.

Even worse, the predilection of boys over girls has led to a situation that in ten to fifteen years, the difference in males vs. females will generate over 2,000,000 unmarriable males. That's a lot more serious than it sounds. *nods* Wars get started over that kind of stuff.

Basically China's economic power is based on a few factors.

1. the Global market at large. Also a change in chinas economic policy on producing unlicensed copies of patented products.
2. There Foreign policy, if they step on to many toes they're toast. Hell they don't want NK developing nukes because that brings unnecessary attention to the region
3. Population control, there growth rate was out of control for years and has forced them to import food to survive.
4. An open revolt against the communist government would cause there entire system to collapse.
5. Hyperinflation in overseas market. This is a distinct possibility. Many theorists predict that in 5 years hyperinflation will make all these outsourced jobs highly expensive to run overseas.

An example is in India the price of the average apartment was risen to nearly double what it was in the big outsourcing towns. In 5 years an apartment in those places will be close to what it is in a major american city due to massive migration. It will become economically unfeasible for corporations to base there support in India where if they based there customer support say somewhere in Alabama they would be able to run it at lower cost.


1. I think I just addressed China's economic issues, although not at all in depth. As for software piracy and brand-name knockoffs, these are more of a threat to developed nations than a negative aspect of the Chinese economy. The Chinese, as it stands right now, make a great deal of money by pirating materials and selling them to other nations in Asia and Africa.

2. While China needs to be careful as long as the US is as powerful as it is, and should be wary of a unified Europe, it faces surprisingly few international threats, as China is already economically, militarily, and politically powerful enough to force likely adversaries to avoid conflict with them except on certain issues like Taiwan, for example.

3. Already addressed, although I should emphasize that while its population-control measures have had some success, they have not been as successful yet as they need to be, and this is going to be one of the problems that an economically growing China is going to have to resolve.

4. Aside from Tiannemen Square (apologies if I mispelled, but I am lazy and didn't take the time to look it up), the Chinese people have shown surprisingly little initiative to openly criticize their government, due to either intimidation, cultural respect for elders, or the belief that change can and will happen gradually. Domestic unrest, except in Muslim areas and parts of Tibet, are rare enough that they are not a significant threat unless they become unified.

5. As China becomes more industrialized it will face this problem, but as it represents the transition from developing status to developed status it is more an indication of success than a permanent obstacle. While short-term economic downturn can be expected, I suspect that the Chinese economy will recover and reach an equilibrium between cheap labor and high-tech workers.

Let's keep the flaming out of this, shall we?

Huh? Flaming? I thought we were finally having an intelligent discussion.

We could be the sole superpower for the next 3 centuries for all we know, everyone accepts we won't be the sole superpower forever, but we really can't say when we will be superceded.

Three centuries? No, i suspect you will be challenged within twenty and gone within thirty.

You see for a superpower to remain it must be generally tolerated and benefit most others. The Roman Empire was initially hailed as civilised and many nations in part welcomed them and their modern ways. Likewise the British Empire, the two only fell when

a) The gap in military ability narrowed.

b) The superpower fought amongst itself.

c) People no longer saw the benefit of such a system.

Romans, it was mostly B and C.

British, it was mostly A and partly C.

USA, it is currently A, B and C.


>The difference between a redcoat rifle and a native spear is far wider than that between the M16 and AK47.

>The people of the USA seem unable to becide on their position in the world, many are for intervention, many are againt, many are for helping the world, many more are for helping themselves. There was no such debate about the justification of Empire till near the end for either British or Romans.

>The Romans brought architecture, plumbing, government and sewerage. The British brought industry, infrastructure and protection. The USA brings independence, MacDonald's and 'collateral damage'.

---also---

>Subjects of Roman superpower eventually broke away but happily kept the culture, architecture, theatre and government.

>Subjects of British superpower eventually broke away but thousands volunteered to fight in our armies for centuries, many still do.

>Subjects of USA superpower blow up GI's in the streets, wage partly-sucessful jihads and brew up tankies with RPG's.


I suspect that USA superpower is a little more limited than some of you think.

Regards,

TNE

Three centuries? No, i suspect you will be challenged within twenty and gone within thirty.

You see for a superpower to remain it must be generally tolerated and benefit most others. The Roman Empire was initially hailed as civilised and many nations in part welcomed them and their modern ways. Likewise the British Empire, the two only fell when

a) The gap in military ability narrowed.

b) The superpower fought amongst itself.

c) People no longer saw the benefit of such a system.

Romans, it was mostly B and C.

British, it was mostly A and partly C.

USA, it is currently A, B and C.


>The difference between a redcoat rifle and a native spear is far wider than that between the M16 and AK47.

>The people of the USA seem unable to becide on their position in the world, many are for intervention, many are againt, many are for helping the world, many more are for helping themselves. There was no such debate about the justification of Empire till near the end for either British or Romans.

>The Romans brought architecture, plumbing, government and sewerage. The British brought industry, infrastructure and protection. The USA brings independence, MacDonald's and 'collateral damage'.

---also---

>Subjects of Roman superpower eventually broke away but happily kept the culture, architecture, theatre and government.

>Subjects of British superpower eventually broke away but thousands volunteered to fight in our armies for centuries, many still do.

>Subjects of USA superpower blow up GI's in the streets, wage partly-sucessful jihads and brew up tankies with RPG's.


I suspect that USA superpower is a little more limited than some of you think.

Regards,

TNE

You make an excellent point.

However you must understand some here are far too blinded by patriotism to understand that America's reign as the 'hyperpower' of the World, is not going to last much longer. Patriotism, you see, basically means closing your eyes and blocking your ears.

>The Romans brought architecture, plumbing, government and sewerage. The British brought industry, infrastructure and protection. The USA brings independence, MacDonald's and 'collateral damage'.


The lightbulb, The Internet(which you're using right now), the home computer(which you're using it on), television, and fake vomit. All invented by AMericans. :)

Three centuries? No, i suspect you will be challenged within twenty and gone within thirty.

Regards,

TNE

Meh... Never wanted to grow old anyway. But beyond the China Hijacking.

I'm hoping that the US will be at the beginnings of a steady change to a hydrogen-based economy come 2015. Most of the money for the research into hydrogen power (sadly) is excess from mainly oil company earnings (because it's gonna happen eventually, might as well do it themselves) combined with automotive (Ford motor company comes to mind with vehicle tests this year in certain major US cities) and some few and far between government grants. It's my firm belief that the without this marginal economical excess, this research into a more or less permanent solution would have to be put on the backburner.

Certainly the mad scramble to save corporate tails, the huge amounts of job lossess in all ranks of pay, ect would not exactly lead to a favorable climate for this important (in my mind at least) but otherwise secondary research.

I think the move could be sooner, we have the technology...we can rebuild our economy. It will be faster, cleaner, and in all ways more self-reliant than it was before....if only our congressmen would listen to people like me dangit. :p

Heck, then we could even go back to being isolationist again!

I'm sure the rest of the world likes that idea, we should do it for the sake of the world. All exports and imports end in 2050. ;)

Wiccan Witch, how do you reconcile being a Wiccan (and the worship of natural forces that entails) with being against protecting those same natural forces? Read Starhawk.

Heck, then we could even go back to being isolationist again!

I'm sure the rest of the world likes that idea, we should do it for the sake of the world. All exports and imports end in 2050. ;)

If it is beneficial for New York to trade with Boston, why isn't it so for New York and London?

Isolationism is suicide; I like German beer....

Isolationism is suicide; I like German beer....

Oh I agree, I was just kidding around. While we'd be perfectly capable of making sacifices to cut ourselves away from the world as a whole if we were energy independant, It would be folly to do so. Not only for us, but (for example) the millions upon millions who recieve the food quickly rushing out of the huge 24/hr triple redundant grain elevators in our major port cities.

Isolation is a non-option. Europe has demonstrated this, heck, we have demonstrated it to ourselves. You do what you can then, and roll with the punches. Even if you have the best intentions your ideas could be hurtful, or taken as hurtful...and in a super power/representative democracy like this one, the results of your actions and your fellow's actions weight heavily on outsiders' views of all.

Comes with the territory. Ain't it grand? :p

Americans! Provide Justification for your failure to sign up for the Kyoto agreement

Hey, I wanted to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. Blame it on that f*cktard Bush for not attending the meeting!!!

have all the people who are whining about Kyoto actually taken a look at what the effect would be? It would hardly change anything temp. wise...

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?
Just to inform you of the facts. The US HAS signed the Kyoto Protocol, the problem is that Bush is reluctant to RATIFY it.

Bush has a better plan?

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?
Ah yes. Kyoto aka "Destroy the US".

I guess hysteria over something that isn't really happening and incorrect usage of statistics is more important than the facts to you, eh?

Kyoto will wreck the entire economy of the planet. It's crap. It should be junked.

Ah yes. Kyoto aka "Destroy the US".

I guess hysteria over something that isn't really happening and incorrect usage of statistics is more important than the facts to you, eh?

Kyoto will wreck the entire economy of the planet. It's crap. It should be junked.

hear hear

Haha, I was reading the name of the thread and could actually see you pointing you finger at some american screaming this at him/her...

Haha, I was reading the name of the thread and could actually see you pointing you finger at some american screaming this at him/her...

It was me, might as well have been. Just picture a short red-haired guy with medium build and odd olive splotches all over 'im.

:p

Why hasn't America (and Australia for that matter) ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Because it is a joke. A protocol that claims to try and reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions but only demands that certain nations comply while other nations are free to produce as much pollution as they like.
Assuming everyone signed and ratified the protocol what would happen? Industry in the US and Australia (for example) would have expensive restrictions placed on their operations to limit greenhouse gas outputs. Meanwhile, China is free to pump out as much as they like. The owners of industry in the US and Australia look at China and decide to close shop in these countries and relocate their production plants to China where they are free to pollute as much as they like. Net result? China's industry booms, US and Australian industry bottoms out and unemployment soars. To top it off, the free polluting industries in China are now pumping out more greenhouse gases than before the protocol was ratified.
That is why Kyoto Protocol is a joke and that is why the US and Australia would be insane to ratify it.

With all due respect, TNE, basing your analysis of American warfighting capability on a comparison between the M-16 and the AK-47 is not only shortsighted... it's intentionally skewed to reach the viewpoint you had already preselected.

Tourkos, if anyone here is closing their eyes and blocking their ears, it's been you. You have done nothing but flamebait and bash Americans this entire thread. It's one thing to disagree with us, but at least do it respectfully. Where I was raised, you have to earn respect by giving it where it is due. You, sir, have shown none as far as I have seen.

Why hasn't America (and Australia for that matter) ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Because it is a joke. A protocol that claims to try and reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions but only demands that certain nations comply while other nations are free to produce as much pollution as they like.
Assuming everyone signed and ratified the protocol what would happen? Industry in the US and Australia (for example) would have expensive restrictions placed on their operations to limit greenhouse gas outputs. Meanwhile, China is free to pump out as much as they like. The owners of industry in the US and Australia look at China and decide to close shop in these countries and relocate their production plants to China where they are free to pollute as much as they like. Net result? China's industry booms, US and Australian industry bottoms out and unemployment soars. To top it off, the free polluting industries in China are now pumping out more greenhouse gases than before the protocol was ratified.
That is why Kyoto Protocol is a joke and that is why the US and Australia would be insane to ratify it.Surely you can't be arguing that China's dictatorship consists of an argument of precedent?

Surely you can't be arguing that China's dictatorship consists of an argument of precedent?

What are you talking about? I was not saying anything about China other than using it as an example of a nation unrestricted by the Kyoto protocol. Therefore they would profit from the restriction placed upon industry in the US and Australia. The rest of what I said makes economic sense. The point being, what is the point of having a half-arsed protocol that can easily be sidestepped and cripples industry in some countries at the gain of others while not actually doing anything to achieve its initial goal?

What are you talking about? I was not saying anything about China other than using it as an example of a nation unrestricted by the Kyoto protocol. Therefore they would profit from the restriction placed upon industry in the US and Australia. The rest of what I said makes economic sense. The point being, what is the point of having a half-arsed protocol that can easily be sidestepped and cripples industry in some countries at the gain of others?The point is that I don't think you can use China as an example of a country not signing up. Surely you believe the western "democracys" should be held to higher standards then "communist" dictatorships"?

What are you talking about? I was not saying anything about China other than using it as an example of a nation unrestricted by the Kyoto protocol. Therefore they would profit from the restriction placed upon industry in the US and Australia. The rest of what I said makes economic sense. The point being, what is the point of having a half-arsed protocol that can easily be sidestepped and cripples industry in some countries at the gain of others?

Heh, welcome to Basic Attempted World Socialism 1101.

It ignores sovereignty, and redistributes wealth by utterly collapsing economies to the gain of others, all wrapped up in a nifty Pro-Enviroment wrapper.

Too bad there's other...less self-destructive ways of doing things. And thus I continue petitioning my congressman.

The point is that I don't think you can use China as an example of a country not signing up. Surely you believe the western "democracys" should be held to higher standards then "communist" dictatorships"?

I am not using China as an example of a nation that has not signed up. Re-read my initial post and you will see I was assuming EVERYONE had signed and ratified the protocol. China included. China, under the Kyoto Protocol, would not be restricted in their greenhouse gas output. That is the essence of the argument.

I am not using China as an example of a nation that has not signed up. Re-read my initial post and you will see I was assuming EVERYONE had signed and ratified the protocol. China included. China, under the Kyoto Protocol, would not be restricted in their greenhouse gas output. That is the essence of the argument.Oops, misread your point, sorry. (I can't get the smiley menu up so assume there's a blushing one here). Surely that could equally be used as an argument that Kyoto doesn't go far enough?

Too bad there's other...less self-destructive ways of doing things. And thus I continue petitioning my congressman.Name five.

For one...not all Americans agree with everything the government says. As for me, I agree with almost nothing they say. So if you could please stop bashing 'Americans' and start bashing the American government, that would be MUCH better.

For one...not all Americans agree with everything the government says. As for me, I agree with almost nothing they say. So if you could please stop bashing 'Americans' and start bashing the American government, that would be MUCH better.I agree. I certainly wouldn't take kindly to being held responsible for the policies of Thatcher.

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?

I don't agree with my goverment's failure to sign the Kyoto Accord.

Oops, misread your point, sorry. (I can't get the smiley menu up so assume there's a blushing one here). Surely that could equally be used as an argument that Kyoto doesn't go far enough?


Perhaps. In its present form it is flawed and as such the US and Australia would be crazy to sign it. One of many reasons is the fact that it will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions at all. It will simply change the countries which contribute most to greenhouse gas emission. What chance do you think there is of China agreeing to limit their emission to the same levels as were to be thrust upon the US and Australia under the current protocol?

I don't agree with my goverment's failure to sign the Kyoto Accord.

Then you obviously have not looked at the wording of the protocol and worked out its connotations for the US.

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?
Ask Bush. Citizens of the largest supposed democracy in the world don't get a say in jackshit.

What chance do you think there is of China agreeing to limit their emission to the same levels as were to be thrust upon the US and Australia under the current protocol?Under economic sanctions I think it's a distinct possibility.

Then you obviously have not looked at the wording of the protocol and worked out its connotations for the US.Or alternatively he/she has and still disagrees with you. Don't assume anyone who doesn't follow your opinion is either illinformed or stupid.

we have no NEED to sign anything. It it our FREEDOM to choose. I see NO REASON to justify.

I might as well stand up and say:

People of the UK! Provide Justification for your putting Mayo on your chips! (or for you americans, chips are frehch fries).

Ask Bush. Citizens of the largest supposed democracy in the world don't get a say in jackshit.

The Kyoto Protocol was rejected by the Clinton administration also.

Doh!

People of the UK! Provide Justification for your putting Mayo on your chips! (or for you americans, chips are frehch fries).


You forget! We are Americans and oddly enough have this problem with the French, that seems to be mutual.

Thus since we love our already moronically named french fries and have trouble givin' 'em up, we must idiotically rename them Freedom Fries. Thank you, thank you. :p

The Kyoto Protocol was rejected by the Clinton administration also.

Doh!
Well the US signed the Protocol in 1998. Clinton was in office then.

Well, the US economy would be hurt more than Europe's or Japan's because their growth has been flat. Japan would pay 1.2% of its economy annually, and Europe will pay 1.5%. We'd pay 2.5%. Besides, the only way Clinton planned for us to reach our goal was to buy carbon credits from Europe, so in essence, he killed Kyoto.
Besides, Kyoto would make us at a competitive disadvantage to China and India. And Kyoto is hardly enough. The best way to stop climate change would be to cut CO2 emissions by half, and not just in the industrialized world. China is poised to pass the US as the world's leader in CO2 emissions by the end of this decade.

Well the US signed the Protocol in 1998. Clinton was in office then.
And Clinton planned to comply by buying credits from Europe and any third world nations that cut their emissions (who were exempt, anyhow). It was basically useless for us to be in the treaty.

Well, the US economy would be hurt more than Europe's or Japan's because their growth has been flat. Japan would pay 1.2% of its economy annually, and Europe will pay 1.5%. We'd pay 2.5%. Besides, the only way Clinton planned for us to reach our goal was to buy carbon credits from Europe, so in essence, he killed Kyoto.
Besides, Kyoto would make us at a competitive disadvantage to China and India. And Kyoto is hardly enough. The best way to stop climate change would be to cut CO2 emissions by half, and not just in the industrialized world. China is poised to pass the US as the world's leader in CO2 emissions by the end of this decade.
Some people just don't get it, and I am not trying to single you out Purly, but there is more at stake here than just money and/or global warming. There is a general apathy by Americans in regards to the environment period. Pollution is taking its' toll on the water systems, air quality, land destruction, and most importantly, increased health concerns, especially respiaratory ones.

Some people just don't get it, and I am not trying to single you out Purly, but there is more at stake here than just money and/or global warming. There is a general apathy by Americans in regards to the environment period. Pollution is taking its' toll on the water systems, air quality, land destruction, and most importantly, increased health concerns, especially respiaratory ones.
Just because we fail to sign a global warming treaty doesn't necessarily mean we're the big bad polluters. A hundred years ago, the city of Pittsburgh was so polluted that the street lamps remained on all day. Just thirty years ago, Cleveland was so polluted that the river there caught on fire. Now, things have changed. Traditional air pollutants, like sulfur dioxide, are all down since even thirty years ago. Water pollution is something that has gotten way under control. We're not perfect, but we've come a long way.
Europe isn't perfect, either. They've made tremendous strides, like the US has in the past. However, they still have a water pollution problem, especially in the North Sea.

Hey, I wanted to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. Blame it on that f*cktard Bush for not attending the meeting!!!


NEWSFLAS: Clinton did SIGN KYOTO! However, he did not bring it before the US Senate as required by law because He KNEW that it WOULD NOT PASS the US Senate and he was right and that was BEFORE the Republican takeover. Many in Clinton's own party was against it because it would've damaged the US Economy. It was NOT economicaly feasible to sign it.

The lightbulb, The Internet(which you're using right now), the home computer(which you're using it on), television, and fake vomit. All invented by AMericans. :)

The lightbulb was invented by Joseph Swan of Britain some twenty years before Edison's design. As far as I'm aware the world wide web which makes the internet accessible to us was developed by Tim Berners Lee from Britian, Televison was devised by John Logi Baird from Britain, Charles Babbage of Britain is behind the computer. But yes, you are responsible for fake vomit.

Ask Bush. Citizens of the largest supposed democracy in the world don't get a say in jackshit.

Ask Clinton! He signed the thing but it WAS NOT RATIFIED BY THE US SENATE!!!!!!

Well the US signed the Protocol in 1998. Clinton was in office then.

Was in office when he signed it but alas the US Senate DID NOT RATIFY it.

Some people just don't get it, and I am not trying to single you out Purly, but there is more at stake here than just money and/or global warming. There is a general apathy by Americans in regards to the environment period. Pollution is taking its' toll on the water systems, air quality, land destruction, and most importantly, increased health concerns, especially respiaratory ones.

You are doing a good job of what you are not intending to do. And yes there is more at stake.

I would disagree with your percieved general apathy, as I percieve a general apathy in Europe toward of those outside of their borders...but that can't be true, one of my French aquaintences seems to care too much about my health.

The average American from my American viewpoint (and this is in the "redneck south") would be more inclined to water a tree than make firewood out of it. However we are not so "gung ho" about nature that we'd die in the cold rather than harm the tree, this type of thinking is considered self-destructive...well at least by most of us.

The truth is we are opportunists just like any other human beings, all different people and different backgrounds living in....something that occasionally resembles harmony but would likely be more easily recognized as organized chaos.

We care about the enviroment, but we also care about ourselves. We typically believe human life has a value approximately 1/32 of the value of a mutt puppy's life and falling, but still we believe that human life has value.

So we want to help keep the enviroment beautiful, and we want to keep ourselves comfortable. That's our predicament. So in the true spirit of what makes this country great, organized chaos unfolds:

People like me are fighting the good fight by hunting (controling what would become a bloated and diseased population of certain critters by providing a predator), petitioning congress to increase spending on alternate energy source research, and actually trying to acertain what the real (no bullshite from any side) effects of having an oil derrick in the arctic wildlife preserve would be.

Others are screaming obscenities at people like me, while holding fancy marches, dancing like the internet hamsters, and in general being unwavering in their newest attempt to make human life degraded to 1/64 the value of a mutt pup.

Some hold "intellectually stimulating" and somewhat frieghtening talks with the trees and refuse to petition congress because government is the "tool of The Man."

And of course, a rare few actually want to make the world one big parking lot. While I simultaneously wish certain homicides were justifiable...

Since for any given group it's "my way or the highway," there's not much agreement going on...and thus not much action taking place where things really matter. Like congress. Home of The Man. And since the voice is so utterly garbles, the politicians take it upon themselves to make decisions for us .....after accepting the garble clearing money from special interest groups.

Personally I think we can do better than the Kyoto treaty, if there's enough support in one place we can make things better without damaging the world economy, or more importantly to me since I live here....the US economy.

Just because we fail to sign a global warming treaty doesn't necessarily mean we're the big bad polluters. A hundred years ago, the city of Pittsburgh was so polluted that the street lamps remained on all day. Just thirty years ago, Cleveland was so polluted that the river there caught on fire. Now, things have changed. Traditional air pollutants, like sulfur dioxide, are all down since even thirty years ago. Water pollution is something that has gotten way under control. We're not perfect, but we've come a long way.
Europe isn't perfect, either. They've made tremendous strides, like the US has in the past. However, they still have a water pollution problem, especially in the North Sea.
well according to recorded data, the US produces approximately 36% of the world's greenhouse gases, yet only has 5% of the world's population. You didn't touch on the issue I raised about greater air pollution in the US and/or the immediate increased health risks. Speaking of dollars, I would imagine that the increased cost of health care due to CO2 emissions would be huge?

I don't have time to read all this, so excuse me if I repeat points already stated. But the reasons for the Kyoto agreement not being signed are firstly the economy....the rules are too stiff to quickly and there is a fear that it will hamper the weak economy and spin us back into recession. Also, the Kyoto agreements do not address developing nations like China and India that by the end of the next century will be the worlds big polluters.

well according to recorded data, the US produces approximately 36% of the world's greenhouse gases, yet only has 5% of the world's population. You didn't touch on the issue I raised about greater air pollution in the US and/or the immediate increased health risks. Speaking of dollars, I would imagine that the increased cost of health care due to CO2 emissions would be huge?
Most likely not. Despite thirty years worth of exposure, the #1 cause of respiratory ailments is smoking, and children of smokersk exposed to second hand smoke.

well according to recorded data, the US produces approximately 36% of the world's greenhouse gases, yet only has 5% of the world's population. You didn't touch on the issue I raised about greater air pollution in the US and/or the immediate increased health risks. Speaking of dollars, I would imagine that the increased cost of health care due to CO2 emissions would be huge?

Here's something else! Trees and plants require CO2 to live on. They breath CO2 and give off O2! That is standard Biology. Our Pollution ratios maybe hight but we are not having that catastrophic effect that people are claiming because of all the plantlife that breaths CO2!

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?

The fact that it has been proven that the Kyoto accord would have almost no effect on the environment and would rape the economy up the ass.

Here's something else! Trees and plants require CO2 to live on. They breath CO2 and give off O2! That is standard Biology. Our Pollution ratios maybe hight but we are not having that catastrophic effect that people are claiming because of all the plantlife that breaths CO2!
In about 100 years from now, if present trends continue, the tropical rainforests will be gone. While it is true, that trees absorb CO2 and give out oxygen, the fact remains that there is too much CO2 being manufactured and this is having a harmful affect on our planet, despite your assertions.

http://www.bsrsi.msu.edu/rfrc/deforestation.html

The fact that it has been proven that the Kyoto accord would have almost no effect on the environment and would rape the economy up the ass.
I guess most of the countries in the world, including the US, signed the Kyoto Protocol because they valued your opinion?

In about 100 years from now, if present trends continue, the tropical rainforests will be gone. While it is true, that trees absorb CO2 and give out oxygen, the fact remains that there is too much CO2 being manufactured and this is having a harmful affect on our planet, despite your assertions.

http://www.bsrsi.msu.edu/rfrc/deforestation.html

Don't tell me what I already know! If we cut down trees, obviously CO2 will NOT BE ABSORBED since CO2 is the life blood of plants. If you remove that, then the CO2 levels will increase exponetially because there will be nothing there to absorb it.

I guess most of the countries in the world, including the US, signed the Kyoto Protocol because they valued your opinion?

We did sign it CanuckHeaven, however it was not approved by the US Senate. Thus the treaty is invalid in the USA!

Most likely not. Despite thirty years worth of exposure, the #1 cause of respiratory ailments is smoking, and children of smokersk exposed to second hand smoke.
As you are well aware, the number or percentage of smokers in ther US has been declining for quite sometime, yet respiratory problems, such as asthma have increased significantly, along with other respiratory conditions. Perhaps you can explain the increases?

http://www.healthypeople.gov/document/images/respiratorydiseases.jpg

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-06-28-investment_x.htm

And you also account for more greenhouse gasses and energy wastage than all of the World.

It's true. 25% of it.

Ah yes Kyoto would of crippled the American economy forcing unnecessary regulations on already regualted industries. Kyoto itself was a complete and utter failure considering that the Japanese who proposed the treaty refused to ratify it.

So... you would rather have grandchildren that are rich and live in a wasteland, than grandchildren that are poor and live in a healthier enviroment?

We did sign it CanuckHeaven, however it was not approved by the US Senate. Thus the treaty is invalid in the USA!
The Protocol would not be invalid if and when the US ratifies the existing document. The US has not unsigned its' technical agreement and support.

Are you plain blind?

China is going to overtake you anyway, it has already overtaken you in the field of Foreign Investment. Face up to the fact you will not be the sole superpower in the near future.

People may call me a 'commie pinko' by the fact basically every scientist in the World is saying this is the biggest danger to human kind kind of makes me think the World should show some solidarity in combatting it?

Ahh forget it. Americans are stupid ignorant morons.
yes so lets be like canada and europe and not ever disagree with anyone on anything unless they are american. Europeans are unwashed barbarians, always have been, always will be. and china and all their red friends can go to hell. America doesnt have to justify anything to a 2 bit european nation

yes so lets be like canada and europe and not ever disagree with anyone on anything unless they are american. Europeans are unwashed barbarians, always have been, always will be. and china and all their red friends can go to hell. America doesnt have to justify anything to a 2 bit european nation

Its things like this that make me want to hate America...

The Protocol would not be invalid if and when the US ratifies the existing document. The US has not unsigned its' technical agreement and support.

But it is invalid till its ratified!

Article I section 10:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit Bills of Credi; make any Thing but god and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

All treaties must be Ratified by the US Senate before they can take Effect! You should know this CanuckHeaven.

yes so lets be like canada and europe and not ever disagree with anyone on anything unless they are american. Europeans are unwashed barbarians, always have been, always will be. and china and all their red friends can go to hell. America doesnt have to justify anything to a 2 bit european nation

Get off of it Steel Legions! I do not like China but I do like their history. I don't like certain people in Europe, mostly governments, but I make a distinction between the Government of a nation that opposes us and the populace of said nation.

Its quotes like yours Steel that make the world hate us. Remember, if it wasn't for Europe, the US will not exist. They founded us or did you not learn that in history?

Its things like this that make me want to hate America...

He does not speak for all of us Sacred Toaster. I for one do like europe. I've lived in Europe for a few years. Granted it was on a military base but I did view the nation. Europe is beautiful. Most people are friendly. Please don't let people like Steel Legions cloudy your thinking because not all Americans are like that.

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?

There's a fine line between protecting the environment and pantheism.

Just to inform you of the facts. The US HAS signed the Kyoto Protocol, the problem is that Bush is reluctant to RATIFY it.

Bush has a better plan?


According to the list presented America has not signed Kyoto. Also it woulve have to be ratified by both houses and then signed by the President and no one wants to sign it.

But it is invalid till its ratified!

Article I section 10:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit Bills of Credi; make any Thing but god and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

All treaties must be Ratified by the US Senate before they can take Effect! You should know this CanuckHeaven.
I am aware of this. However, you are also aware that the US signed agreement in principal of the Kyoto Protocol, at the UN level, whoever that qualified signator may be.

The fact remains that this is important for the world, especially considering the following:

The United States, the world's largest polluter, shunned the treaty shortly after President George W. Bush took office last year, arguing it would harm the U.S. economy.

The pact would have required the United States, which accounts for about a third of the industrialised world's greenhouse gas emissions, to trim emissions by 7 percent on 1990 levels, Reuters news agency reported.

But the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010, the European Commission say

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/01/kyoto.eu/

According to the list presented America has not signed Kyoto. Also it woulve have to be ratified by both houses and then signed by the President and no one wants to sign it.
The US signed on 12/06/92 as per this list:

http://unfccc.int/resource/conv/ratlist.pdf

Now if only the US would ratify it!!

So... you would rather have grandchildren that are rich and live in a wasteland, than grandchildren that are poor and live in a healthier enviroment?

Please can you stop with your Apocolyptic bullshit talk. You know scientists have been saying the world is about to come to an end for nearly 50 years. did you know that when the scientists tested the atomic bomb some actually believed it could of caused a chain reaction in the atmosphere destroying the planet? they still went through with the tests.
Scientists had massive spreadsheets and facts that the ozone would be depleted by 1990 and the water level would of risen over 20 feet. What happened? Those scientists were debunked.
According to a scientist all of the worlds resources would of been depleted by 1984 and the resources remaining would of been so expensive only the wealthiest nations in the world would be able to purchase and refine them. Unfortunetely I cant find the name of the book right now where this was outlined. But has the REAL(actual price without including inflation) price gone up? No. in fact they have gone down.

Only a small percentage of scientists and a small percentage of people believe any of this nonsense about the environmental destruction of the world. The world is cleaner now has more trees then it was 50 years ago.

Oh and for the record Rich and wasteland with the cash you can build yourself your own little paradise.

The US signed on 12/06/92 as per this list:

http://unfccc.int/resource/conv/ratlist.pdf

Now if only the US would ratify it!!

Ok that list actually has an error on it next to the date for the U.S. it has an R which means ratified but its not ratified.

The US signed on 12/06/92 as per this list:

http://unfccc.int/resource/conv/ratlist.pdf

Now if only the US would ratify it!!

And ruin our economy? Come on CH, this would hammer us economically. No one in the US wants that. Especially now adays! If Kerry brings it before the Congress, it would NOT get approved. You can bet money on it.

He does not speak for all of us Sacred Toaster. I for one do like europe. I've lived in Europe for a few years. Granted it was on a military base but I did view the nation. Europe is beautiful. Most people are friendly. Please don't let people like Steel Legions cloudy your thinking because not all Americans are like that.

I never said I spoke for the rest of america, i mean i like europe its just some of the people over there i cant stand, and dont talk like you know me. There are some things that have happend to make me a bit anti-europe so I was hasty and rude and i apologize.

And ruin our economy? Come on CH, this would hammer us economically. No one in the US wants that. Especially now adays! If Kerry brings it before the Congress, it would NOT get approved. You can bet money on it.
Big Oil barks and the US lies down? The economy is too dependent on imported oil? Oil is one of the biggest causes of pollution/global warming?

Find solutions rather than increase the problem by doing nothing?

There are protype vehicles out there that would run on bi-fuel combustion, giving more miles to the gallon and less harmful effects to the environment. The added bonus is that US consumers would save large at the pumps, which would be a boon to the economy.

That is just a start. How about nuclear energy instead of smoke bellowing coal fired generators.

If you ignore the problem, then it will get much worse. I am talking about the immediate affects such as air, water, and land pollution, and the resultant health problems which also costs Billions.

We have to make the shoe fit the box sooner or later and I prefer sooner, so that my children will have a cleaner/safer environment.

CH, this treat does not hold China or India to the same standards. This is not tolerable. Unless it includes everyone, and it does not, then we shall not ratify it. Even the Dems are opposed to this, at least the majority are, for that very reason.

Unless you include all, it is not viable to have such a treaty. US will not ratify it because of this. If I remember right, that is why Clinton did not bring it to the Floor because he knew it would not be ratified.

Find solutions rather than increase the problem by doing nothing?

Solutions don't neccesarily mean Kyoto and crippling the US economy while ignoring the future problems of China and India. Bring back legislation that is more realistic.

That is just a start. How about nuclear energy instead of smoke bellowing coal fired generators.

Outside of the risks of Nuclear energy (ask a resident of Chernobyl (or the town next to it whose name I am forgetting)....one of the very few who are left alive)...there is a very limited amount of nuclear fuel in this world. Nuclear is not the answer to oil.

Reading all of your posts, in my opinion, only proves a theory I have had for some time.

I am an American who has travelled to over 25 countries in the last 5 years, speak more than one language, have lived overseas, and spent considerable time in each country getting to know its culture and history. In each case, what I have found is this:

There are people there who are just like me, and there are people there who just like to hate me.

In truth, all countries' peoples are the same fundamentally. True, our cultures are different, but that's understandable due to our historic isolation from each other over the centuries.

I like many things about every country I've been to. I disagree with some things, as well...but one thing I have never done. I have never labled any country, or any people or culture, as inherently bad or good.

Americans are not morons, nor are they stupid. The same holds true for every other country on earth. We have are good and our bad...just as you do. It seems to be the topic du jour lately to jump on the bandwagon and yell the same rhetoric that you hear the person next to you shouting, before the facts are analyzed. Americans do that. So does everyone else.

To each person posting to this thread, I say this: It doesn't matter what country you are from, or what culture you were raised in. I respect that country and that culture. No country or culture is divine or superior.

I may disagree with you. I may even shout that your actions are deserving of condemnation...but I will look at each issue based on its merit - not on its source nation.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people think they are different from other people. We are not different. We only live differently...and that is our blessing as a race. Not a curse.

You forget! We are Americans and oddly enough have this problem with the French, that seems to be mutual.

Thus since we love our already moronically named french fries and have trouble givin' 'em up, we must idiotically rename them Freedom Fries. Thank you, thank you. :p

If your going to quote me and provoke me please use some intelligence when you do so.

We should have ratified the Kyoto Accord - it has more to do with environmentalism and conservation than economy, but would have caused a reduction in pollutant emissions greater than would have been comfortable - we would have had to stop driving so many big cars so much and/or found cleaner ways to burn fossil fuels, or found cleaner fuels to burn.

On the other hand, we should NOT have ratified NAFTA and similar economic treaties where we eliminate tarrifs and taxes to create "free trade" zones. These free trade zones allow products created outside the U.S. to compete "on a level playing field" with products created inside the U.S.

See where it says "on a level playing field"? Read that as - "our prices are higher because, over the years, a variety of factors, including labor unions, have caused the wages and benefits of the regular blue color workers in the United States, in general, to far exceed that of similar workers outside the United States, therefore causing the prices of the imports to be lower at the same profit margin, once the protective tarrifs and taxes are removed. This, over the past decade, has resulted in the deterioration of the better wage and benefit structure for blue color workers in the U.S., as business' move "off shore" to exploit the cheep (cheeper) labor. These very tarrifs and taxes were emplaced specifically to cause the price of imports to rise to the same level as the price of internally produced products, to protect the wage and benefit structure of the U.S. blue color labor force. At the same time, these tarrifs and taxes were to be reduced when the wage and benefit structure outside the U.S. increased to a similar level - THAT was supposed to be the level playing field. However, business being what it is, and greed being what it is, treaties such as NAFTA were created, "sold" as beneficial to the US, and here we are watching the gap between the poor and the rich in the U.S. economy growing."

...whew...

We need to be VERY careful about the vast differences between what business views as "good for the economy" and labor views as "good for the economy".

For business, anything that causes profit margins to grow is good for the economy. If the income of the business/corporation goes up, and/or outlay goes down, business sees that as good for the economy.

For labor, anything that causes wages or benefit packages to grow is good for the economy. If PERSONAL income goes up, or PERSONAL outlay goes down, labor sees that as good for the economy.

These things are not mutulally exclusive, but often work at loggerheads. It takes work to make them work together. It's much easier to jump on one band wagon or the other. Things only really get better in a capitalistic society (economy driven) when these two views are in balance - where compromise takes place so everyone gets something, and no one gets everything.

Just a link for somebody to follow:

http://www.viridiandesign.org/viridiandesign.htm

Check out the whole website. Find some adult-level wisdom. :-)

Don't tell me what I already know! If we cut down trees, obviously CO2 will NOT BE ABSORBED since CO2 is the life blood of plants. If you remove that, then the CO2 levels will increase exponetially because there will be nothing there to absorb it.
kelp actually

it absorbs more C02 then the rainforests do. It's a little known fact...

That is just a start. How about nuclear energy instead of smoke bellowing coal fired generators.


if im not mistaken the reason we aren't a nuclear driven economy is because environmentalists said nuclear power was the devil and destroyed mother earth. If it wasn't for protests all through the 60s, 70s and 80s the United States would be completely powered by nuclear reactors.

if im not mistaken the reason we aren't a nuclear driven economy is because environmentalists said nuclear power was the devil and destroyed mother earth. If it wasn't for protests all through the 60s, 70s and 80s the United States would be completely powered by nuclear reactors.

Research Nuclear Fuel sources....they are much more limited than oil is.

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?

Well I don't like Sushi!

Yea! We get to flog this dead horse again!

it was a stupid treaty that had no chance of ratification

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?
I haven't read any posts or anything but the part that bothers me is that you said "Americans" Now, Do you know me personally? I was the specific person who declined huh? You see, I had nothing to do with that. My friend had nothing to do with that. My neighbor had nothing to do with that. You see, it's not Americans who are making these decisions, it's American politicians. We elected them, didn't we? Well, I didn't, I'm not old enough to vote, so I guess I don't get a say in anything. God..... :headbang:

Justify the lack of support of kyoto treaty in the usa? ok then. It would doom our economy and destroy insentive and growth of bussiness. For gods sake, I think that my right to earn money is slightly more important than some group of moth or frogs, or some such endangered beast's right to live in some swamp that nobody cares about but fringe doomsday prophet envirnonmental wackos.

Ok that list actually has an error on it next to the date for the U.S. it has an R which means ratified but its not ratified.
I am sorry to have mislead you on this one. The link I provided is for the US ratification of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and from that springs the list for the Kyoto Protocol which the US signed in 1998, but has not ratified yet.

http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

Sorry for the confusion.

I am sorry to have mislead you on this one. The link I provided is for the US ratification of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and from that springs the list for the Kyoto Protocol which the US signed in 1998, but has not ratified yet.

http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

Sorry for the confusion.

And we all know it won't be ratified because of the economic concerns.

Justify the lack of support of kyoto treaty in the usa? ok then. It would doom our economy and destroy insentive and growth of bussiness. For gods sake, I think that my right to earn money is slightly more important than some group of moth or frogs, or some such endangered beast's right to live in some swamp that nobody cares about but fringe doomsday prophet envirnonmental wackos.
How would it DOOM the economy?

Your "right" to earn money is more important than your health or the health of your dependents or future dependents? The I don't give a shit attitude?

Upsetting the earth's bio-diversity is serious business.

Ahhh and the old catch all phrase for anyone concerned about the environment........."envirnonmental wackos". Have you even considered that the "wackos" are the ones that are not paying attention to this serious business?

It's actually kind of sad, we have no justification, bush just doesnt want his corperations to go down the tubes for 'the good of the planet.' even sadder, probably not half of america even knows what the kyoto treaty is much less is able to give justification for not signing it.

It's actually kind of sad, we have no justification, bush just doesnt want his corperations to go down the tubes for 'the good of the planet.' even sadder, probably not half of america even knows what the kyoto treaty is much less is able to give justification for not signing it.

Abdeus, the treaty was signed in 1998 and DID NOT BRING IT TO THE FLOOR of the CONGRESS!! Don't blame Bush! It won't pass the US Congress and we all know it. That is why BILL CLINTON didn't bring it there when he signed it.

Just a link for somebody to follow:

http://www.viridiandesign.org/viridiandesign.htm

Check out the whole website. Find some adult-level wisdom. :-)

BRAVO on your informed post. If people take the time to read through that web site, they might be able to gain some infinite knowledge. While I am not in total agreement with all of the "innovative features", I am in agreement with most of them.

Thank you.

One slight problem.....your post inferred something about "adult-level wisdom", and I am concerned that in itself is a rare commodity in these threads?

All one can do is hold out hope?

there was no justification, it was just bush's arrogance and stupidity. the american government is horrible. I'm an american...regretably.

You regret being an American? Head down to Mexico, chief. The land of opportunity can't be more than a few days away.

there was no justification, it was just bush's arrogance and stupidity. the american government is horrible. I'm an american...regretably.

And yet another person with a short-term memory! CLINTON SIGNED IT BUT DID NOT SEND IT TO THE FLOOR OF THE CONGRESS FOR RATIFICATION!!!!!

there was no justification, it was just bush's arrogance and stupidity. the american government is horrible. I'm an american...regretably.


Anticarnivoria - One of the great things about our country (I'm and American and I don't regret it) is that you are free to denounce your regretable citizenship...and move. Maybe you could find somewhere to live that you wouldn't regret.

Actually, you bring up an interesting point. The fact is, I am hoping to someday become a Foreign Service Officer in the US State Department, and I've always been of the opinion that China is going to become the most important world power in the near future. So, I was actually planning on learning Chinese anyway. However, it makes no sense for one country which is the rival to another to sabotage itself in its efforts to stave off the supremacy of its rival. Just because I accept Chinese supremacy as an inevitability does not mean that I should not seek to forestall it for as long as possible. Extra time=more opportunities to develop options which might improve the end-game situation for the US. You have to look not just at our current situation and the situation that we expect in the future, you must also look at how we expect to get from point A to point B in the most advantageous fashion.
Actually China is at a serious disadvantage to the US on multiple counts. First of all, its people still lack almost any education base, keeping it as a manufacturing power. Secondly, its pure numbers cause massive internal problems on any number of counts from food production to housing and so on. Three the Chinese geography is less rich than the US', although close, it still doesn't possess the pure amount of resources. Four, internal problems from China's overpopulation have led to such a serious divide in men to women, that there could be an epidemic in less than thirty years of having less than one women for every 10 men, unless rules on children change, and that will only lead to more overpopulation and increase those problems.

China's internal problems are much the same as India's, and like India, it will soon hit its wall. Until it fixes its domestic issues, it will not be able to progress. Furthermore, you ought to do some research on how much of that "foreign investment" is actually American companies using Chinese workers.

Of course, if all else fails the US will just annex Canada and Mexico, the Caribbean, or hell, all of the Americas. (Yes this is sarcasm for all of those among us whom are...shall we say...mentally imperceptive)

Under economic sanctions I think it's a distinct possibility.

Who would impose economic sanctions? The UN? Excuse me if I don't hold my breath in anticipation.

Or alternatively he/she has and still disagrees with you. Don't assume anyone who doesn't follow your opinion is either illinformed or stupid.

I did not say anyone was stupid, please do not take artistic licence with my posts.

If anyone reads the protocol they can see it is selective about who must comply. Therefore it is fairly evident why nations like the US will not ratify it. I would also say that the governments of the US and Australia would have analysed the protocol and its repercussions for their countries as well as the impact on the environment before making their decisions.

That was a nice analysis Snub. Im not sure I agree with your positions on Kyoto and NAFTA, but well thought out post.

Are you plain blind?

China is going to overtake you anyway, it has already overtaken you in the field of Foreign Investment. Face up to the fact you will not be the sole superpower in the near future.

People may call me a 'commie pinko' by the fact basically every scientist in the World is saying this is the biggest danger to human kind kind of makes me think the World should show some solidarity in combatting it?

Ahh forget it. Americans are stupid ignorant morons.

Yea, China will be a superpower the way the USSR was. 95% of the people will be starving, broke, and dying of various causes, but at least the country will have enough nukes to blow up the Milky Way. Brilliant, you asshole.

As you are well aware, the number or percentage of smokers in ther US has been declining for quite sometime, yet respiratory problems, such as asthma have increased significantly, along with other respiratory conditions. Perhaps you can explain the increases?

http://www.healthypeople.gov/document/images/respiratorydiseases.jpg
Environmental factors are just part of it. I never said they weren't. However, for the foreseeable future, smoking is the #1 cause of respiratory ailments. In fact, it isn't expected to be eclipsed by obesity as the #1 cause of preventable deaths in the US until next year, even though only about a quarter of adults smoke.

Environmental factors are just part of it. I never said they weren't. However, for the foreseeable future, smoking is the #1 cause of respiratory ailments. In fact, it isn't expected to be eclipsed by obesity as the #1 cause of preventable deaths in the US until next year, even though only about a quarter of adults smoke.

That would be because 3/4 of underage Americans smoke, and they keep dropping the cig on their leg while they are driving, and then crashing into someone while trying to get that damn thing off them.

That would be because 3/4 of underage Americans smoke, and they keep dropping the cig on their leg while they are driving, and then crashing into someone while trying to get that damn thing off them.
I guess you're right. I've heard horror stories about 4 year olds smoking, sometimes cigarettes, sometimes pot.

You know, I was actually kidding, but the sad thing is that stuff really does happen. But still, smoking causes lots of deaths by car accident.

How would it DOOM the economy?

OK, I'll repeat it for you. The US would be bound by the Kyoto agreement to reduce greenhouse gas outputs. The measures required to reduce the outputs will be an added expense to industry in the US.
Meanwhile, China, who is not required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would then become an attractive location for industry. US-based industries would then relocate to China because they would not need to implement the changes to their procedures that were required in the US under the Kyoto protocol. Therefore, US industry would crash, China's would boom. Because of the increase in industrial output in China (unhindered by the Kyoto agreement) greenhouse gas emissions world-wide would actually increase rather than decrease.
The Kyoto Protocol is a flawed agreement and the US was right not to ratify it because it cripples their industry and fails to achieve its aims of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

China doesn't account for as much greenhouse gas emmissions or energy wastage

Sure it does if you actually do a real analysis of the numbers.
The US creates $1,665,386 per metric ton of CO2, while China only manages $1,445,015 per metric ton of CO2. That equals more efficient/less waste for the US.

In addition, the US economy equals that of China, Japan, and Germany combined. Strangely enough, it also produces the same amount of emissions as China, Japan, and Germany combined. Funny how that works.
In fact, the venom being directed towards the US is much less about the emissions produced, and more about throwing tomatoes at the most succesful country.
If Ethiopia had the largest GDP in the world, we would be complaining about them.

Why not sign the Kyoto agreement? It isnt a level playing field. The US is already taking steps in reducing pollution and just because it doesnt make the foreign headlines doesnt mean it isnt happening. Forgive us if we decide to do it on our terms, and not yours. Come back with a better treaty and we'll take a look at it ok?

Because we are the United States of America and we don't owe no one anything because we are the best in the world.

As an American I'm pissed that we haven't signed the Kyoto agreement. I for one want us to.

Because we are the United States of America and we don't owe no one anything because we are the best in the world.

We may be the best in the world, but its for that reason that we should be an example and sign the blasted thing!!!

We may be the best in the world, but its for that reason that we should be an example and sign the blasted thing!!!

Why would the US want to sign a flawed protocol that will essentially cripple its industry while failing to achieve its only goal?

As an American I'm pissed that we haven't signed the Kyoto agreement. I for one want us to.

This American knows that Bill Clinton Signed Kyoto in 1998! However, US Constitution comes into play and it WAS NOT RATIFIED! I wish the world and my fellow Americans recognize that fact.

Also, Kyoto would've hurt the US Economy! Do you want us to be in a depression or do you want us to prosper. I know which one I want. Do you?

Why would the US want to sign a flawed protocol that will essentially cripple its industry while failing to achieve its only goal?

Tygaland, its no use. These people have no clue what that treaty would do to the US Econcomy.

OK, I'll repeat it for you. The US would be bound by the Kyoto agreement to reduce greenhouse gas outputs. The measures required to reduce the outputs will be an added expense to industry in the US.
Meanwhile, China, who is not required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would then become an attractive location for industry. US-based industries would then relocate to China because they would not need to implement the changes to their procedures that were required in the US under the Kyoto protocol. Therefore, US industry would crash, China's would boom. Because of the increase in industrial output in China (unhindered by the Kyoto agreement) greenhouse gas emissions world-wide would actually increase rather than decrease.
The Kyoto Protocol is a flawed agreement and the US was right not to ratify it because it cripples their industry and fails to achieve its aims of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
First off, have you read the Protocol?

Secondly, do we as "first world countries" just continue to wreak havoc upon our atmosphere/environment?

Thirdly, if we are going to do anything positive in this respect, we have to start somewhere?

Fourthly, non-renewable resources end up being depleted before their time and other replacement sources of fuel have not been fully developed. What happens to the economies of those countries?

Finally, environmental businesses will grow out the sheer necessity to make improvements to the way we live. Don't you think that the petro-chemical industries have been too lax in their business affairs?

Tygaland, its no use. These people have no clue what that treaty would do to the US Econcomy.

I know. I am hoping against hope that someone who posts "I just think we should sign it" would actually explain why the US should sign it and show me how it will actually achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse emissions.

I know. I am hoping against hope that someone who posts "I just think we should sign it" would actually explain why the US should sign it and show me how it will actually achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse emissions.

I can see it from the Europeans but I want an American to say what you just said. Why should we RATIFY it since we've already signed it?

Point is, we shouldn't ratify it because of the economic harm it'll do to our country. I don't want that. There are better ways to do this and Kyoto is not that way considering where the burden is placed.

It is common today to hear pleas that we should reduce carbon-based energy production so that we might 'save the planet.' This notion is embodied most obviously in the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997 by representatives of most of the world's industrialized governments. AS of this writing, few nations have legally adopted the treaty and the United States has opted out, thus drawing high-level criticism from, it seems, everyone. The basic goal of Kyoto is to require the most-developed nations to reduce their CO2 emissions by 5.2% compared with 1990 levels by about 2010, although changes agreed to in Bonn in July 2001 allow that number to slip to only 1.8%. No limits were imposed on countries deemed 'developing.' ... The US share was to amount to a 7 percent reduction.

Among the many problems with Kyoto is one demonstrated by a very simple scientific result. (Science, recall, deals with numbers.) Because of the healthy economic expansion of the 1990s, as of this writing, virtually no country is on track to meet their Kyoto target. Those countries close to meeting their goals may actually do so because of unique circumstance tied to the peculiar base year of 1990 in which other countries cannot share (e.g, England's switch from government-controlled coal-based energy production to North Sea natural gas, and Germany's acquisition and elimination of the massively inefficient communist East Germany energy infrastructure). If a true level playing field was proposed (i.e, identifying the base year as 2000 instead of 1990), England and Germany would hypocritically cry foul as they would lose their unique advantages.

However, suppose all of these countries found some way, certainly with considerable economic hardship, to meet the goals of Kyoto. The science (from models, admittedly) indicates that the net impact on global temperatures over the next 100 years would be at most an almost undetectable 0.2 F. Global temperatures can change that much from month to month. Will democratically accountable governments truly subject their constituents to economic pain for a result that is this miniscule? Such a move appears scientifically, economically, and politically untenable. [...]

A common criticism of the United States is that our country produces about 25% of the world's CO2, therefore we are the biggest part of the 'problem.' Without much effort, one may see straight through this claim. Yes, the United States is a large emitter of CO2. However, with that CO2, the United States produces 31% of what the world wants, and the type of things the world desperately needs and no one else provides. Consider food production, medical advances, technology in all areas, and even global defense-of-freedom capabilities. Do these fundamental CO2-based 'products,' which benefit the world, not deserve recognition or even applause?


Whether or not you agree with it, that's certainly food for thought. I haven't made my mind fully on this, anyone want to dispute it?

First off, have you read the Protocol?

Yes

Secondly, do we as "first world countries" just continue to wreak havoc upon our atmosphere/environment?

No, but explain to me how Kyoto will stop developing nations from polluting. Explain to me how to prevent industries from sidestepping the agreement by moving their production facilities to the nations not bound by the Kyoto agreement. In other words, how do you propose the Kyoto Protocol will actually achieve its aims if it does not set any limits for emissions by developing nations?

Thirdly, if we are going to do anything positive in this respect, we have to start somewhere?

But it is flawed so it is pointless. All it will do is increase industry in developing nations with unchecked pollution while crippling developed nation's industry. It will not decrease greenhouse gas emissions long term. A short term reduction will occur while industry adjusts but after that it will achieve nothing.
Instead of wasting time trying to force through flawed protocols, why not invest the time in creating a better one?

Fourthly, non-renewable resources end up being depleted before their time and other replacement sources of fuel have not been fully developed. What happens to the economies of those countries?

I have not argued against working on alternative fuels. I have argued against a flawed protocol that disadvantages developed nations like the US and Australia.

Finally, environmental businesses will grow out the sheer necessity to make improvements to the way we live. Don't you think that the petro-chemical industries have been too lax in their business affairs?

You seem to think I am arguing against polution control, I am not. I am arguing that the Kyoto Protocol is flawed and is therefore a useless piece of legislation that will not even achieve its main goal. Therefore, nations such as the US are doing the right thing by not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

so. you want oridinary americans to justify ourselves for the GOVERNMENT's failure to sign the kyoto agreement? why don't you ask the american government that instead of us?... :rolleyes:

so. you want oridinary americans to justify ourselves for the GOVERNMENT's failure to sign the kyoto agreement? why don't you ask the american government that instead of us?... :rolleyes:

Doesn't anyone read what I type?

New Genoa! in 1998 the US Government signed the Kyoto Protocal! However, under the US Constitution, all treaties MUST BE RATIFIED BY THE US CONGRESS! This DID NOT occur on this. The Kyoto Protocal was not brought before the US Congress, therefore it was not ratified. Since it was not ratified, we are not bound by it! Even Dems in the Senate are opposed to this Protocal because of the economic harm it'll do to the US Economy. As someone said, it comes down to numbers. Are you willing to risk a National Depression for something that won't work?

Yes



No, but explain to me how Kyoto will stop developing nations from polluting. Explain to me how to prevent industries from sidestepping the agreement by moving their production facilities to the nations not bound by the Kyoto agreement. In other words, how do you propose the Kyoto Protocol will actually achieve its aims if it does not set any limits for emissions by developing nations?



But it is flawed so it is pointless. All it will do is increase industry in developing nations with unchecked pollution while crippling developed nation's industry. It will not decrease greenhouse gas emissions long term. A short term reduction will occur while industry adjusts but after that it will achieve nothing.
Instead of wasting time trying to force through flawed protocols, why not invest the time in creating a better one?



I have not argued against working on alternative fuels. I have argued against a flawed protocol that disadvantages developed nations like the US and Australia.



You seem to think I am arguing against polution control, I am not. I am arguing that the Kyoto Protocol is flawed and is therefore a useless piece of legislation that will not even achieve its main goal. Therefore, nations such as the US are doing the right thing by not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
I am suggesting that the Protocol is a start in the right direction. At present there are no financial penalties for not meeting the goals. There is provision for making "protocols" to deal with those that are not making efforts to curb their emissions. There is also a way out of the Protocol agreement if a country realizes that it is unable to meet those commitments.

In the meantime, the biggest violator countries, such as Canada, and the US, to name two, become more commited to advancing leading edge technologies. If anything, I believe that would be financially benefical to these countries right away and to the world environment in general.

There is money to be made in reducing, reusing and recycling, as well as development of more fuel efficent hybrid vehicles. The biggest problem lies with the oil companies that control the world economy and certain governments.

Less dependency on non-renewable resources = more "freedom".

The propaganda about ruining the economy comes from the top down, spreading fear about "economic doom", and the masses are riveted to that propaganda, and it is being regurgitated here in these forums.

Europe is further advanced than North America in regards to getting their heads around this issue. The US should be leading the way, but prefers proliferation rather than preservation, and that truly amazes me.

I am suggesting that the Protocol is a start in the right direction. At present there are no financial penalties for not meeting the goals. There is provision for making "protocols" to deal with those that are not making efforts to curb their emissions. There is also a way out of the Protocol agreement if a country realizes that it is unable to meet those commitments.

In the meantime, the biggest violator countries, such as Canada, and the US, to name two, become more commited to advancing leading edge technologies. If anything, I believe that would be financially benefical to these countries right away and to the world environment in general.

There is money to be made in reducing, reusing and recycling, as well as development of more fuel efficent hybrid vehicles. The biggest problem lies with the oil companies that control the world economy and certain governments.

Less dependency on non-renewable resources = more "freedom".

The propaganda about ruining the economy comes from the top down, spreading fear about "economic doom", and the masses are riveted to that propaganda, and it is being regurgitated here in these forums.

Europe is further advanced than North America in regards to getting their heads around this issue. The US should be leading the way, but prefers proliferation rather than preservation, and that truly amazes me.

You have skipped the whole issue I have raised. How does a protocol that only requires developed nations to comply assist the reduction of greenhouse gases? There are no financial penalties for non-compliance but there are financial penalties by way of implementing reforms in industry over such a short period of time.
The belief that compliance with Kyoto means economic damage is not propaganda, it is a conclusion based on the financial pressure the protocol will place on industry. This will mean that industries may move to developing countries to avoid the restrictions, reduce their output meaning job losses or close down altogether. Meanwhile developing nations will profit from the developed nation's losses as they have no restrictions on their outputs of pollutants covered by the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto protocol has noble intentions but it is flawed and will not achive anything it sets out to achieve. That is why I support the US and Australia in not ratifying the protocol. This does not mean I do not support reductions in pollution or work on alternative fuels. It means that I think a flawed and biased protocol will do more damage than good.

You have skipped the whole issue I have raised. How does a protocol that only requires developed nations to comply assist the reduction of greenhouse gases? There are no financial penalties for non-compliance but there are financial penalties by way of implementing reforms in industry over such a short period of time.
I thought you stated that you have read the Protocol? At any rate,the agreement calls for the sharing of environmental technology, and while the lead countries in the industrialized countries develop these technologies, they are creating a market for them in the less advanced countries.

As the global economy continues to grow, there will be obvious advantages for these less advanced economies to put in place environmental protections that will help slow down their poliferation of pollutants. You can well imagine a country like China without any protections in place as it gears up for this global economy? If China started consuming non-renewable resources at the rate of say America, the race would be on to corner those commodities and the price of those commodities would skyrocket, and pollution would run rampant.

The Kyoto Protocol is a starting point, and it will entail some growing pains, but the end result will be a better quality of environment for the world.

The belief that compliance with Kyoto means economic damage is not propaganda, it is a conclusion based on the financial pressure the protocol will place on industry.
Personally speaking, I believe this is sheer propaganda by the oil industry as it tries to maintain its' stranglehold on the world's economy. Right now, the world has a bloodlust for the black crude, and the controlled supply and ever increasing demand is holding us all prisoners. The oil companies like this master/slave relationship. It is time to lessen this economic bondage!!

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2004-06-28-investment_x.htm

And you also account for more greenhouse gasses and energy wastage than all of the World.

Per unit of GDP, the US is one of the lowest in the world. It's pointless to argue the US's pollution numbers in a vacuum. I'm sure that hasn't stopped you, though.

Per unit of GDP, the US is one of the lowest in the world. It's pointless to argue the US's pollution numbers in a vacuum. I'm sure that hasn't stopped you, though.
Strictly on basis of population though, the US has 5% of the world's population and 36% of the world's CO2 emissions. You really can't base it on GDP.

"Justify"?! We NEVER have to justify any refusal to join an international treaty. We're a sovereign nation and even if every nation in the world signs a particular treaty besides us, we're still fully justified in NOT signing it if we wish simply because we ARE a sovereign nation.

However, in the spirit of openness, I'll give you one biggie: Global warming is a natural occurance and mankind has nothing to do with it. If you think otherwise, please prove to me how mankind caused every other instance of global temperature change over the course of Earth's history. Have a nice day.

"Justify"?! We NEVER have to justify any refusal to join an international treaty. We're a sovereign nation and even if every nation in the world signs a particular treaty besides us, we're still fully justified in NOT signing it if we wish simply because we ARE a sovereign nation.

However, in the spirit of openness, I'll give you one biggie: Global warming is a natural occurance and mankind has nothing to do with it. If you think otherwise, please prove to me how mankind caused every other instance of global temperature change over the course of Earth's history. Have a nice day.
Hmm, here I come to save the day. Without taking either side, I shall point out the flaws in this argument.

Individual people could be considered "sovereign" if you will, but sometimes they are asked to justify certain actions they take because they seem strange or out of place.

And while Global temperature variations are natural occurences, the global warming being talked about here is accelerated and more accented than the natural temperature change.

And no, I won't prove that to you because I'm not taking a side. I'm just pointing out that your argument sucks.

Ahh forget it. Americans are stupid ignorant morons.

Perhaps. But we're WEALTHY. Even our poor are wealthy by the world's standards. Otherwise, why would Mexicans be crossing the border in droves to work for food and $3.00 a day.

In case the rest of the world hasn't noticed, we don't care what you think!

I thought you stated that you have read the Protocol? At any rate,the agreement calls for the sharing of environmental technology, and while the lead countries in the industrialized countries develop these technologies, they are creating a market for them in the less advanced countries.

As the global economy continues to grow, there will be obvious advantages for these less advanced economies to put in place environmental protections that will help slow down their poliferation of pollutants. You can well imagine a country like China without any protections in place as it gears up for this global economy? If China started consuming non-renewable resources at the rate of say America, the race would be on to corner those commodities and the price of those commodities would skyrocket, and pollution would run rampant.

I have read the protocol. What I am highlighting is the fact that the protocol has flaws which enable industry to sidestep the limits on pollution. The sharing of environmental technology means nothing if the people you aim to share it with have no reason to take on the technology. The scenario I am using to portray this is where industry from the US and other developed nations moves their manufacturing facilities to developing countries. Something that is already happening due to a cheaper job market in developing countries. If cheaper labour is causing industry to outsource what makes you think punitive costs for complying with Kyoto won't increase the levels of outsourcing even further or worse mean that many companies move out of the US altogether?

The Kyoto Protocol is a starting point, and it will entail some growing pains, but the end result will be a better quality of environment for the world.

How? What makes you think developing nations have any interest in buying environmental technology when they have open slather on industry and no limits on pollution? You seem to think these nations will readily shell out money for technology that ultimately makes them non-competitive and returns industry to the pre-Kyoto status.

Personally speaking, I believe this is sheer propaganda by the oil industry as it tries to maintain its' stranglehold on the world's economy. Right now, the world has a bloodlust for the black crude, and the controlled supply and ever increasing demand is holding us all prisoners. The oil companies like this master/slave relationship. It is time to lessen this economic bondage!!

It is not only oil companies I am talking about. All industries, whether they be in mining or manufacturing etc produce pollution and will be required to comply with Kyoto. To narrow it to your pet project of oil companies is to miss most of the picture.

*yawn*

Yea...I heard something earlier...

"Men are pigs, eh? I guess it's too bad we own everything."

Seeing as there is no conclusive proof of global warming due to human activity why do we need a punitive protocol that has flaws that enable certain countries to get around limiting pollution out put?

Some articles showing the inaccuracy of global warming data and the fact that the very existance of global warming is far from an accepted fact:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm

http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2002/27mar2002.html

http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294

Not that I advocate not limiting pollution. The Kyoto Protocol is a sledgehammer approach and I would much prefer that developed nations improved their practises to reduce pollution as many are already doing outside of the Kyoto Protocol.

If your going to quote me and provoke me please use some intelligence when you do so.

If I'm not allowed to make fun of America's follies as an American, then good humor is truely dead.

If anything, I was making fun of myself.

If you can show me where I threw in a direct insult to you...a person I do not know, and had no reason to provoke, please do.

I would love to learn from my error, instead of being handed an obscure blanket insult to my intelligence and humor that otherwise tells me nothing.

Strictly on basis of population though, the US has 5% of the world's population and 36% of the world's CO2 emissions. You really can't base it on GDP.
Really? And why not? The GDP of the world's top economies is what is keeping the human population sustainable at these levels in the world. You can have 5 billion people in your country and zero emissions today, and you can watch 4.9 billion of them starve to death over the next month with a GDP of nothing.
Take away the GDP of the top 20 nations, and you have a world of widespread death. You wont need to CO2 to do it for you. Collapsing economies and widespread unemployment, crime, and famine will do it all for you.
Hell you dont even need to go that far. Take away they GDP of any of the world's top 5, US, China, Japan, India, Germany and watch the world's economy come crumbling down.
Population is only a resource where raw materials are over abundant and there is work to be done. If it isnt producing, it is a detriment that is only consuming resources. At any time, population is not a yardstick by which to measure the output of a nation, whether in terms of marketable goods, or in overall pollution levels.

You may not like GDP as a yardstick for assessing acceptable pollution levels, but using Population as a standard makes as much sense as using the height of a basketball player to determine how many points he gets when he shoots a basket.

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?

Shoot didn't know I was supposed to be there at the signing. I'm sorry, next time let me know in advance.

Shoot didn't know I was supposed to be there at the signing. I'm sorry, next time let me know in advance.

Come on man, get on top of things. I bet you missed the one about Iraq too, huh?

Come on man, get on top of things. I bet you missed the one about Iraq too, huh?

But what would you expect from an evil White Man? I haven't been thinking too clearly since Kerrys' DNC speech, plus all of that evil conservative brainwashing that evil Rumsfeld did to me. I'm sorry. Also Art Bell should be arrested cause he and MLB conspired to erase my brains before seeing the Day After whatever it's called!

PS-Cheese is a tasty snack, but never order Corned Beef on a Thursday in July, esp if you are going to the Rodeo and meeting Phil Rizzuto.

Come on man, get on top of things. I bet you missed the one about Iraq too, huh?

What happened in Iraq, is that silly little country still around? Thought we should have nuked them, which would have turned the sand into glass, thus allowing us to see all of that lovely oil. Ooops, that was the Haliburton Brainwashing coming out.

*Laughs* Yeah its still around...unfortunately. The Middle East has been inflamed for over 2000 years...just children fighting over a sandlot.

As for the Kyoto Agreement....first of all the old adage applies, "Nothing is ever 'free'". Currently, the US is more concerned with the economic output of its constiuents as opposed to the dubious environmental benefits of Kyoto. THis is WELL within its rights as a nation. As stated before with actual figures, the US produces the raw grain (from the Grain Belt), pharmaceuticals, and other necessities purchased all over the world. An effect on signing this would affect the US industry across the ENTIRE BOARD. Not just polluting companies, but all the companies that are linked to them. When prices go up for ONE company, ALL COMPANIES go up in response. Wood companies pollute, steel companies pollute, etc etc ad nauseum. Simple economics: The production of a good or service is dependant upon the price of the MEANS of production.

While I am COMPLETELY in agreement with protecting the environment....I am not in agreement to the methods required to enact that...namely driving US prices up across the board to comply with standards, but also affecting those who purchase the very same goods and services, namely, people around the world. Then we create another problem out of the solution: how to cut the price of rising costs so that necessary supplies can be met?

In short, US restrictions via the Kyoto Agreement would NOT benefit the environment (CO2 is easily converted to O2 you know. Its CO that isnt), but would indeed raise prices THROUGHOUT the world. How would that sound, with the costs of necessary pharmaceuticals, food etc rising? What kind of effect would it have on the poor across the globe?

And yes I used effect/affect correctly, thanks.

It seems to me like the environmentalists have actually won the debate here. Whether or not Kyoto is the solution is just a debate over implementation. Very few people are seriously arguing over the problem of oil dependence and global warming. I was just in London, admiring the headquarters of Swiss Re, which sticks out behind the Tower. It looks like a giant Easter egg. If global warming continues, the world will become uninsurable. Google that phrase, and throw in Swiss Re for good measure. Hurricane Charley is just going to keep happening.

So the solution is going to have to happen from the bottom up. The environmentalists have convinced us that we need to save the planet, but the market has to provide us a way to actually help. Here's a case study: why is everyone buying bottled water? Because the market provided the opportunity for consumers to avoid the unknown pathogens in the tap water.

So the market needs to provide ways to help the planet out, or at least find a scorecard that consumers can use that helps us keep track of the environmental cost. Usually, the economic scorecard is price, but price is deceptive right now. Currently, items that are designed for recycling are probably priced higher than throwaways. Increasing the information available about a product shows the value of designed sustainability, and the detrimental effect of design for disposal. Information can then be the weapon that counteracts the price pressure (a la clean water vs. free tap water) and produces a market for stuff that helps save the planet.

So instead of whining about the government not saving our planet, let's work towards an economy where the natural course of events is for the environment to get better. Surprise, surprise, it's going to be expensive - so I hope those oil companies are investing their billions wisely, since we're going to need that money to build out the replacement infrastructure.

...and for all you students out there, there's jobs in this future...

Tourkophagos said: "People may call me a 'commie pinko'...."

Don't flatter yourself. You're too stupid to understand the concepts involved.

Take away they GDP of any of the world's top 5, US, China, Japan, India, Germany and watch the world's economy come crumbling down.

Why would you put India and China in the top 5 above France and Britain? China might be 6th, but india is far behind.

Didn't sign it because it was too restrictive right from the get go. It would have put whole industries out of business leading to economic collapse. The technology does not yet exist to implement it properly. In time that will change.

Americans! Provide Justification for your failure to sign up for the Kyoto agreement!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?


Why..?

The powers that be decided they didn't like it.

They have their reasons.

I might just as sensibly ask, "Europeans! Justify your position in not agreeing to everything that the US, your superior in every way imaginable, wants to have happen on this planet!"

Sounds pretty silly, eh..?!

We needn't justify anything we do to anyone but ourselves (our internal constituency).

Why is it that morons such as yourself insist (as do ALL the UN members within this community) that only the nationstate that calls itself the UN is a legitimate "nation"..?

Thanks for your instigation. :)

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Didn't sign it because it was too restrictive right from the get go. It would have put whole industries out of business leading to economic collapse. The technology does not yet exist to implement it properly. In time that will change.

Biff, though I love talking to you, we did sign Kyoto but it was never ratified by Congress.

I guess profits for the corporations are more important than the future of this planet eh?
Oh yeah. You know, we Americans have so much control over what goes on in our country. We are definately all a bunch of big, fat, environment haters. You know, sweeping generalizations of the populace of any country are kind of bullsh*t.

Biff, though I love talking to you, we did sign Kyoto but it was never ratified by Congress.

You are just arguing semantics here, let it go. It doesn't matter if the President signed it or not, and the only reason people keep using the word "signed" is because they are trying to figure out why the US didn't accept the Kyoto Protocol. Just let them say signed, it doesn't really matter if they say signed or ratified.

Originally Posted by Tourkophagos
Ahh forget it. Americans are stupid ignorant morons.

Ask me a question about Paleontology, I'll run so many laps around you, it'l make your head spin. You base your opinion on a few individuals coughcoughBUSHcoughcough and not the rest of us, if americans are so stupid? than why did we invent the first atom bomb, why did we make the first moon landing? and why is our military the most advanced? Maybe we're not as stupid as you think, next time, get better points.

Ask me a question about Paleontology, I'll run so many laps around you, it'l make your head spin. You base your opinion on a few individuals coughcoughBUSHcoughcough and not the rest of us, if americans are so stupid? than why did we invent the first atom bomb, why did we make the first moon landing? and why is our military the most advanced? Maybe we're not as stupid as you think, next time, get better points.
Why did you come up with bad examples?
1) We didn't "invent" the atom bomb. We created it.
2) The moon landing is questioned by a lot of people so that alone makes it a bad argument.
3) What did the moon landing accomplish anyway?
4) I think we have the most advanced military because we have a huge national debt.
5) Why didn't you suggest something like "Isn't it true that America is a huge melting pot of people from all over the world, mostly European and by calling Americans ignorant, you imply that when Europeans mix with non-Europeans, the results are bad, therefore making you racist?"

You are just arguing semantics here, let it go. It doesn't matter if the President signed it or not, and the only reason people keep using the word "signed" is because they are trying to figure out why the US didn't accept the Kyoto Protocol. Just let them say signed, it doesn't really matter if they say signed or ratified.

Done and done but I'm glad it was not ratified! It would've hurt the US Economy and the unemployment rate would've been worse than it was.

I trully fail to see why you view us as evil, and why you say we must provide justification for looking out for our best intrests.

You say that the big corporations are evil, but the big corporations are made up of millions of regular, everyday works, who aren't evil, and who would lose thier jobs if the company lost money because of a certian agreement.

Looking out for the citizens of our nation does NOT need to be justified.

Americans! Provide Justification for your failure to sign up for the Kyoto agreement!
Oh yeah, and in response to your original question, Tourkophagos, yes I am an American, and I did fail to sign up for the Kyoto agreement. My Justification is that when they passed it around for every American to sign I was fresh out of pens, and therefore couldn't sign the agreement as they wouldn't accept blood as a legitimate medium of endorsement.

1 Im pretty sure we DID invent the first feasable atom bomb
2 So what if its questioned, it happined, so get over it.
3 Ask Nasa, Im not an expert on that topic maybe that its not made of cheese, and we did set a golf record there. How long was that again? LMAO
4 I wasn't referring to national debt, I was refering to the technolog behind it
5 I don't believe I ever implyed that, If I was to go that far, I would say that the spirit of what america stands for helps in the matter.

Why did you come up with bad examples?
I think they're great examples.

1) We didn't "invent" the atom bomb. We created it.
And your point?

2) The moon landing is questioned by a lot of people so that alone makes it a bad argument.
That's laughable. I don't know of any intelligent person who truly doubts that we landed on the moon.

3) What did the moon landing accomplish anyway?
Look at your comuter. Need I say more?

I thought so.

The space race also involved both nations advancing regular, on earth technology. All the satalites we have today, and all our cell phones, our PCs, our CDs, our XM radio, the internet, ect. wouldn't be around if it weren't for the technical advances that were achieved during the space race.

4) I think we have the most advanced military because we have a huge national debt.
And that makes our military a bad one?

5) Why didn't you suggest something like "Isn't it true that America is a huge melting pot of people from all over the world, mostly European and by calling Americans ignorant, you imply that when Europeans mix with non-Europeans, the results are bad, therefore making you racist?"
That's a presumptuos statement, and you should be ashamed.

My appologies for spelling.

Why did you come up with bad examples?
How are they bad examples?

1) We didn't "invent" the atom bomb. We created it.
Created can be invented! The atoms was discovered by Germany. We put them together to make the atomic explosion so yea, technically we did invent the atomic Bomb.

2) The moon landing is questioned by a lot of people so that alone makes it a bad argument.

How is it questioned? Oh! You mean the conspiracy theories that are out there? Sorry Opal but thier arguments don't hold weight what so ever. Next thing you'll be saying is that the earth is flat.

3) What did the moon landing accomplish anyway?
This is a good question! National Prestige in beating the Soviet Union and upstaging them since they lead the Space Race for so long maybe? A since of Pride that the impossible is possible?

4) I think we have the most advanced military because we have a huge national debt.

I don't believe this. Technology made our military the way it is! We actually have the capacity to have a state of the art military without going over budget.

5) Why didn't you suggest something like "Isn't it true that America is a huge melting pot of people from all over the world, mostly European and by calling Americans ignorant, you imply that when Europeans mix with non-Europeans, the results are bad, therefore making you racist?"

This is actually true! USA is a melting pot of people, cultures, religions, and customs. I don't know where you got the calling americans ignorant because it was someone from Europe that called us ignorant.

Hey, just reading the thread. Pretty funny stuff. You know, all of you guys thinking that saying ameriacns suck or that euros are racist is going to make a difference in what happens in the world. It dosent. You guys are worthless. Im worthless. What matters to the most important people in the world is money. MONEY. And consumers (we generate profit for these big evil kyoto hating corporations), so I guess you guys and I arent entirely worthless. Oh yeah, if you guys hate america so much, stop listening to rap, rock and wearing clothes influenced by American "culture". Yes, you say we are all so bad, but then you try and imitate our "culture" in almost every aspect. Tennis shoes. Skateboarding. Having stupid, pointless arguments on the web that wont amount to anything in the end. You know, all of that great all american stuff.

"Arguing on the internet is kind of like competing in the special olympics. Whether you win or lose, you still are retarded!" -Dosent work for all Special Olympics atheletes (disabled etc.) BTW I have great respect for em. Im just posting this because of you guys.

The lightbulb was invented by Joseph Swan of Britain some twenty years before Edison's design. As far as I'm aware the world wide web which makes the internet accessible to us was developed by Tim Berners Lee from Britian, Televison was devised by John Logi Baird from Britain, Charles Babbage of Britain is behind the computer. But yes, you are responsible for fake vomit.


Lets see nice points there Facist but huge hole in your theory yes they were invented by the british lightbulb by britian lasted what 15 20 seconds congrads on that one britian should be proud! Um and the interenet system we currently used was developed for everyday use by the US military and microsoft. The car i beleive was developed in britian (correct me if im wrong) but it was extremely expensive and not very praticial in any sense. But Ford was what made the car a usuable item so sure Britian you can have your inventions well just make them so they are actually useful not only that we still have first man on the moon and the first man to fly sooooo my point being if you like to invent all you want but a time machine that would work once and you have no idea were it was going would be completely useless untill an American made it actually useful.

Eh...
Whoever keeps saying we invented nuclear fusion needs to provide some sources. We did indeed create the very first atomic bomb, but we did not invent it.
Also, landing on the moon in itself didn't actually accomplish a whole lot, which is what my point was. The space race and everything surrounding the moon landing are the important things...

Also, you guys are really confused.
There are lots of great American accomplishments (as well as accomplishments from all over the world), however, the ones listed weren't that great.
How about being responsible for the end of the Age of Imperialism (even though some would argue that America is imperialistic today)?
How about being responsible for the creation of essentially all forms of communication since the telegram?
How about the invention of the assembly line?
And the creation of both the League of Nations and the United Nations...
And the strong arm assistance we provided in both world wars...
And football (real football, not that sissy European game)...
the list could go on..., but these reasons are better than the other reasons that were given...

This is actually true! USA is a melting pot of people, cultures, religions, and customs. I don't know where you got the calling americans ignorant because it was someone from Europe that called us ignorant.
I sometimes wonder if NSers can read. I presented the quoted part as a sample argument that an American can use against any European...

And by the way, Al Gore invented the internet guys...he's my hero.

Many nations yell about their freedoms to do whatever, and look out for their own people. However, all the europeans want america to put the rest of the earth before their own. How hypocritical can you get, and then there are the french who wont stick their necks out an inch to help us, if it wasn't for america, you'd be speaken german, and eating braughtwurst. That goes for the rest of europe as well. I agree with Andel Incorporated, if you eurotrash (Doesn't apply to UK) hate us so much, why do you Buy OUR goods? France at one time was a brave nation *gasp* and helped us out in the revolutionary war, I wonder what happined to them? Euiropeans blame the american citizens for how their country is run, well, what can the ordanary citizen do?

Hmm, flamers are dumb.

Every civilization waxes and wanes. Look at what Rome was, and now what are they? A huge boot-shaped tourist trap. France had its time of glory but it is waning. If you would get down off your fucking patriotic high horse for a second, you'd realize that eventually, the American empire will wane and their will be another country treating America the same way that idiots like you treat France.

Tourkophagos ive been reading your threads and i finnally got bored and decided i reply to your uniformed hateful thinking. Ok well lets say for a second China does surpas the US. Would the world be better?
1. China has a terrible human rights record
2. China has very little enviromental controls
3. China gives its citizens very little choice in pretty much anything
4. China can field a huge army but that doesnt threaten America just near by counties there is no way they could feed/cloth or transport that many troops effectivly and America has them outnumber and outgunned in navy and airforce with a comparrison of a toy plastic boat vs. jet ski.
5. China wont give a shit about anyone but China enviroment living conditions for its people things that America takes a lot more seriously then anyone will give them credit.
In conclusion NO ONE should want china leading us in the future and if you think they are some great new power you are a moron the only reason for this is huge labor force and they pay their workers extremely low wages. So next time you think your a smart and decide lets flame Americans why dont you think about what would happen if your dreams did come true and America did fall would ur (most likely europeon) country do any better? My answer is no way.

Question: Why should the average american, who didnt vote for the current administration (more than half the voters went for Gore, so the average american voted democrat in 2000) have to justify its action. I think the Bush administration is a bunch of morons, and I'm an american.

If you want justification, go and ask Bush. Just be carful not to use big words or he'll get mad and send you to Guantanamo (sp?) Bay.

Question: Why should the average american, who didnt vote for the current administration (more than half the voters went for Gore, so the average american voted democrat in 2000) have to justify its action. I think the Bush administration is a bunch of morons, and I'm an american.
1) 48% of the votes went to Gore, 48% to Bush, 4% to Nader. Gore had more by 500,000.
2) The average American didn't vote.
3) I think you're a moron for not capitalizing your nationality.

Who would impose economic sanctions? The UN? Excuse me if I don't hold my breath in anticipation.The countries who've signed the treaty.



I did not say anyone was stupid, please do not take artistic licence with my posts. I said don't assume people are either stupid or illinformed in response to you saying this:

Then you obviously have not looked at the wording of the protocol and worked out its connotations for the US.

If anyone reads the protocol they can see it is selective about who must comply. Therefore it is fairly evident why nations like the US will not ratify it. I would also say that the governments of the US and Australia would have analysed the protocol and its repercussions for their countries as well as the impact on the environment before making their decisions.Surely thats an argument for strengthening the protocol rather then ripping it up and starting again?

Eh...
Whoever keeps saying we invented nuclear fusion needs to provide some sources. We did indeed create the very first atomic bomb, but we did not invent it.
today)?


Fission = atomic bomb
Fusion = Hydrogen bomb

How about: the first country to harness the power of fission...

Yes, saying you invented fission/fusion is like saying you invented gravity...

Ah yes Kyoto would of crippled the American economy forcing unnecessary regulations on already regualted industries. Kyoto itself was a complete and utter failure considering that the Japanese who proposed the treaty refused to ratify it.Unnecessary!!?? Wake up, pal: even the friggin Pentagon has acknowledged the urgent and cataclysmic danger of climate change:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/3532
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/3667

And that first article is from Fortune magazine, which is not exactly a green, anti-capitalist publication.

Fission = atomic bomb
Fusion = Hydrogen bomb

How about: the first country to harness the power of fission...

Yes, saying you invented fission/fusion is like saying you invented gravity...
Err...yea...sorry for my split second of idiocy...

Unnecessary!!?? Wake up, pal: even the friggin Pentagon has acknowledged the urgent and cataclysmic danger of climate change:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/3532
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/3667

And that first article is from Fortune magazine, which is not exactly a green, anti-capitalist publication.

From the second link....

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. "

riiight

But the climate IS in a crisis. Haven't you seen "The Day After Tomorrow"?

Err...yea...sorry for my split second of idiocy...

No worries - thank you for giving me a chance to be arrogant and condescending

From the second link....

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. "

riiight

Most of the people who have had a problem with the Kyoto Protocols on here have not been arguing that global warming is not a problem, but that Kyoto will either do nothing or too little to fix it. Why should the US sign on to a pointless treaty which would only be disadvantageous for us?

The message: stop with the posts about whether or not global warming is going to happen or not. Frankly there isn't anything left to talk about in this thread that is still relevant for the original topic. We've explained why the US hasn't/shouldn't sign the treaty. There is nothing left to explain.

Most of the people who have had a problem with the Kyoto Protocols on here have not been arguing that global warming is not a problem, but that Kyoto will either do nothing or too little to fix it.

yep - thank you

Could've sworn I said something along those lines back on page 14.....apparently post sizes bigger than five sentences are immediately ignored as being too "technical" for NS. Ah well.

Refusing to sign an agreement which would benefit the entire globe environmentally, in favour of profits, is exactly the kind of fatuous, self-serving, greedy and irresponsible thing I'd expect from an American government.

And I'm no tree-hugging hippy either, I loathe the c*nts... I just want to remind some people of a certain saying: the earth is not ours, we borrow it from our children. It's soppy hippy bullshit. But also true.

Oh well... better break out the factor 40,000... :rolleyes:

Refusing to sign an agreement which would benefit the entire globe environmentally, in favour of profits, is exactly the kind of fatuous, self-serving, greedy and irresponsible thing I'd expect from an American government.

And I'm no tree-hugging hippy either, I loathe the c*nts... I just want to remind some people of a certain saying: the earth is not ours, we borrow it from our children. It's soppy hippy bullshit. But also true.

Oh well... better break out the factor 40,000... :rolleyes:

And this is the response of someone who apparently parrots something he overheard without really thinking about it. Of course I'm assuming that your comment about (SP)factor 40,000 is about sunblock? Nothing whatsoever to do with "global warming"

Ok, Kyoto protocols deal with CO2 emissions. Now CO2 is indeed on of the substances that can contribute the effect known as a greenhouse effect. By far the bigger contributer tho is water vapor. CO2 by volume represents a rather small amount.. approx. 380ppm in the atmosphere (parts per million) in 2003. In 1960 those levels were approx. 320ppm. CO2 represents only 0.038% of the total atmoshpere and as such cant really be used to explain climate change.

It has been said that the 1990's was the hottest decade for 1000 years. While some could point to this and say "see? I told you so" I believe it begs the question "why was it so hot 1000 years ago?" Human produced CO2 emissions cant be used to explain that. Perhaps all the energy used to in crying foul at polluting countries at not going along with Kyoto, should instead be harnessed toward finding real solutions to real problems.

But the climate IS in a crisis. Haven't you seen "The Day After Tomorrow"?
You have GOT to be kidding right?

Most of the people who have had a problem with the Kyoto Protocols on here have not been arguing that global warming is not a problem, but that Kyoto will either do nothing or too little to fix it. Why should the US sign on to a pointless treaty which would only be disadvantageous for us?

The message: stop with the posts about whether or not global warming is going to happen or not. Frankly there isn't anything left to talk about in this thread that is still relevant for the original topic. We've explained why the US hasn't/shouldn't sign the treaty. There is nothing left to explain.
Global warming: FACT

Global warming getting worse: FACT

Air pollution is killing large numbers and contributing to global warming: FACT

Deforestation is occurring at an alarming rate: FACT

Kyoto Protocol will lessen global warming, by developing technologies: FACT

Most of the countries in the world have signed Kyoto, including the US: FACT

Most of the countries in the world have ratified Kyoto: FACT

The US NEEDS to ratify Kyoto: FACT

There is no acceptable excuse. I will not make apologies or excuses for my governments refusal to ratify the treaty. Controversy surrounding the issue is all because it would cost influencial business interests profits should they be bound to it's terms. My personal opinion is why take chances with the future of our planet, err on the side of caution. But I don't have the financial clout to make the current administration listen to me. Those who are willing to gamble our future for a buck do.

Unnecessary!!?? Wake up, pal: even the friggin Pentagon has acknowledged the urgent and cataclysmic danger of climate change:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/3532
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/3667

And that first article is from Fortune magazine, which is not exactly a green, anti-capitalist publication.


You do realize the pentagon just creates alot of "what if" reports. Considering theres no citations, or a link to the original source material the source is very unreliable.

Also I would like to point out in Pentagon "what if" reports they are ussually on the extremely negative and pessimistic side.For example in the Pentagons coldwar reports like "Dropshot" they predicted the worst possible way WW3 would play out, the entire report was based on all of Europe failing to the soviet union and the United States needing 30 million troops to win the war.

Global warming: FACT

Global warming getting worse: FACT

Air pollution is killing large numbers and contributing to global warming: FACT

Deforestation is occurring at an alarming rate: FACT

Kyoto Protocol will lessen global warming, by developing technologies: FACT

Most of the countries in the world have signed Kyoto, including the US: FACT

Most of the countries in the world have ratified Kyoto: FACT

The US NEEDS to ratify Kyoto: FACT

Half of those facts are irrelevant to the issue at hand, and one of those "facts" is hardly a fact at all:

Kyoto Protocol will lessen global warming: CONJECTURE

Kyoto Protocol will develop new technologies: POSSIBILITY

These new technologies will decrease pollution in the most developed countries: FACT

These new technologies will definitely decrease pollution globally: FALSE

Kyoto Protocol will crush the economy of the current global leaders in favor of other nations who would probably not use these new technologies due to their desire to dominate economically: COUNTER-ARGUMENT

The Kyoto Protocol should be amended to include developing nations before the US should consider signing it: FACT

But the climate IS in a crisis. Haven't you seen "The Day After Tomorrow"?


you have to be joking right? please say your being sarcastic.

Probably one of the largest obstacles to getting a US ratification on the Kyoto Protocol could be due to the fact that the current President Bush and his handler Cheney stand to profit large from the continued poliferation of oil based energy and its' by-products. Talk about a conflict of interest?

Kyoto Protocol will lessen global warming, by developing technologies: FACT


Please substantiate this fact. Perhaps you just need to keep yelling it loud enough....

Probably one of the largest obstacles to getting a US ratification on the Kyoto Protocol could be due to the fact that the current President Bush and his handler Cheney stand to profit large from the continued poliferation of oil based energy and its' by-products. Talk about a conflict of interest?

I challange you to go one month without using any oil based energy or oil based product... one week.

Please substantiate this fact. Perhaps you just need to keep yelling it loud enough....
It is written into the Protocol, which prbably most people wouldn't bother reading?

It requires a sharing of technologies, and it assumes that the industrialized countries would be the innovators of such technologies. I personally think that the development of the technologies would not only benefit the environment but also provide incredible opportunities for new jobs.

The Beginner's Guide would be helpful to some?

http://unfccc.int/resource/beginner_02_en.pdf