NationStates Jolt Archive

I challange you to go one month without using any oil based energy or oil based product... one week.
That is NOT the challenge. The challenge is to reduce our consumption through improved technologies. There are already hybrid cars that are on the market, and the market needs to be expanded. Imagine a vehicle getting twice the mileage and giving off hydrogen rather than CO?

Converting coal fired electricity plants would be another major step forward.

I love my Honda Civic Hybrid car. :)

That said, I think perfectly valid points about how Kyoto is just number-wanking for the agenda of some groups that may or may not give a damn about the interests of Western nations have been raised. Canuck, it sounds like you're taking this issue far too personally to listen to those counter-arguments. Kyoto is not the only solution and it probably isn't even the best one. Do we need to clean up our act? Absolutely. Do we have to hamstring ourselves and ignore China to do it? Absolutely not. This isn't a zero-sum game... and that's essentially what Kyoto turns it into.

That is NOT the challenge. The challenge is to reduce our consumption through improved technologies. There are already hybrid cars that are on the market, and the market needs to be expanded. Imagine a vehicle getting twice the mileage and giving off hydrogen rather than CO?

Converting coal fired electricity plants would be another major step forward.

Also hybrids are slow, most of them aren't good looking. And the ones Ive heard sound like they have a tin can bouncing around in there engine.

and what are we going to convert them to? Everyone has complaints about nuclear power, enviromentalists group complain about gas power, they also complain about hydroelectric. Theres nothing else to convert to.

That is NOT the challenge. The challenge is to reduce our consumption through improved technologies. There are already hybrid cars that are on the market, and the market needs to be expanded. Imagine a vehicle getting twice the mileage and giving off hydrogen rather than CO?

Converting coal fired electricity plants would be another major step forward.

My challange was in response to your assertion that it was solely because of the Bush administrations ties to oil industry that prevents the Kyoto protocols being ratified. Im saying that you yourself are responsible for the proliferation of oil and oil based products. You can not extricate yourself from petro-chemical products.

And you still havent provided any evidence that the Kyoto standards would have any affect on global warming. CO2 emissions are a far second factor of greenhouse effect to water vapor. Naturally occuring water vapor...

Take a hundred gallon fish tank full of water. Add 1 gallon of water soluable green paint to the water. Now add 1 tablespoon of green food coloring. Kyoto would have you believe that if you added .1 tablespoon of food coloring, the water would be less green.

Also hybrids are slow, most of them aren't good looking. And the ones Ive heard sound like they have a tin can bouncing around in there engine.

Mine has none of those problems. It's not a speed demon, but I can get to highway speeds as easily as any other normal four-door car. It looks like a normal Civic. And the engine sounds like a normal engine... just quieter.

Hybrids seem a good way to go. Any way to increase gas efficiency (mileage) decreases pollution output almost (inversely) proportional. And since the prices are not prohibitively expensive, cant see much of a down side.

On the other note.. Hydrogen cell cars, while they seem a good idea (no polution, apperantly unlimited source of fuel), people arent realizing where hydrogen for those fill stations (LAX for one) comes from. Most of the H2 comes from is from methane or natural gas, and there is a lot of problems there.

Cant help but ask...why dont we use more nuclear power plants again? For the enlightened idiot that mentioned the resources for nuclear power are scarce.....so are the ones for practically anything else. However, there is a type of reactor, also known as a "breeder reactor", which actually gives off more nuclear material than it consumes. As for Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island....they were set up faulty. Does anyone here KNOW what happened at Chernobyl, why it occured? Its not the limitations of nuclear power, but the vast underestimation of human stupidity.


Think a reactor surrounded by lead walls instead of the additional concrete walls. Think pumping boron into the reactor isntead of water to carry the heat away. Think of a jackass leaving too many vents open. This, if I recall, is what occured at Chernobyl. Stupidity.

Nuclear power has its own merits which offer serious consideration, barring the development of technologies such as cost-efficient fusion. You CANT run a nation on just solar cells and wind plants.

Not even in SimCity, heh.

Kyoto agreement...details please.
That's what I'm talking about when I call Americans ignorant. And you hear things like that all the time from Americans.
No German would ever say something like this.

That's what I'm talking about when I call Americans ignorant. And you hear things like that all the time from Americans.
No German would ever say something like this.

Not all Americans are stupid....and not all Europeans are Einsteins. I have seen idiots everywhere I go and yes, even when I lived in Europe I saw plenty of them there too. Idiocy knows no border. ;)

That's what I'm talking about when I call Americans ignorant. And you hear things like that all the time from Americans.
No German would ever say something like this.Actually, I think asking for details when you don't know about something, instead of bulling ahead regardless, is the polar opposite of real ignorance.

My challange was in response to your assertion that it was solely because of the Bush administrations ties to oil industry that prevents the Kyoto protocols being ratified. Im saying that you yourself are responsible for the proliferation of oil and oil based products. You can not extricate yourself from petro-chemical products.

And you still havent provided any evidence that the Kyoto standards would have any affect on global warming. CO2 emissions are a far second factor of greenhouse effect to water vapor. Naturally occuring water vapor...

Take a hundred gallon fish tank full of water. Add 1 gallon of water soluable green paint to the water. Now add 1 tablespoon of green food coloring. Kyoto would have you believe that if you added .1 tablespoon of food coloring, the water would be less green.
I love your analogy so much, lets take it one step further.

Firstly, the tank of green coloured water, will obviously become greener under the scenario that you painted, and it would be foolish to think otherwise. I do not believe that the proponents of Kyoto are trying to give us any illusions to that effect though. It will get worse before it gets better and that is a fact.

Secondly, lets take that tank of green coloured water and instead of adding 1 tablespoon of food colouring, lets add another 1/2 gallon of green paint. It will be far more green than the first tank. Far more polluted so to speak. That 1/2 gallon would represent what the experts are predicting and that is that CO2 emissions will INCREASE by 50% in the next 15 years IF we do NOTHING!!

So the obvious message is clear, in that as we do nothing the problem will get much worse. China might be exempt for now, but once the technologies become available, they would be required to put them in place. There would be penalties involved if they didn't.

MOST of the countries in the world have ratified and/or accepted the Kyoto Protocol, and the US should be leading the way but they are not. Meanwhile, world weather patterns are changing and the devestating results are obvious. Denial is the root of the problem. Only action by the world's largest polluter can get the ball to recovery going.

Global warming: FACT

Global Warming is a Theory!

Global warming getting worse: FACT

See point one!

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

Not True! Studies indicate it would have minimal if any effect! Thus it will not lessen Global Warming and besides, it is a theory.

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

US did sign it but did not RATIFY it just as Japan (DNR), Australia(DNR) and Russia(DNR)

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

But how many of those countries are excluded from the controls? Most of them including China!

The US NEEDS to ratify Kyoto: FACT

FALSE!!! If the US Ratifies it, our unemployment rate will sore, our economy will collapse, and crime will be even more rampant than it is now. There are Social, economic as well as environmental factors in play with this treaty and the first 2 outweigh the environmental factors.

Cant help but ask...why dont we use more nuclear power plants again? For the enlightened idiot that mentioned the resources for nuclear power are scarce.....so are the ones for practically anything else. However, there is a type of reactor, also known as a "breeder reactor", which actually gives off more nuclear material than it consumes. As for Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island....they were set up faulty. Does anyone here KNOW what happened at Chernobyl, why it occured? Its not the limitations of nuclear power, but the vast underestimation of human stupidity.


Think a reactor surrounded by lead walls instead of the additional concrete walls. Think pumping boron into the reactor isntead of water to carry the heat away. Think of a jackass leaving too many vents open. This, if I recall, is what occured at Chernobyl. Stupidity.

Nuclear power has its own merits which offer serious consideration, barring the development of technologies such as cost-efficient fusion. You CANT run a nation on just solar cells and wind plants.

Not even in SimCity, heh.
*sigh* So true.. *sigh*
Many a times I have tried, but failed :rolleyes: . I had to go for Nuclear or Gas. Nuclears is more expansive, but gives out more power, and is less pollutent than Gas.

Cant help but ask...why dont we use more nuclear power plants again? For the enlightened idiot that mentioned the resources for nuclear power are scarce.....so are the ones for practically anything else. However, there is a type of reactor, also known as a "breeder reactor", which actually gives off more nuclear material than it consumes. As for Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island....they were set up faulty. Does anyone here KNOW what happened at Chernobyl, why it occured? Its not the limitations of nuclear power, but the vast underestimation of human stupidity.

You have a problem with your arguements! 1st off, TMI had a decent set up! Something went arrie and the saftey factors kicked in. No one got sick, no one got cancer. I live about 30 miles from a nuke plant and I feel perfectly safe.

Chernoble is another story. They ran experiments and DEACTIVATED the Safety Protocals. Again something went wrong but thanks to the deactivation of security measure, the plant went BOOM!!! That is why people are against Nuclear Power Plants, all because of Chernobyl! Our plants are safer than the Former USSR but at least they learned from that mistake.

FALSE!!! If the US Ratifies it, our unemployment rate will sore, our economy will collapse, and crime will be even more rampant than it is now. There are Social, economic as well as environmental factors in play with this treaty and the first 2 outweigh the environmental factors.Source?

That's what I'm talking about when I call Americans ignorant. And you hear things like that all the time from Americans.
No German would ever say something like this.

Economics comes into play Kielhorn. Though we DID sign it, both parties have read it and they did not ratify it because of the economic side as well as the social impact from said economics. It is only 1 solution but not the BEST one.

Source?

Holy Word, THINK!!!! Companies will go out of business and thus jobs will be lost. When jobs are lost, no one buys or goes anywhere. If no one buys or goes anywhere, those people will be forced to lay off people. Look at what happened in the 30's and you MIGHT understand what I'm talking about when the Stock Market Crashed (Will happen again if this is ratified)

Global Warming is a Theory!



See point one!



Not True! Studies indicate it would have minimal if any effect! Thus it will not lessen Global Warming and besides, it is a theory.



US did sign it but did not RATIFY it just as Japan (DNR), Australia(DNR) and Russia(DNR)



But how many of those countries are excluded from the controls? Most of them including China!



FALSE!!! If the US Ratifies it, our unemployment rate will sore, our economy will collapse, and crime will be even more rampant than it is now. There are Social, economic as well as environmental factors in play with this treaty and the first 2 outweigh the environmental factors.

How can you still think global warming is a theory????
Just look at Europe. People DIED last year because of European WARMING. Doesnt that mean something to you? To put it in American terms....
It is 102F there!!!!!!! Almost the same as in Iraq!

Meanwhile in the US....
It is getting increasingly colder. Strangely enough, last year in Hungary (which is in Europe ;)) during winter, there was no snow, and flowers started to bloom. But here in the US (northeastern US), it was -6C degrees. (I still had to go to school though :rolleyes: )with no snow.

Doesnt that mean something?

Fact: When my mother was just a child (and lived in Hungary), The snow was sooo big, they had to dig tunnels to get out of their house, and to school. (There are no snow days there)

*sigh* So true.. *sigh*
Many a times I have tried, but failed :rolleyes: . I had to go for Nuclear or Gas. Nuclears is more expansive, but gives out more power, and is less pollutent than Gas.

I go with Hydrogen for mine :p

Cant help but ask...why dont we use more nuclear power plants again? For the enlightened idiot that mentioned the resources for nuclear power are scarce.....so are the ones for practically anything else. However, there is a type of reactor, also known as a "breeder reactor", which actually gives off more nuclear material than it consumes. As for Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island....they were set up faulty. Does anyone here KNOW what happened at Chernobyl, why it occured? Its not the limitations of nuclear power, but the vast underestimation of human stupidity.

Since I'm the enlightened idiot, why don't you explain to us all about the breeder reactors need for non-fissile uranium 238 in order to create Plutonium? A limited and expensive fuel source, which is why there are all of two breeder reactors running in the world anymore. Not to mention the Plutonium that is produced is weapons grade. Here's a little clue for you, Nuclear fuel is much more scarce than oil or coal is, not to mention a thousand times more dangerous in terms of waste and nuclear proliferation.

well the theory of Global Warming is the Eastern U.S.A goes into an ice age. However do not attack snow days. I like them and they only bring happiness to the world.

Holy Word, THINK!!!! Companies will go out of business and thus jobs will be lost. When jobs are lost, no one buys or goes anywhere. If no one buys or goes anywhere, those people will be forced to lay off people. Look at what happened in the 30's and you MIGHT understand what I'm talking about when the Stock Market Crashed (Will happen again if this is ratified)I'm asking where you're getting your information from that this treaty will cause the American economy to collapse.

How can you still think global warming is a theory????
Just look at Europe. People DIED last year because of European WARMING. Doesnt that mean something to you? To put it in American terms....
It is 102F there!!!!!!! Almost the same as in Iraq!

HAHA!!! Oh please! My brother is studying meteorology. It was not really the highest on record either. Weather goes in cycles. Remember 1995 and the Hurricane season that saw a RECORD season? Everyone was talking about Global warming then. However, after that we had average seasons. That occurs every 20 years or so. I believe it was 2 years ago, Denver had their worst blizzard in 20 YEARS, again cyclical. We get a major snowstorm where I'm at every 10 Years. Don't use those things in your agruements because WEATHER RECORDS will show that occurs every so number of years. I don't know about European Warming trends so I'll have to look it up.

Meanwhile in the US....
It is getting increasingly colder. Strangely enough, last year in Hungary (which is in Europe ;)) during winter, there was no snow, and flowers started to bloom. But here in the US (northeastern US), it was -6C degrees. (I still had to go to school though :rolleyes: )with no snow.

I do know where Hungary! Welcome to weather cycles. One year, we got very little snow. But the next year we got smacked. Again, it comes down to cycles and weather patterns.


Doesnt that mean something?

Fact: When my mother was just a child (and lived in Hungary), The snow was sooo big, they had to dig tunnels to get out of their house, and to school. (There are no snow days there)

HAHA!! My dad used to walk 20 miles uphill in 3feet of snow with only a baked Potato. Same as my grandfater (No snow days there either) GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

HAHA!! My dad used to walk 20 miles uphill in 3feet of snow with only a baked Potato. Same as my grandfater (No snow days there either) GIVE ME A BREAK!!!A baked potato lass? They were lucky. In my day we walked 60 miles uphill in 6 feet of snow with no shoes on our feet, with only half a boiled potato to help us on our way.

That's what I'm talking about when I call Americans ignorant. And you hear things like that all the time from Americans.
No German would ever say something like this.
American's aren't ignorant.
But look at the byzantine excuses and (frankly) bare faced lies they spout when challenged with acting responisbly toward the environment. Not just the Kyoto Protocol... They don't recycle shit, they have 5% of the world's population yet use 20% of its resources and pump all that shit into the atmosphere. Not one other developed nation causes as much pollution as the US does.

They actually refuse to believe that global worming is a grave problem. How callous is that?

I don't know exactly what corporate bullcrap your media lobs at you, but as for me, just about every day I can read newspapers (of all kinds) which call for action reducing global warming, the same on television and the radio. But that's OK, 'cos these yanks here who only care about profiteering tell me that it's not true. It's water vapour. Oh... fuck man, I could've sworn that the chemicals spewed into the atmosphere are having a detrimental effect... Silly old me...

OK, so America is the biggest/greatest/grandest/biggest-bollocked country on earth. Well, don't you think that that comes with some (oh what's that word?) responsibility?

So, can we finally say that global warming is happening, it's exacerbated by industrial emissions, the lion's share (inevitably) coming from the US, and the Kyoto Protocol is positive action to arrest or at least slow global warming - a problem that will become quite pressing, especially if you live anywhere near the coast.

Something which I thought was taken as read...

Cant help but ask...why dont we use more nuclear power plants again? For the enlightened idiot that mentioned the resources for nuclear power are scarce.....so are the ones for practically anything else. However, there is a type of reactor, also known as a "breeder reactor", which actually gives off more nuclear material than it consumes. As for Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island....they were set up faulty. Does anyone here KNOW what happened at Chernobyl, why it occured? Its not the limitations of nuclear power, but the vast underestimation of human stupidity.
Chernobyl was the equivalent of running around a large parking lot with an umbrella while wearing platemal and shouting "SCREW YOU GOD!"
Aside from the shutting down the safeties to try goofing around with some things. Chernobyl was an RBMK (http://www.uic.com.au/nip64a.htm) plant. The problem with these is that when the water used to cool the plant is non-present, the reactions would spike.
Now, the water is where the real power coms from, to put it simply the reraction causes heat, which turns the water to steam, which causes it to go up and turn turbines, the water is then cooled, turned back to fluid and cycled through the system again. Got me?
Now the power levels at Chernobyl were lowered so the soviets could play with nuclear physics. This caused a power surge in the reactor. This, compounded with the fact that the idiots turned off the alarms and the fact that there is next to nothing in conatinment on RBMKs caused the disastor which we know and love today.
Since then changes have been made, among them modifying the control rods, replacing the computers, changing the emergency coolant system, etc., etc.
I have summarized to keeep from putting myself to sleep, but I think you get the idea.

I'm asking where you're getting your information from that this treaty will cause the American economy to collapse.


How much money do you think that Companies will have to pay to comply with Kyoto? Billions! Thus they'll layoff people thus those people won't buy as much or go very far. THus those industries will suffer and will probably have to layoff people and on down the line. The US Economy is all linked to eachother. If one industry suffers, others will too. Thus companies won't meet Wall Street Expectations, thus the Market will go down. Goes down too fast, its called a Crash. Happened in the 1930s and in 1980s but the one in the 80's was survivable and we did survive that one but we DID NOT survive the 1930s.

well the theory of Global Warming is the Eastern U.S.A goes into an ice age. However do not attack snow days. I like them and they only bring happiness to the world.

I like them too :) and I look foward to them every winter but alas, we hardly had one last winter :( All we had was a bunch of 2 hour delays and maybe 2 cancellations.

I love your analogy so much, lets take it one step further.

Firstly, the tank of green coloured water, will obviously become greener under the scenario that you painted, and it would be foolish to think otherwise. I do not believe that the proponents of Kyoto are trying to give us any illusions to that effect though. It will get worse before it gets better and that is a fact.

Secondly, lets take that tank of green coloured water and instead of adding 1 tablespoon of food colouring, lets add another 1/2 gallon of green paint. It will be far more green than the first tank. Far more polluted so to speak. That 1/2 gallon would represent what the experts are predicting and that is that CO2 emissions will INCREASE by 50% in the next 15 years IF we do NOTHING!!

So the obvious message is clear, in that as we do nothing the problem will get much worse. China might be exempt for now, but once the technologies become available, they would be required to put them in place. There would be penalties involved if they didn't.

MOST of the countries in the world have ratified and/or accepted the Kyoto Protocol, and the US should be leading the way but they are not. Meanwhile, world weather patterns are changing and the devestating results are obvious. Denial is the root of the problem. Only action by the world's largest polluter can get the ball to recovery going.

You missed the point, the paint represents water vapor in the atmoshpere, the food coloring represents man made CO2 emissions. You could completely remove man made co2 emissions and you would not affect the greenhouse effect that occurs because of the existant, and naturally occuring water vapor in the atmosphere.

I go with Hydrogen for mine :p

I never got to use hydrogen. Except once. But then it was too expensive :eek:

I never got to use hydrogen. Except once. But then it was too expensive :eek:

HAHA!! Cheat codes comes in handy ;)

Absolutely. Americans stink. They suck big time! The planet is dying and the corporations are laughing!

Americans dont stink! And neither does big business! Without big business we wouldnt have movies, cds, music, cars, medicine, and millions of other things, watch the dribble that comes out of your mouth before you critisize my country! And another thing, we are working hard and our environment is better than ever, do you know who has bad environment? China does, and South America is hacking away at its rainforests, North America has an incredible environment. SO SHUT THE HELL UP!

HAHA!!! Oh please! My brother is studying meteorology. It was not really the highest on record either. Weather goes in cycles. Remember 1995 and the Hurricane season that saw a RECORD season? Everyone was talking about Global warming then. However, after that we had average seasons. That occurs every 20 years or so. I believe it was 2 years ago, Denver had their worst blizzard in 20 YEARS, again cyclical. We get a major snowstorm where I'm at every 10 Years. Don't use those things in your agruements because WEATHER RECORDS will show that occurs every so number of years. I don't know about European Warming trends so I'll have to look it up.

Yes, but now, the scientists say that the warming will go up again in Europe. It'll keep on getting hotter. You'll see

I do know where Hungary! Welcome to weather cycles. One year, we got very little snow. But the next year we got smacked. Again, it comes down to cycles and weather patterns.

Then explain how come Europe had become suddenly warmer. And it is going to keep on getting warmer. In fact, snow is expected to disappear pretty soon.

HAHA!! My dad used to walk 20 miles uphill in 3feet of snow with only a baked Potato. Same as my grandfater (No snow days there either) GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

*sigh* those were the days. I love snow. Somehow everywhere I go, I keep missing the blizzard, or the snow. One day its piling high, by the time I get there (2 days later) its melted, and flowers are blooming.

American's aren't ignorant.
(snip)
They actually refuse to believe that global worming is a grave problem. How callous is that?
(snip)
So, can we finally say that global warming is happening, it's exacerbated by industrial emissions, the lion's share (inevitably) coming from the US, and the Kyoto Protocol is positive action to arrest or at least slow global warming - a problem that will become quite pressing, especially if you live anywhere near the coast.

Something which I thought was taken as read...

1. I do believe in global warming (greenhouse effect). I believe that without it the world would be plunged in another ice age, with avg temperatures 30 degrees C below todays temp.

2. I do not believe that junk science fueled reactionary regulations will help anything, but will hurt everything. I have seen no clinical evidence, but rather shaky theory but since it attacks those mean, evil corperations it's gotta be right :rolleyes:

3. I do not believe that Kyoto would have any affect what so ever. Not one study showing it would have any affect on global conditions. It's more of a punitive measure vs developed nations because "they are all bad, underdeveloped are good" elitist bs attitude.

4. Climate is cyclical. Avg temps 1000 years ago are hotter then they are now. Why is that? Did those evil corpertations develop a time machine and didnt tell the rest of us? Did they send all that mean, evil CO2 emissions back 1000 years to make it hot for them too?

Be objective in your observations, dont parrot.

HAHA!! Cheat codes comes in handy ;)

cheats are evil :sniper:
:p

Yes, but now, the scientists say that the warming will go up again in Europe. It'll keep on getting hotter. You'll see

Then it'll get colder again and people will claim we're heading for another ice age. Ironically, the environmentalists stated that we were heading for an Ice age now these same people are saying we're having global warming! My money goes to a cooling of europe again. Weather goes in cycles. We had one of the warmest and DRYEST summers on record about 5 years ago. I was playing softball in 90+ degree heat with 105+Heat index and my brother was playing baseball in same heat. The next year we had the coolest and Wettest on record. I bet that in 5-10 years, Europe has a cold snap.

Then explain how come Europe had become suddenly warmer. And it is going to keep on getting warmer. In fact, snow is expected to disappear pretty soon.

As I said, I'll have to look this up. As for snow disappearing, this I don't believe. Our meteorologist do a wonderful job on European weather and they are not concerned at all. Its cyclical. Weather is one great big Weather cycle. Just like our Sun has a big impact on our weather and it too has cycles.

*sigh* those were the days. I love snow. Somehow everywhere I go, I keep missing the blizzard, or the snow. One day its piling high, by the time I get there (2 days later) its melted, and flowers are blooming.

Did you know that everytime Denver, CO (mile high I might add) that the snow is gone the next day? A blizzard hits and the snow is gone after a day or 2! I love snow. What I DON'T LIKE is Ice and we get that too and alot of it! *Shudders*

cheats are evil :sniper:
:p

HAHA!! Ya it is but its fun to use them! Should see my houses in The Sims! Big ones with very expensive furniture! :P :D

Global Warming is a Theory!



See point one!



Not True! Studies indicate it would have minimal if any effect! Thus it will not lessen Global Warming and besides, it is a theory.



US did sign it but did not RATIFY it just as Japan (DNR), Australia(DNR) and Russia(DNR)



But how many of those countries are excluded from the controls? Most of them including China!



FALSE!!! If the US Ratifies it, our unemployment rate will sore, our economy will collapse, and crime will be even more rampant than it is now. There are Social, economic as well as environmental factors in play with this treaty and the first 2 outweigh the environmental factors.
You obviously know very little on this subject, probably have not read the Kyoto Protocol and have bought into the corporate view that protecting the environment will cause the US to go into financial ruin.

Get informed, do some reading, and until such time.......thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

You obviously know very little on this subject, probably have not read the Kyoto Protocol and have bought into the corporate view that protecting the environment will cause the US to go into financial ruin.

I understand economics, I understand history! I understand more than what you give me credit for. I also have an understanding weather and my brother is getting a degree in Meteorology (that's the Study of Weather)! I have read Kyoto and I've seen studies done on Kyoto and what those studies show is that its effects will be minuscual at best! In other words, no effect at all. Why spend money on something that will have no effect? That is not good economic sense.

Get informed, do some reading, and until such time.......thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

I'm more informed than you think I am CanuckHeaven. I suggest you read the studies on Kyoto and see for yourself just how minisual it is. Also take weather courses and see just how cyclical weather really is. My brother hammered his biology teacher who was on a Global Warming Kick and just like someone on here, tried to use the Presidents Day blizzard as an example and buried her with the fact that we get a blizzard every 10 years. I need to get informed? I think I'm more informed than you think I am!

Here's something Interesting I picked up on the net regarding Global Warming:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba299.html
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011802a.htm
http://www.enotes.com/global-warming/1840
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/DefectiveGlobalWarming.pdf
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA194.html

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2185/is_6_12/ai_77607928

http://www.nationalcenter.org/RR103.html

You obviously know very little on this subject, probably have not read the Kyoto Protocol and have bought into the corporate view that protecting the environment will cause the US to go into financial ruin.

Get informed, do some reading, and until such time.......thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

You obviously know very little on this subject, probably have only read the Kyoto Protocol and have bought into the enviro view that protecting the environment takes precedence over anything else and screw the consequencies.

Get informed, do some reading, and until such time.......thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

I understand economics, I understand history! I understand more than what you give me credit for. I also have an understanding weather and my brother is getting a degree in Meteorology (that's the Study of Weather)! I have read Kyoto and I've seen studies done on Kyoto and what those studies show is that its effects will be minuscual at best! In other words, no effect at all. Why spend money on something that will have no effect? That is not good economic sense.

I find all these economic arguments from Americans against environmental protection most frustrating, especially when they state "well, the third world aren't doing it" etc.
The USA is the world's biggest economy, it can more than afford to implement environmental protection measures without any significant damage to its economy. Many western European countries are managing to do so, and I hardly see their economies collapsing.
It smacks of selfishness to suggest that ones economy is more important than the future wellbeing of the planet and the quality of life of our children and the people of future years.

Here's something Interesting I picked up on the net regarding Global Warming:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba299.html
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011802a.htm
http://www.enotes.com/global-warming/1840
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/DefectiveGlobalWarming.pdf
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA194.html

Whilst undoubtably there are studies that contradict or at least dispute the theory of climate change, the vast majority of these are from US bodies. Often, if one looks at the funding source for the organisations that produced such reports, they are companies with a vested interest in disclaiming the climate change theory (e.g. petrochemical companies etc).

Whilst undoubtably there are studies that contradict or at least dispute the theory of climate change, the vast majority of these are from US bodies. Often, if one looks at the funding source for the organisations that produced such reports, they are companies with a vested interest in disclaiming the climate change theory (e.g. petrochemical companies etc).

So because they are done by bodies of the US that deal with the environment, you discount them? Thanks for showing that you have no interest in learning the other side of this issue.

I find all these economic arguments from Americans against environmental protection most frustrating, especially when they state "well, the third world aren't doing it" etc.

And the 3rd world is excluded. Though they signed it, they don't have to comply with it! Hense its an UNFAIR treaty and it singles out the most industrious nations.

The USA is the world's biggest economy, it can more than afford to implement environmental protection measures without any significant damage to its economy. Many western European countries are managing to do so, and I hardly see their economies collapsing.

Even our economy can't handle what Kyoto wants us to do. Even the US Senate recognizes that as does most economists. As for europe, they have a HIGHER unemployment rate than we do so using Europe in that way is really a dead arguement. And besides, according to forcasts, their unemployment rate will continue to rise as ours goes down. Maybe your already feeling the effects of this and have yet to come to terms with it.

It smacks of selfishness to suggest that ones economy is more important than the future wellbeing of the planet and the quality of life of our children and the people of future years.

We are not just using the Economy. We are using the treaty itself. Studies show that it'll have virtually no effect in limiting Green house emissions.

So because they are done by bodies of the US that deal with the environment, you discount them? Thanks for showing that you have no interest in learning the other side of this issue.

Please do not be sensationalist. I did not discount them. And I am sure that there are studies that have questioned climate change from outside USA.
I simply stated the fact that the vast majority of such critical studies have originated from organisations in the USA that receive much of their funding from organisations with a financial interest in discrediting the climate change theory.

And the 3rd world is excluded. Though they signed it, they don't have to comply with it! Hense its an UNFAIR treaty and it singles out the most industrious nations.



Even our economy can't handle what Kyoto wants us to do. Even the US Senate recognizes that as does most economists. As for europe, they have a HIGHER unemployment rate than we do so using Europe in that way is really a dead arguement. And besides, according to forcasts, their unemployment rate will continue to rise as ours goes down. Maybe your already feeling the effects of this and have yet to come to terms with it.



We are not just using the Economy. We are using the treaty itself. Studies show that it'll have virtually no effect in limiting Green house emissions.

I do not dispute the fact the unemployment is marginally higher in some European countries, however one could hardly call their economies collapsing. I don't understand your comments regarding "our" unemployment rate rising/falling. We are many different countries, it's rising in some (eg Germany) and falling in others (eg UK, Finland). Overall, the European economy is growing. Yes, it is not as fast as the USA is in most countries of Europe, but it's because we balance the needs of the environment, and other needs, such as those of social welfare, with the needs of the market. We are not prepared to tolerate environmental ruin and a huge levels of poverty.

As for the Third World arguement, it is hardly fair for a European or American to argue that the Third World should be forced to adhere to Kyoto to the same degree as us. We can afford to do so, we are developed nations. They are not, and cannot afford to do so, it would harm their economies severely at a stage of their development when they are still highly fragile.
It is up to the mature developed economies of eg Europe, North America, Japan to set an unselfish example, as we can afford to do so, so that when the countries of the current Third World develop we can convince them to do so in an environmentally sound way with credibility.

I resent this broad brush you have used to criticize Americans for the refusal to sign on to Kyoto. President Bill Clinton AGREED to Kyoto, and as an American I wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty. George W. Bush acted against my wishes as an American voter on this issue, like many others.

As for the Third World arguement, it is hardly fair for a European or American to argue that the Third World should be forced to adhere to Kyoto to the same degree as us. We can afford to do so, we are developed nations. They are not, and cannot afford to do so, it would harm their economies severely at a stage of their development when they are still highly fragile.
It is up to the mature developed economies of eg Europe, North America, Japan to set an unselfish example, as we can afford to do so, so that when the countries of the current Third World develop we can convince them to do so in an environmentally sound way with credibility.

I think the arguement is mostly about Kyoto not addressing India and China, who as they move into the automobile age as nations in this century are going to surge in the amount of polution they produce, as they have few to know environmental safe guards.

I think the arguement is mostly about Kyoto not addressing India and China, who as they move into the automobile age as nations in this century are going to surge in the amount of polution they produce, as they have few to know environmental safe guards.

Yes, I agree. It's not idle. In the long term, these countries are going to have to implement much stricter environmental regulations.

However, at present the GNP of India is 450 USD and in China 4600 USD, compared to 33.000 USD in USA and eg 26.000 USD in Sweden. So, it's not really realistic for them to be able to take part at this early stage of economic development. This should not however be used as an excuse for those countries that can afford to participate to not do so.

US companies have to compete with those companies today however. We're seeing alot of manufacturing and IT jobs moving to the far east as we stand today. While in the end I think outsourcing is good for the economy, American companies still need to be able to compete.

The simple truth is that when most people have a choice between saving the environment for future generations and having food on their family's plate tomorrow, they will go with the later.

The simple truth is that when most people have a choice between saving the environment for future generations and having food on their family's plate tomorrow, they will go with the later.

Once again I agree. No one is however expecting people to commit economic suicide. Europe wouldn't be implementing Kyoto and stricter environment regulations if it had a drastically adverse effect on our economies - we're not without our own self-interests! However, the USA really can afford to encourage its business sector and implement within its state-controlled sector stricter environmental regulation to safeguard our environment. Again, nobody is asking for American economic suicide, that wouldn't obviously wouldn't be in your own interest, and it wouldn't be in ours either, you are one of our major trading partners!

Please do not be sensationalist. I did not discount them. And I am sure that there are studies that have questioned climate change from outside USA.
I simply stated the fact that the vast majority of such critical studies have originated from organisations in the USA that receive much of their funding from organisations with a financial interest in discrediting the climate change theory.

I'm sure they are and they will probably point the finger at global warming! However, it is LESS than what the extreme environmentalists are saying. Way less according to reports.

As for your last paragraph, I would like to see proof of your statement.

I do not dispute the fact the unemployment is marginally higher in some European countries, however one could hardly call their economies collapsing.

Some? Most of Europe has Higher unemployment than we do! European economies have collapsed. Some more so than others I will say that. Europe's economies have been collapsing for years.

I don't understand your comments regarding "our" unemployment rate rising/falling. We are many different countries, it's rising in some (eg Germany) and falling in others (eg UK, Finland).[

Ok, This I will not argue because this is pretty much true.

Overall, the European economy is growing. Yes, it is not as fast as the USA is in most countries of Europe, but it's because we balance the needs of the environment, and other needs, such as those of social welfare, with the needs of the market. We are not prepared to tolerate environmental ruin and a huge levels of poverty.

Your right, its growing at a snails pace. As for the environment factors, this I don't believe is the cause of it. The economy has its cycles, both good and bad. As for Poverty, Greece has a poverty problem, France has a poverty problem, Italy has a Poverty problem. Britain has a slight poverty problem. So don't deny you have huge levels of poverty.

As for the Third World arguement, it is hardly fair for a European or American to argue that the Third World should be forced to adhere to Kyoto to the same degree as us. We can afford to do so, we are developed nations. They are not, and cannot afford to do so, it would harm their economies severely at a stage of their development when they are still highly fragile.

Our economy can't handle what Kyoto calls for either. Studies show that it would Cripple our economy and the ENTIRE US SENATE knows this which is why a resolution was passed 95-0 asking the Clinton Administration to not put forth any treaty that would cripple the US Economy and Kyoto would've crippled the US Economy. It was this 95-0 vote that convinced Clinton not to send it to the Floor.

It is up to the mature developed economies of eg Europe, North America, Japan to set an unselfish example, as we can afford to do so, so that when the countries of the current Third World develop we can convince them to do so in an environmentally sound way with credibility.

Japan to my knowledge has not ratified the treaty! Australia has not ratified the Treaty. USA has not Ratified the treaty. Russia has not ratified the treaty. All said nations KNOWS that this is ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! I guess you just don't understand that if any nation economy collapses that has a major impact on the world, US and Japan, the whole world will suffer. The US Senate knows this is economically impossible and will reject the treaty if its ever brought foward. Economics plays a huge part in this and we are not willing to cripple our economy and our society for a treaty that has no chance of working!

I resent this broad brush you have used to criticize Americans for the refusal to sign on to Kyoto. President Bill Clinton AGREED to Kyoto, and as an American I wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty. George W. Bush acted against my wishes as an American voter on this issue, like many others.

Bill Clinton signed Kyoto. No arguing that but you have IGNORED the fact that when he did, the US Senate, then under Democrat control, voted 95-0 on a resolution S.Res 98 (Byrd-Hagel Resolution) on July 25, 1997
Here's what Senator Hagel said on July 24, 2002:
http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Hagel_072402.htm

Here is the text of said resolution with the voting record of it!
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205

Your right, its growing at a snails pace. As for the environment factors, this I don't believe is the cause of it. The economy has its cycles, both good and bad. As for Poverty, Greece has a poverty problem, France has a poverty problem, Italy has a Poverty problem. Britain has a slight poverty problem. So don't deny you have huge levels of poverty.


Yes, they have poverty problems. I don't know the stats for Greece and Italy, but I do know that France's poverty rate is a lot lower than, eg USA's. Sweden (where I live) has an even lower poverty rate. This is due to government policies that value every citizen, not just those that have money.

And yes, our economies are generally growing slowly. But does that really matter? It's still growth. If it's slower because of social welfare (=greater social equality) and environmental protection (probably a very small cause) then I for one would rather live in such a society.

I will have to deal with your other points tomorrow, as it's gone midnight now... time for bed! Good night!

Heres what Senator Hagel said regarding Kyoto on July 24, 2002!

Opening Statement U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel

Joint Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

and the Environment and Public Works Committee

July 24, 2002


Mr. Chairman - Thank you for holding this hearing. This is an opportunity for the Administration to discuss the progress that has been made on these five environmental treaties, all of which have been ratified by the U.S. Senate.



Of course, much of the talk today is also likely to focus on a treaty that was signed by President Clinton but never submitted to the Senate, the Kyoto Protocol.



I would like to remind my colleagues of a bit of Senate history on this issue.



Tomorrow will mark the five-year point since the Senate voted unanimously to provide President Clinton and Vice President Gore with clear advice regarding the Kyoto Protocol. It is unfortunate that the Clinton Administration ignored the Senate's 95-0 vote on S.Res. 98, or the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, but the conditions outlined in that resolution remain the guideposts for U.S. international climate change policy.



I would also remind my colleagues, and this frequently gets forgotten in the discussion, perhaps even more significant than the 95-0 vote was that the Byrd-Hagel Resolution had 65 bipartisan cosponsors.



As we know, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution was very clear. It called on the President not to sign the Kyoto Protocol, or any other international climate change agreement, unless two minimum conditions were met.

First, S.Res.98 directed the President not to sign any treaty "...unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period." The message was simple. Yet as we know, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. These are the very nations, such and China and India, that will soon lead the world in manmade greenhouse emissions. Any treaty that exempts them from participation is folly.



Second, the Resolution stated the President should not sign any treaty that "...would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." The Kyoto Protocol would have legally bound the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. As President Bush stated in February, this would have cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and resulted in the loss of 4.9 million jobs.

The Clinton Administration never submitted it to the Senate for debate and consideration. I suspect it is because they knew what is still true today - if put to a vote in the Senate, the Kyoto Protocol would face resounding defeat.

Other nations are also reconsidering their early ardent advocacy for the Kyoto Protocol. Japan has ratified the treaty, but has no enforceable plan to meet its obligations. The same is true for the European Union. Australia has joined the United States in saying it will not ratify the protocol. Canada and Russia have not made final commitments to ratification.

The Kyoto Protocol is collapsing under the weight of the reality of its economic consequences.

Does that mean the United States should turn its back on international efforts to address potential climate change? No, that would be irresponsible.

In his February 14th announcement of the Administration's climate change policies, President Bush stated, "I intend to work with nations, especially the poor and developing nations, to show the world that there is a better approach, that we can build our future prosperity along a cleaner and better path."

The Administration has backed up the President's words with funding and tangible international cooperation. I'm sure the witnesses here today will expand on these efforts and I look forward to their testimony.

Next month, nations will gather for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. We should stay focused on science, programs and resources that enhance international cooperation to produce tangible environmental benefits for all nations. Not worn-out debates over dead treaties.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Vote was 95-0 on Senate Resolution 98 on July 25, 1997! Even Kerry voted for this resolution!

I resent this broad brush you have used to criticize Americans for the refusal to sign on to Kyoto. President Bill Clinton AGREED to Kyoto, and as an American I wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty. George W. Bush acted against my wishes as an American voter on this issue, like many others.

you havent read this thread have you?

you havent read this thread have you?

No I don't think he has. And I also don't think he understands how a treaty becomes legally binding here in the USA! It requires a vote by the Senate for it to be law here in the USA and Clinton DID NOT bring it there because he knew it would've been defeated handly.

95-0!

Nice post Formal...I think we can stop this thread now...

Majeure made a good point. Why the hell are we still arguing this?

Tourkaphagos ( I beleive thats how he spelt it) is no longer answering posts, and were rehashing old crap.

As for nuclear power plants: Yes, they put out more waste. However the waste can be dealt with. I for one live NEAR a breeder reactior (Seabrook Station, New Hampshire, US). Ive been there, Ive toured the plant, Ive even been in the mock control room they use to train their employees. Nuclear power works, nuclear waste can be dealt with, and breeder reactors put out more than they use to power. While its not perfect, its the BEST WE GOT NOW. If you have ANY other idea of a feasible large-scale energy source, by all means, enlighten us.

As for Kyoto...doesnt do enough..its basically a feel-good treaty used to punish the US and not actually help much to cut down on emissions. Nations are sovereign..there is NO LAW that says we have to go along with everyone else.

As for Three Mile Island..I made a mistake. It wasnt set up faulty...it was human error. I will rescind that.

As for Hungary....very cool country. Part-Hungarian and proud of it!

As for the environment...its a cool thing, and we should take care of it.

As for Sim City....its all about the arcologies ;).

There...I think I took care of all the major topics here, heh.

Does anyone else think that a non-flat threading structure would help make these forums better..?!

The ability to reply to individual postings, and have the posts arranged in a nested fashion (you kow what I mean) would make it much nicer to use this system.

Any comments,.. especially from a MOD, or better yet, THE MOD of JOLT.CO.UK..!?



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

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

Does anyone else think that a non-flat threading structure would help make these forums better..?!

The ability to reply to individual postings, and have the posts arranged in a nested fashion (you kow what I mean) would make it much nicer to use this system.

Any comments,.. especially from a MOD, or better yet, THE MOD of JOLT.CO.UK..!?



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

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

This should be in technical and not here!

Heres what Senator Hagel said regarding Kyoto on July 24, 2002!



Vote was 95-0 on Senate Resolution 98 on July 25, 1997! Even Kerry voted for this resolution!
That vote was in 1997. A lot has happened since that time. If you check out the link, you will notice what will happen to worldwide CO2 emissions in the next 21 years IF nothing is done.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/0/7/7/6/1/4/A0776146.html

Formal, if you recall from your reading of the Kyoto Protocol, the goal for industrialized countries was to get back to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and as a group they did, although it was not through North American leadership.

If you notice in the chart, worldwide CO2 emissions will be almost DOUBLE the 1990 levels IF nothing is done. You as a 15 year old should be very concerned by this. Perhaps by then, you will have a couple of children of your own to think about, and about the environment that you will pass on to them.

You keep talking about money. money, money, and if you think money is more important than the air that you breathe, the water that you drink, and the land that supports agriculture and forests, then I feel sorry for you.

If you notice in the chart, worldwide CO2 emissions will be almost DOUBLE the 1990 levels IF nothing is done. You as a 15 year old should be very concerned by this. Perhaps by then, you will have a couple of children of your own to think about, and about the environment that you will pass on to them.

Again, since the levels of CO2 now have an insignificant affect on global warming, double that will have an insignificant affect as well.

Economic hardship, coupled with no appreciative benifit from the regulations = bad idea.

Again, since the levels of CO2 now have an insignificant affect on global warming, double that will have an insignificant affect as well.

Economic hardship, coupled with no appreciative benifit from the regulations = bad idea.
Well according to the scientists, CO2 will have an effect on global warming, and it will have an effect on the air quality, and people's health in general.

Believe what you will....I certainly hope that whoever is right on this issue, and I assume that it is the environmentalists, that they can get the ball rolling.

Well according to the scientists, CO2 will have an effect on global warming, and it will have an effect on the air quality, and people's health in general.

Believe what you will....I certainly hope that whoever is right on this issue, and I assume that it is the environmentalists, that they can get the ball rolling.

According to some scientists, but by no means all. It was originally (in this thread) "every scientist in the world". This then changed to "every credible scientist" (assuming this means that if they dont believe the same way then they obviously arent credible). Now it's scientists.

Every scientist at the time once felt the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.

According to some scientists, but by no means all. It was originally (in this thread) "every scientist in the world". This then changed to "every credible scientist" (assuming this means that if they dont believe the same way then they obviously arent credible). Now it's scientists.

Every scientist at the time once felt the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.
Well whoever stated every scientist was not being realistic. Do you think all those countries (over 185 of them) signed the Kyoto Protocol on the advice of less than "credible" scientists? I certainly don't think so.

i think i may have already posted this, but...
*yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwn*

Not only is the Kyoto Protocol a bald-faced attempt to cripple the American economy, it will only slow greenhouse gas buildup by 6 years... by 2100. And that's assuming China and Mexico keep their pollution levels constant. LOL!

Well whoever stated every scientist was not being realistic. Do you think all those countries (over 185 of them) signed the Kyoto Protocol on the advice of less than "credible" scientists? I certainly don't think so.

17,000 scientists, over 2/3rds of which having advanced academic degrees signed a petition urging the US not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Until the science can be proven, via external and objective tests it remains nothing more than theory. To base regulations on unproven theory is reckless and reactionary at best.

Same thing happened with the PPA scare a few years ago... and with DDT a few decades ago. Reactionary regulations have caused financial harm and is the direct cause of untold deaths.

Shades of Kyoto at the Hague
By Henry Lamb
(November 24 2000)

Sometime after midnight, Jan Pronk, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, and President of the Hague climate change conference, released his own draft of the proposed agreements delegates from 180 nations must adopt in order to move the Kyoto Protocol further toward implementation. For two weeks, the delegates have been gridlocked over major issues left unanswered when the Protocol was adopted in Kyoto in 1997.

In Kyoto, no agreement had been reached by the final day. The delegates went into a closed session, and emerged near daylight with an agreement in hand.

Once again, the delegates have failed to reach agreement during the regular negotiating sessions. Once again, the conference leaders have produced a draft in the middle of the night. Once again, selected negotiators will go behind closed doors and will likely negotiate until some kind of agreement is reached.

This is the what the United Nations calls an open, transparent, democratic process.

All week, Pronk has warned the negotiators to "remove the brackets," which refers to clauses in the draft on which there is disagreement. He promised that if the negotiators failed to compromise, he would write his own draft. He did.

Friday morning of the second week is supposed to be dedicated to celebrating the agreements reached during the two-week negotiating session. Friday afternoon is supposed to be devoted to packing up, preparing to leave on Saturday.

Many of the delegates will have to pack up on Friday and leave on Saturday too, because their travel arrangements require it. If an agreement is reached late Friday night or Saturday morning, it will be without the review of observers, and without the participation of many of the delegates.

Pronk has said that his draft will force all nations to bear the pain equally. What that really means is that only the developed nations will bear the pain - 150 developing nations are not bound by the Protocol. Should the U. S. delegates sign such an agreement, they would be deliberately ignoring a unanimous Senate Resolution that says the Senate will not ratify a treaty that fails to bind all nations.

Delegates are confronted with only two choices: accept some version of Pronk's draft, and pretend that it represents a great victory for diplomacy, or to reject the agreement, admit failure, and watch years of effort unravel. Smart money is on some kind of agreement.

Failure to reach real agreement, after five years of negotiations, should send a pretty strong signal that there may be some fundamental flaws in the basic document. The most basic flaw was incorporated in the original Berlin Mandate at the first Conference of the Parties in 1995 - the decision to exclude 150 developing nations. The second basic flaw was also included - the decision to make the Protocol legally binding, with absolutely no idea how to make it legally binding, or what the penalty might be for non-compliance. A third fatal flaw was the decision to set a firm time line for implementation.

The time line began in 1995 in Berlin, by declaring that a Protocol would be adopted in Kyoto in 1997. In Kyoto, the delegates declared that the rules for implementation would be agreed at the Hague in 2000, in order to achieve full implementation by 2002 - to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development where the original Climate Change Treaty was adopted.

The Kyoto document was premature, incomplete, ill-conceived, and adopted anyway. The vacuous deficiencies of the Kyoto document have been compounded by efforts to shape rules for implementation of unclear or undefined objectives.

Any agreement adopted under the circumstances that prevail at the Hague is bound to do more harm than good. The unintended consequence of such an agreement will be nothing more than the empowerment of a U.N. body to do what the representatives of 180 nations could not do - write the procedures through which the United Nations can dictate the energy policies of 38 developed nations.

This is precisely what 150 developing nations want, and it is precisely what the United Nations wants. The primary objective of the United Nations is to force what it calls "equity" on all nations. The United Nations intends to be the equalizer, the manager of the earth's resources - to ensure that all people enjoy the benefits of the earth's bounty equally.

This is the classic, utopian dream of socialism. It fails to recognize a fundamental principle in nature: benefit from the earth's resources must be earned. Benefits acquired by any other method are either a gift, or theft. Forced equity is not a gift.

Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts


Thank you for your letter of March 6, 2001, asking for the Administration's views on global climate change, in particular the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. My Administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously.

As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.

As you also know, I support a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that takes into account the importance of improving air quality. Consistent with this balanced approach, I intend to work with the Congress on a multipollutant strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty, and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets. I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.

A recently released Department of Energy Report, "Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Power Plants," concluded that including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices compared to scenarios in which only sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides were reduced.

This is important new information that warrants a reevaluation, especially at a time of rising energy prices and a serious energy shortage. Coal generates more than half of America's electricity supply. At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages, and other Western states are worried about price and availability of energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers. This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide.

Consistent with these concerns, we will continue to fully examine global climate change issues -- including the science, technologies, market-based systems, and innovative options for addressing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I am very optimistic that, with the proper focus and working with our friends and allies, we will be able to develop technologies, market incentives, and other creative ways to address global climate change.

I look forward to working with you and others to address global climate change issues in the context of a national energy policy that protects our environment, consumers, and economy.

Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH

17,000 scientists, over 2/3rds of which having advanced academic degrees signed a petition urging the US not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Until the science can be proven, via external and objective tests it remains nothing more than theory. To base regulations on unproven theory is reckless and reactionary at best.

Same thing happened with the PPA scare a few years ago... and with DDT a few decades ago. Reactionary regulations have caused financial harm and is the direct cause of untold deaths.
Where can one view such information as this petition that you say was signed by 17,000 scientists?

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!!!!!


Clinton and Bush Sr did alot of things that GW is getting the slack for now.....the "trickle down" effect.........look at American history...how long do presidents hold term..4 years...8 at max...if something goes into effect...how long does it take to really affect us? usually towards the end of their term or after....so the next president gets the kudos or the blame..... just a point to ponder on.... :)

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.

Take it easy there Bud! Not every American is a moron! Just most of us! erm..I mean just some of us.

Sadly even if we had a liberal in office not much would be done. All our politicians are more than willing to line thier pockets and hump the legs of the corporations to do it! What am I saying?!!! Our Politicians ARE the Corporations! Liberal and conservative alike.

But then again aren't all politicians of any given nation dishonest and greedy? It should be us people banded together keeping a critical eye on the governments of the world. We should even be critical of our favorite party.
Why? Because they aint no such thang as an honest politician! Thats why!

Why doesnt someone here tell us what they dont like about how thier favorite party isn't doing anything about the planet. Is your favorite party perfect? Share something. I cant because I have no favorite party. I hate them all equally.

17,000 scientists, over 2/3rds of which having advanced academic degrees signed a petition urging the US not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
I believe the 17,000 included that famed expert on environmental science, Geri 'Ginger Spice' Halliwell.

'Scientists' - bollocks.

I believe the 17,000 included that famed expert on environmental science, Geri 'Ginger Spice' Halliwell.

'Scientists' - bollocks.

Can you back that one up? I, for one, don't know why a Spice Girl would care about whether the US ratifies the Kyoto Protocol or not.

Ahh forget it. Americans are stupid ignorant morons.

Some of them are, just like some Europeans are, but many are not, and throwing insults like this at them is definitely not going to help anything.

I tend to think statements like the one above say a lot more about the speaker than about the subject...

You mean that 'Anti-Kyoto Science Petition'?
Yeah, they got 17,000 people signing. Among them were some 2000 environmental scientists, meteorologists, climatologists and geophysicists. The sposors of that petition say that additional 4000+ are cabable to assess the effects of carbon dioxide upon earth's animal and plant life. I guess the rest have atleast some clue what they signed.

The sponsors of this petition sent this package of material up to 100 thousand people and asked them to read it and sign. The package consisted of some articles from the Wall Street Journal, an unpublished article disguised as a reprint from a reputable scientific journal and a short note from a famous (retired) scientist. The WST article contained out-of-date calculations, misquoted numbers, mislabeled figures,and assertions shown to be wrong years ago. Everybody makes mistakes of course.

Later they went as far as claiming 15,000 of the signers were scientists, but had to withdraw that claim quickly. I don't think they really even tried to verify the credentials of the signers, cos among them were many fictional characters.

That said, one must remember there WERE some 2000 actual scientist with qualifications signing it.

Can you back that one up? I, for one, don't know why a Spice Girl would care about whether the US ratifies the Kyoto Protocol or not.
There are probably better sources but this'll do for now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1279603,00.html

Why would a Spice Girl care? Well, back in the days when people paid attention to Ms Halliwell (God knows why...), she decided to be very vocal about a whole range of issues. She seemed to think she was in some way worth listening to.

That vote was in 1997. A lot has happened since that time. If you check out the link, you will notice what will happen to worldwide CO2 emissions in the next 21 years IF nothing is done.

Did you read the Bill that Passed on July 25, 1997? I thought not! here is a portion of that bill

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.

Kyoto would definitely have harmed the US Economy! If your going to chip away at something CanuckHeaven, make sure you read the whole resolution.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html (link to the whole resolution)

Formal, if you recall from your reading of the Kyoto Protocol, the goal for industrialized countries was to get back to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and as a group they did, although it was not through North American leadership.

However, nations like China and India are excluded and they are turning into economic powerhouses and they will SURPASS USA in CO2 emission but yet are excluded from this! Something Senator Hagel stated himself"

I would also remind my colleagues, and this frequently gets forgotten in the discussion, perhaps even more significant than the 95-0 vote was that the Byrd-Hagel Resolution had 65 bipartisan cosponsors.

First, S.Res.98 directed the President not to sign any treaty "...unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period." The message was simple. Yet as we know, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. These are the very nations, such and China and India, that will soon lead the world in manmade greenhouse emissions. Any treaty that exempts them from participation is folly.

Second, the Resolution stated the President should not sign any treaty that "...would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." The Kyoto Protocol would have legally bound the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. As President Bush stated in February, this would have cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and resulted in the loss of 4.9 million jobs.

The Kyoto Protocol is collapsing under the weight of the reality of its economic consequences.

Other nations are also reconsidering their early ardent advocacy for the Kyoto Protocol. Japan has ratified the treaty, but has no enforceable plan to meet its obligations. The same is true for the European Union. Australia has joined the United States in saying it will not ratify the protocol. Canada and Russia have not made final commitments to ratification.

Does that mean the United States should turn its back on international efforts to address potential climate change? No, that would be irresponsible.


That is from Senator Hagel on July 24, 2002!

If you notice in the chart, worldwide CO2 emissions will be almost DOUBLE the 1990 levels IF nothing is done. You as a 15 year old should be very concerned by this. Perhaps by then, you will have a couple of children of your own to think about, and about the environment that you will pass on to them.

CH! I'm surprised that you of all people bought into that. Without CO2 Plants die as well as trees. Plants and trees breath in CO2 and Breath out O2! However, the CO2 levels you are stating here will have little if any effect whatsoever! I believe that was stated on here to you already and he is right!

You keep talking about money. money, money, and if you think money is more important than the air that you breathe, the water that you drink, and the land that supports agriculture and forests, then I feel sorry for you.

I never said that money was more important than air! You are reading to much into my posts. Just telling you that the US Economy WOULD NOT handle Kyoto. Our Economy would collapse and would have rampant unemployment! We look at all aspects before deciding on an issue. Besides the US Senate DOES NOT want Kyoto brought foward. They now that Kyoto is dead! They know its worthless. That is why they passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution on July 25, 1997 95-0 telling the administration NOT TO sign it. He did but never brought it to the floor of the Senate because Clinton knew it would be defeated handily.

Did not ratify it.....not going to. End of protocol as far as the US is concerned.....

Did not ratify it.....not going to. End of protocol as far as the US is concerned.....

Your right Biff and after proving that it would have minimal effect there are still people on here that will fight a dead issue! AFter all, the Byrd Hage Resolution of 1997 passed 95-0 regarding signing this treaty! Clinton ignored it and signed it anyway but never brought it before the US Senate!

Can you back that one up? I, for one, don't know why a Spice Girl would care about whether the US ratifies the Kyoto Protocol or not.
The 17.000 "scientists" was already debunked in an earlier thread. The guy that wrote the petition actually benefitted from a "donation" from the Exxon corporation and if I wanted to take the time to sort through all the posts, I would bring it forward to you but I am not about to do that. The thread was entitled "Global warming", if you are interested.

BTW, anyone could sign the "Petition", and apparently, many "unqualified" people did sign it.

The summation of his 8 page paper states:

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

Personally, I think the guy is a quack for advocating the poliferation of harmful elements into the air. What about the release of "carbon mon-oxide" that goes with this release of CO2?

Global warming isn't just melting of the polar ice caps, it is also the extreme change in weather patterns as witnessed in Europe last year for example, where over 20,000 deaths were attributed to the extreme heat. It also creates an imbalance in the world's ecological systems that affects the plants and animals of this earth, especially when combined with the rapid deforestation of the tropical rainforests.

Following is a link as to what is happening around the world. People can live in denial all they want, but it won't make the problem go away. Humans created this mess and it will take humans to resolve it:

http://www.climatehotmap.org/namerica.html

Be sure to click on the other regions.

Read what the Union of Concened Scientists have to say:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1335

A group BTW that includes:

48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences

There is an old saying that states....."it is not nice to fool Mother Nature", and it appears some people not only want to fool Mother Nature, they want to kill her.

I'm sure they are and they will probably point the finger at global warming! However, it is LESS than what the extreme environmentalists are saying. Way less according to reports.

As for your last paragraph, I would like to see proof of your statement.

Again you are being sensationalist in your statements, I said that I am sure that there are reports that contradict climate change from non-USA bodies as well.

Many media organisations (print and broadcast) have reported on the connections between funding from interested parties and organisations that have produced reports that discredit climate change. For instance, somebody has referred to this petition of 17.000 so called scientists against environmental measures to deal with climate change. This petition was heavily backed by the oil company 'Esso'. Incidentally, this is the same petition who's organisers attempted to mislead the signatories into thinking it had the backing of the very respected American National Academy of Sciences. Of course, it did not, and the academy was very angry with the petition organisers due to this.

Using Esso again as an example, it funded and heavily promoted research by pseudo-scientists that were sceptical to the idea of climate change. Many of these scientists came out with heavy support of American President George Bush Jnr's policy on the environment. I would imagine it's not conincidental that Esso donated more than any other oil company to the American Republican Party in the US electon campaign for 2000. Esso also spends 11,7 million USD on lobbying, much of that against climate change theories.

That's just one detailed example, I have seen reports on SVT and the BBC in the past exploring the large funding by, eg Texan petrochemical companies, who are heavy polluters. Also, I have read about this in Dagens Nyheter newspaper.

Our economy can't handle what Kyoto calls for either. Studies show that it would Cripple our economy and the ENTIRE US SENATE knows this which is why a resolution was passed 95-0 asking the Clinton Administration to not put forth any treaty that would cripple the US Economy and Kyoto would've crippled the US Economy. It was this 95-0 vote that convinced Clinton not to send it to the Floor.



Japan to my knowledge has not ratified the treaty! Australia has not ratified the Treaty. USA has not Ratified the treaty. Russia has not ratified the treaty. All said nations KNOWS that this is ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! I guess you just don't understand that if any nation economy collapses that has a major impact on the world, US and Japan, the whole world will suffer. The US Senate knows this is economically impossible and will reject the treaty if its ever brought foward. Economics plays a huge part in this and we are not willing to cripple our economy and our society for a treaty that has no chance of working!

The thing is your (USA) economy can handle it. The European economy is doing so. Unless you're telling me the American economy is less robust than the European? I have also had great respect for the robustness of your economy, and do not believe this to be the case.
The problem is large influential oil and petrochemical companies, to whom tighter environmental regulations will cost money, have bascially bought the politicians in the USA. They rely on them for much of their funding.
Of course, it's a whole new debate, but that says much for the political system in USA. But let's not go there in this thread ;) !

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

I don't know what the Kyoto agreement is/was, but if that's the tradeoff, I'm sure I would have preferred we sign it. Details?

Absolutely. Americans stink. They suck big time! The planet is dying and the corporations are laughing!

Ah, and THIS coming from someone calling themselve 'Facist Ideals'! Yeah, you WOULD think so, wouldn't you? {Of course, in reality, I sincerely doubt that you know what the word 'Facist' means...}

If you check your history books, by the way, you'll note that Facists are usually at least as enamored of Heavy Industry as anyone else, and that the Corporation was invented by the King of England...
{I will, therefore, agree that Corporations represent the potential for great evil... and note that a LOT of other countries have them, too!}

By the way, guys, before you blindly accept the notion that Industry is the reason for Global Warming, I've got a bit of news for you...
The *real* reason our temperatures are on the rise is SOLAR warming...
The Sun is getting hotter, and you can't really blame THAT on Ozone emissions!

Rough details on the Kyoto Accords (though I'm far from an expert on them):
Since Global Warming is obviously caused by Mankind's Pollution (even though one Volcanic eruption spews out more than all industry, since the days of the Roman Empire), the United States and Western Europe must agree to crippling anti-pollution measures, to weaken their industrial base even further...
BUT, China, and other less-developed Nations, being underindustrialized, should be given a free pass until they have a chance to 'catch up'!
It's not pollution we're worried about, it's a chance to ream every Democracy in the world, and I'm quite glad it didn't pass!

You mean that 'Anti-Kyoto Science Petition'?
Yeah, they got 17,000 people signing. Among them were some 2000 environmental scientists, meteorologists, climatologists and geophysicists. The sposors of that petition say that additional 4000+ are cabable to assess the effects of carbon dioxide upon earth's animal and plant life. I guess the rest have atleast some clue what they signed.
[...]

That said, one must remember there WERE some 2000 actual scientist with qualifications signing it.

Sadly, there is nothing to prohibit Scientists from letting their Political Views cloud their judgement...
{When I talk of prohibiting such, I don't mean laws or regulations, either! A little 'horse sense' should be sufficient! Like Mr. Clemens, I call it 'horse sense', because it is in no way common enough to be called 'common sense'!}

http://www.ncpa.org/oped/dupont/dup112498.html

Again, how come no one can explain why 1000 years ago was hotter than it is today? Man made emissions could have had no affect on the climate then, it was naturally occuring climate cycles, which we are experiencing today.

Sea levels have not risen in 150 years, and since many proponents of global warming theory say that is the major concern, there's no evidence that it's even happening as we speak.

Global warming is a theory, and an unproven theory at that. Before you knee-jerk yourself into regulations that 1) cause economic harm and 2) gives no provable benifit whatsoever, come up with something that everyone can agree on.

Sadly, there is nothing to prohibit Scientists from letting their Political Views cloud their judgement...

Oh! I was in no way implying there is. In fact, in the paragraph you let out of the quote, I tried to give some examples how sloppy that petition was. What I tried to say with all the rubbish I wrote, is that you can easily find scientist on your side wether you think CO2 emissions have summink to do with climate change or not.

http://www.ncpa.org/oped/dupont/dup112498.html

Again, how come no one can explain why 1000 years ago was hotter than it is today? Man made emissions could have had no affect on the climate then, it was naturally occuring climate cycles, which we are experiencing today.

Sea levels have not risen in 150 years, and since many proponents of global warming theory say that is the major concern, there's no evidence that it's even happening as we speak.

Global warming is a theory, and an unproven theory at that. Before you knee-jerk yourself into regulations that 1) cause economic harm and 2) gives no provable benifit whatsoever, come up with something that everyone can agree on.

NCPA receives a great deal of its funding from the Exxon oil company. Therefore, its studies and reports must be viewed with this caution.

Incidentally, as well as NCPA ((US)National Centre for Policy Analysis), Exxon has funded "scientists" from the following bodies: 'Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation', ' Science and Environmental Policy Project', 'Independent Institute', Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies', 'The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition', 'Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace' (Stanford University). This list is not exclusive.

NCPA receives a great deal of its funding from the Exxon oil company. Therefore, its studies and reports must be viewed with this caution.

Incidentally, as well as NCPA ((US)National Centre for Policy Analysis), Exxon has funded "scientists" from the following bodies: 'Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation', ' Science and Environmental Policy Project', 'Independent Institute', Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies', 'The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition', 'Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace' (Stanford University). This list is not exclusive.

While funding can bring into question the motive, you need science to bring into question the findings. So far, I have seen none. All I hear is shouting that global warming is a worse threat than all the WMD the world has but nothing that shows any evidence that global warming is out of control and that man made emissions have anything to do with it.

All that is out there is "gee, it sure is hot today, must be global warming, damn those evil corperations who want to kill me".

All that is out there is "gee, it sure is hot today, must be global warming, damn those evil corperations who want to kill me".Somehow I doubt that's how the Pentagon makes it's decisions.

Somehow I doubt that's how the Pentagon makes it's decisions.

I believe you mean Congress not Pentagon. And Congress has already made it decision, unanimous against ratifying Kyoto.

While funding can bring into question the motive, you need science to bring into question the findings. So far, I have seen none. All I hear is shouting that global warming is a worse threat than all the WMD the world has but nothing that shows any evidence that global warming is out of control and that man made emissions have anything to do with it.

All that is out there is "gee, it sure is hot today, must be global warming, damn those evil corperations who want to kill me".

There's absolutely tonnes of evidence out there... in fact, much more than there is to counter it. Unfortunately, in some countries this has been given undue prominence due to the high degree of lobbying and funding of such studies by interested parties (such as petrochemical companies etc), as I've tried to convey in earlier posts of mine.

I completely agree with you, if the only evidence was people saying "it's hot today" then I wouldn't have spent all this time on this debate!

Anyway, by way of an example, here are some of the findings of the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change ):

It's Third Assessment Report predicts global temperature rises by the end of the century of between 1.4C and 5.8C. Although the issue of the changing climate is very complex and some changes are uncertain, temperature rises are expected to affect countries throughout the World and have a knock on effect with precipitation and sea level rises.

Scientists have argued about whether temperature rises are due to human activities or due to natural changes in our environment. The IPCC announced in 2001 that

"most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is likely to be attributable to human activities".

This was a more forceful statement than in 1996 when the Second Assessment Report stated that there was a

"discernible human influence on the climate"

which was the first time they had concluded such a link.

Many experts believe the faster the climate changes, the greater the risk will be.
AND, here are the key projections:

By the second half of the 21st century, wintertime precipitation in the northern mid to high latitudes and Antarctica will rise
By the same time, Australasia, Central America and sourthern Africa is likely to see decreases in winter precipitation
In the tropics, it's thought some land areas will see more rainfall and others will see less
It is thought the West Antarctic ice sheet is unlikely to collapse this century. If it does fall apart, sea level rises would be enormous
Global average temperatures are predicted to rise by between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100
Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to rise
More hot days over land areas and fewer cold days and frost
More intense precipitation events

There's absolutely tonnes of evidence out there... in fact, much more than there is to counter it. Unfortunately, in some countries this has been given undue prominence due to the high degree of lobbying and funding of such studies by interested parties (such as petrochemical companies etc), as I've tried to convey in earlier posts of mine.

I completely agree with you, if the only evidence was people saying "it's hot today" then I wouldn't have spent all this time on this debate!

Anyway, by way of an example, here are some of the findings of the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change ):


"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1988. Its main objective was to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to the understanding of human induced climate change, potential impacts of climate change and options for mitigation and adaptation."

This body, the IPCC (not to be confused with The Independent Police Complaints Commission of the UK) was formed for the sole purpose to assess "human induced climate change". They were formed with the premise already in mind, therefor obviously not objective in their findings.

Again you are being sensationalist in your statements, I said that I am sure that there are reports that contradict climate change from non-USA bodies as well.

I doubt it highly since all of Europe believes in Global Warming! Luckily the US was smart enough and looked at the paper before ratifying the agreement. Our Senate was smart enough not to ratify it because 1) It does nothing to limit green house gasses in developing countries and 2) it would cripple the US Economy.

Many media organisations (print and broadcast) have reported on the connections between funding from interested parties and organisations that have produced reports that discredit climate change. For instance, somebody has referred to this petition of 17.000 so called scientists against environmental measures to deal with climate change. This petition was heavily backed by the oil company 'Esso'. Incidentally, this is the same petition who's organisers attempted to mislead the signatories into thinking it had the backing of the very respected American National Academy of Sciences. Of course, it did not, and the academy was very angry with the petition organisers due to this.

I know nothing of this petition and I really don't care. What I care about is what the President signs and what Congress Ratifies! Clinton ignored the Congress and signed Kyoto but DID NOT SEND IT TO THE FLOOR! Reason being is that he knew that it would get defeated. Come off it Borgoa! We're going around in circles here.

Using Esso again as an example, it funded and heavily promoted research by pseudo-scientists that were sceptical to the idea of climate change. Many of these scientists came out with heavy support of American President George Bush Jnr's policy on the environment. I would imagine it's not conincidental that Esso donated more than any other oil company to the American Republican Party in the US electon campaign for 2000. Esso also spends 11,7 million USD on lobbying, much of that against climate change theories.

I have no idea who Esso! However, what I do know is that we are cleaner than Europe is. Why is it that we can drink water from a tap and France can't? Why is it we have less water pollution than Europe? Come on, USA is far cleaner pollution wise than Europe is.

That's just one detailed example, I have seen reports on SVT and the BBC in the past exploring the large funding by, eg Texan petrochemical companies, who are heavy polluters. Also, I have read about this in Dagens Nyheter newspaper.

Ok, I've had about enough of your debating skills! You've lost this debate but have refused to admit the following:

1)Kyoto is DOA
2)Most of the planet is excluded and industry will go there!
3)China and India will surpass the USA in greenhouse gases but they are excluded from this treaty
4)US economy will get hurt as Senator Hagel said as far back as 1997 when this was signed but not ratified.
5)Said the same thing again on July 24, 2002!

I guess you really don't care to read the links I've posted nor listen to the other side of this debate. You've brought me around in circles and it ends right now!

...the IPCC (-) was formed for the sole purpose to assess "human induced climate change". They were formed with the premise already in mind, therefor obviously not objective in their findings.

Uhh... surely there had to be a premise on them to work on? should the UN have said: "study hard ladies and gents, here's the funding. If you find evidence of human induced climate change, no big deal, but let us know. Cure for AIDS or cancer would be nicer"? Isn't "assess" the keyword here?

The thing is your (USA) economy can handle it. The European economy is doing so. Unless you're telling me the American economy is less robust than the European? I have also had great respect for the robustness of your economy, and do not believe this to be the case.
The problem is large influential oil and petrochemical companies, to whom tighter environmental regulations will cost money, have bascially bought the politicians in the USA. They rely on them for much of their funding.
Of course, it's a whole new debate, but that says much for the political system in USA. But let's not go there in this thread ;) !

Our economy would not be able to handle it! The US Senate knows this as does the Budget Office! The President Ignored the US Senate and signed it anyway. Luckily US Law comes into play and the President (That would be Clinton for all the short memory people), Never sent it to the Floor of the US Senate for Ratification! Why? Because Clinton knew the US Senate would OVERWELMINGLY vote Kyoto down! Our economy is alot better than half of Europes economy! If your proud that your nations will go backrupt which most are then congratulations! We know the limits of our economies and we also have people that would be highly affected by this! I don't think you fully understand how harmful it would be to the US Economy if we complied!

http://www.ncpa.org/oped/dupont/dup112498.html

Again, how come no one can explain why 1000 years ago was hotter than it is today? Man made emissions could have had no affect on the climate then, it was naturally occuring climate cycles, which we are experiencing today.

Sea levels have not risen in 150 years, and since many proponents of global warming theory say that is the major concern, there's no evidence that it's even happening as we speak.

Global warming is a theory, and an unproven theory at that. Before you knee-jerk yourself into regulations that 1) cause economic harm and 2) gives no provable benifit whatsoever, come up with something that everyone can agree on.

It was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is today! Can someone explain why? I have a theory!

ITS CALLED THE SUN! The sun is as hotter than it ever is! How do we know this? Satelites! The Sun also goes in cycles. Read up on it. It is very interesting reading.

Just so you know, 'Esso' is another name (obsolete, I think) for Exxon, the spin-off from the former Standard Oil company...
Yes, Exxon is quite biased on the matter, but nothing about being a Scientist means that you have to be unbiased...
And a lot of scientists go into the debate on Environmental issues with their minds already made up!

Fortuneately, Kyoto is all about the politics, and Science never enters into the matter...
If this were *really* about the Environment,then these scientists would be ALL in favor of supporting restriction on growth in greenhouse gas production coming from China and India, too!

This is merely about tearing down the last remaining Superpower so that the World can go back to it's usual state of Barbarism...

I doubt it highly since all of Europe believes in Global Warming!

I don't really want to credit this statement with a response, but alas... if you really think that we all think the same as each other you would be wrong. I don't for one moment believe that all Americans blindly follow George Bush Jnr, if I did think that, I would be even more worried for the future than in fact I am. Once again, you sink to sensationalism.

Because we don't want to, what justification do we have to give you?

I know nothing of this petition and I really don't care. What I care about is what the President signs and what Congress Ratifies! Clinton ignored the Congress and signed Kyoto but DID NOT SEND IT TO THE FLOOR! Reason being is that he knew that it would get defeated. Come off it Borgoa! We're going around in circles here.



I have no idea who Esso! However, what I do know is that we are cleaner than Europe is. Why is it that we can drink water from a tap and France can't? Why is it we have less water pollution than Europe? Come on, USA is far cleaner pollution wise than Europe is.



Ok, I've had about enough of your debating skills! You've lost this debate but have refused to admit the following:

1)Kyoto is DOA
2)Most of the planet is excluded and industry will go there!
3)China and India will surpass the USA in greenhouse gases but they are excluded from this treaty
4)US economy will get hurt as Senator Hagel said as far back as 1997 when this was signed but not ratified.
5)Said the same thing again on July 24, 2002!

I guess you really don't care to read the links I've posted nor listen to the other side of this debate. You've brought me around in circles and it ends right now!

All these remarks say to me is that much like your country's foreign policy, you refuse to engage in sensibly conducted debate in the spirit of democracy. Whilst I am not expecting you to agree with me, just as I don't agree with you, I at least am happy to respond in a coherent reasoned mannor.

If I were to use your style of dismissive argument, I could say I am not surprised that you have not heard of Esso, as you automatically assume everything is the same elsewhere as it is in your country. However, I shall not, I will clarify for you: Esso is the same company as Exxon, as explained above in more detail by another contributor. In Europe, this company uses the name 'Esso'.

Finally, you will have to excuse me if I am unable to take the American Senate as a fair arbitor on environmental matters due to this reasons of corporate funding etc that I have detailed in my earlier posts.

Because we don't want to, what justification do we have to give you?

In simple reality, you do not have to give any.
However, if you wish to be taken seriously as a member of the international community, you must engage with other countries and accept that they will have differing opinions. This doesn't mean that you must always submit to oppposing views, but you should at least recognise they exist and engage in debate about these.
If you are one of those people in the USA that advocates isolationalism you are discrediting this as a rational and realistic policy by contributing to this debate.

Oh! Is this thread still about what the initial poster was about? I thought it turned good since he left... somewhere around page 15. No justification needed. Just chattin' here. Trying to get to know why (some ?) Americans are so against Kyoto protocol. Been pretty decent thread, methinks.

I don't really want to credit this statement with a response, but alas... if you really think that we all think the same as each other you would be wrong. I don't for one moment believe that all Americans blindly follow George Bush Jnr, if I did think that, I would be even more worried for the future than in fact I am. Once again, you sink to sensationalism.

Ok in this case I generalized and I apologized. To me it seems that all of Europe buys into Global Warming. That is how it comes across on these forums. Global Warming is a Theory and is NOT fact! To much data out there that contradicts global warming. You can say that there is more out there proving it but I believe it is 50-50.

You are forgetting one simple fact however. It is true that Bush opposes Kyoto as does the entire US Senate! All senators realized that Kyoto would Cripple the US Economy. You say it won't but I think I'll believe them over you. Our economy would definitely be crippled! If ours gets crippled, Europe and the World will follow since our economies are all linked.

Kyoto is worthless. We all know its worthless. Those that think it is the greatest piece of legislation is dreaming. It won't stop global warming. It won't stop China and India from throwing up more green house gases than the USA because they are exempt from it! We are not a perfect society but our pollution levels are actually lower than that of Europe. Most of Europe has a vast water pollution problem, we do not. Why is that? Because of how we regulate it. We've actually cleaned ourselves up. We are continuing to clean ourselves up. Alternative fuel sources are starting to be funded and I bet we'll have hydrogen power before to long! Hey, we had nuclear bombs before nuclear energy now that we have hydrogen bombs, does it stand to reason that Hydrogen power is next?

... You can say that there is more (scientifical evidence) out there proving it but I believe it is 50-50...
Kyoto is worthless. We all know its worthless. It won't stop global warming.
It won't stop China and India from throwing up more green house gases than the USA because they are exempt from it!

All points true.
Scientific evidence is 50-50. We should always listen to the experts. Pity that some say we are doomed, some we are fine. 50% you're OK, 50% you are terminally ill. Every patient makes his own choice.

Kyoto indeed is worthless. If we trust the 17,000 signees of that one study, we are fine. If we trust the nobel laureats and such bunch, we are doomed even if we just adopted Kyoto protocol. There should be much, much more cuts according to some scientists.

It doesn't stop 3rd world countries like China and India from polluting, no... it just takes some 'free world' pollution off of the pollution sum.

I say let's gamble. I have no kids, and given the estimates, I'm dead within 60 years. I'm comfortable with all the things I have, and the consumption I can get away with now... I wouldn't want to risk the US economy collapsing.

Uhh... surely there had to be a premise on them to work on? should the UN have said: "study hard ladies and gents, here's the funding. If you find evidence of human induced climate change, no big deal, but let us know. Cure for AIDS or cancer would be nicer"? Isn't "assess" the keyword here?

You'd think so, but the 'researchers' involved presumably knew which side of the bread the butter was on...
"Let's see, we can declare that humans have had almost no effect on Climate Change, and get fired...
Or, we can find what our sponsors (National, not corporate) want us to find, and collect paychecks for a good long while...
Hmmm, let's think about that, shall we?"

Whether the undue influence comes from China, or Exxon, deciding what the outcome is going to be before you do any studies is just plain bad science!

Even if the project started out as a perfectly neutral investigation, do you honestly believe that those Scientists of a Political bent would be actively avoiding this project? The name, alone, leads to a certain amount of self- selection!

In simple reality, you do not have to give any.
However, if you wish to be taken seriously as a member of the international community, you must engage with other countries and accept that they will have differing opinions. This doesn't mean that you must always submit to oppposing views, but you should at least recognise they exist and engage in debate about these.
If you are one of those people in the USA that advocates isolationalism you are discrediting this as a rational and realistic policy by contributing to this debate.

Sorry, the title of the thread is misleading, then!
It implies that Americans, and only Americans, need to give some kind of Justification for not signing the Kyoto accords...

As to being taken seriously by the international community, sorry, but we're a democracy (of sorts), which pretty makes that impossible!
We DO accept that other Nations will have differing points of view (we have more disagreements with Canada than any other Nation on Earth, but we're still friends), but we also like to change our minds a lot (especially in election years!)...
Ont he other hand, that kind of thing is supposed to work both ways, you know...

When the 'international community' does something to deserve respect, we try to give it (though that doesn't really happen all that often), but getting a little respect from other Nations, when WE deserve it, usually seems to require 'pulling teeth'!

All of that environmentalism stuff is based on bad science anyway. You should read Bjorn Lomborg's "The Sceptical Environmentalist". Lomborg, a former Greenpeace activist, says that things are not nearly as bad as they are, the earth is actually cooling and that many environmental activists acknowlege that they make up scarry doomsday predictions to scare people. And remember, the first Earth Day in the early 1970's was held to warn people about a new Ice Age, not any kind of warming.

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
I thought I would tack this on as an update:

Global warming linked to high asthma rates

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040430/HASTHMA30/TPHealth/

America's cities, blanketed with smog and climate-altering carbon dioxide, have become cradles of ill health and are fostering an epidemic of asthma, according to a report yesterday from a leading group of Harvard University researchers and the American Public Health Association.

Particularly hard hit are preschool-aged children, whose rate of asthma rose by 160 per cent between 1980 and 1994 (more than twice the national average), the report says.

Asthma rates are rising throughout the Western world, said Kenneth Chapman, director of the asthma and airways centre at the University Health Network in Toronto and a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

At the bottom of the article:

Studies done in Phoenix, Baltimore and New York show concentrations within these "domes" ranging from 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide to 600 parts per million. The global average was 379 parts per million last year, a huge rise in itself from the levels of 180 to 280 that have characterized the past 420,000 years.

So do as you please and ignore the clear and present danger or do something positive about it. If money is more important than your health, and that of your loved ones, then you have a severe problem.

So do as you please and ignore the clear and present danger or do something positive about it. If money is more important than your health, and that of your loved ones, then you have a severe problem.

Again, you really have no idea what you are saying, just parroting articles you find.

The article itself is obviously biased, as evidenced by the use of the term "climate altering".

You are talking about 380 parts per million... 0.038% of the atmoshpere. Not nearly enough to cause catastrophic climate altering affects you believe, nor even the "clear and present danger".

There's a new report put out by the administration that says that CO2 is the most likely culprit for increased temperatures in the past three decades. It's signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce - oh, and Bush's science advisor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/science/26climate.html?hp
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/default.htm

Yep, it's an election year - time to care about climate change again. Or am I the only one who remembers Bush's flipflop on what was a greenhouse gas and what wasn't? You know, when he hung Gale Norton out to dry?

The article itself is obviously biased, as evidenced by the use of the term "climate altering".

Why, oh why, do the facts hate America?

Again, you really have no idea what you are saying, just parroting articles you find.
Excuse me? All you are offering is rhetoric and personal opinion. If you are going to refute a post, do so in an intelligent manner.

The article itself is obviously biased, as evidenced by the use of the term "climate altering".
The quote comes from one of Canada's National newspapers (Globe and Mail), which by and large is a conservative daily. Please explain why YOU believe that it is biased?

BTW, the article was clearly titled "Global warming linked to high asthma rates"

You are talking about 380 parts per million... 0.038% of the atmoshpere. Not nearly enough to cause catastrophic climate altering affects you believe, nor even the "clear and present danger".
Did you even read the article? It clearly states:

Studies done in Phoenix, Baltimore and New York show concentrations within these "domes" ranging from 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide to 600 parts per million. The global average was 379 parts per million last year, a huge rise in itself from the levels of 180 to 280 that have characterized the past 420,000 years.

Did you even clue into the part about the affect that this pollution is causing to peoples health?

I found a perfect web site for you entitled:

"I Don't Care About the Air" (http://www.idontcareaboutair.com/index.shtml)

First of all.....if you are going to use a study, name the sources. All of them. Name the methods used to gather the data. Name the equipment and testing procedure (random selection, systematic sampling, grouping, etc) Having taken several economics classes, it is VERY easy to delude a viewer as to the accuracy of supposed "facts" and "figures" listed in ANYTHING. If you are going to be hyper-sensitive about anything you DISagree with, you need to USE THE SAME CRITERIA FOR YOUR OWN STUDIES!!!

I can't emphasize that enough.

Im not saying that the study is wrong, but make DAMN SURE that all the "facts" are actually "facts" and not biased. bear in mind the news media decides what goes into a story, and what doesnt, then reports it. Thus, they apply a filter over what is considered "news" and what is not.




Next, regarding the article itself....study those numbers. 600 parts per 1,000,000. That is of CO2, which is also, conveniently enough, created by EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURE ON THIS PLANET.

Your health rate is NOT AFFECTED BY CO2!!!!! You are thinking of carbon MONOXIDE, CO, NOT CO2. CO2, carbon dioxide, is breathed out of thy overworked lungs on a constant basis! It isnt pollution you fool!

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"

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!
Well this might not be catastrophic yet, but I imagine that if America's breadbasket gets damaged, it will also have a severe affect on the US economy?

The latest analysis, done at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., found that natural shifts in the output of the sun and other factors were responsible for the warming from 1900 to 1950, but could not explain the sharp and continuing rise since 1970.

The report's section on agriculture focused on several studies in which fields and grasslands were exposed to doubled concentrations of carbon dioxide, with growth patterns in plants shifting in ways that could harm yields.

In such conditions, it said, plots of shortgrass prairie in northeastern Colorado contained less of the nutrient nitrogen, and their grasses were less digestible than those that grew with no extra carbon dioxide.

"In another experiment, increased CO2 stimulated the growth of five of the most important species of invasive weeds, more than any other plant species yet studied," the report said. "This suggests that some weeds could become bigger problems as CO2 increases."

We can all learn more as we go?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/science/26climate.html?hp

First of all.....if you are going to use a study, name the sources. All of them. Name the methods used to gather the data. Name the equipment and testing procedure (random selection, systematic sampling, grouping, etc) Having taken several economics classes, it is VERY easy to delude a viewer as to the accuracy of supposed "facts" and "figures" listed in ANYTHING. If you are going to be hyper-sensitive about anything you DISagree with, you need to USE THE SAME CRITERIA FOR YOUR OWN STUDIES!!!

I can't emphasize that enough.

Im not saying that the study is wrong, but make DAMN SURE that all the "facts" are actually "facts" and not biased. bear in mind the news media decides what goes into a story, and what doesnt, then reports it. Thus, they apply a filter over what is considered "news" and what is not.




Next, regarding the article itself....study those numbers. 600 parts per 1,000,000. That is of CO2, which is also, conveniently enough, created by EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURE ON THIS PLANET.

Your health rate is NOT AFFECTED BY CO2!!!!! You are thinking of carbon MONOXIDE, CO, NOT CO2. CO2, carbon dioxide, is breathed out of thy overworked lungs on a constant basis! It isnt pollution you fool!

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"
Calm down before you blow a gasket. I am well aware of the difference between CO and CO2.

BTW, CO2 is pollution if you think about it long enough and hard enough? The key word is think.

When you reply, I am sure that you will agree with me?

I have no idea who Esso! However, what I do know is that we are cleaner than Europe is. Why is it that we can drink water from a tap and France can't? Why is it we have less water pollution than Europe? Come on, USA is far cleaner pollution wise than Europe is.




Actually, for at the very least western Europe, that just isn't true. Europe recycles waste in significantly higher levels than USA. The tap water is perfectly safe to drink in France (I don't know why you would think it isnt'), and I believe for example Finland and Britain have the world's highest qualtity tap water after New Zealand. To counter this, tap water quality in major American population centres such as San Francisco, Fresno, Pheonix, and Alberquerque has found to be poor.

According to studies, around 3,5 million people are employed in recycling related activities (ie the bodies that perform the recycling) in the EU-15 (pre-enlargement) compared to between 2 and 2,5 million in the USA.
Another study (in France and Austria) as well as a number in the USA have concluded that recycling creates 5 to 7 times the number of jobs as incineration and 10 times more than landfilling! They also tend to be higher quality jobs. So, although this shouldn't be the reason for recycling, there is even an economic boost (which I have to say I didn't know about until recently).

Well this might not be catastrophic yet, but I imagine that if America's breadbasket gets damaged, it will also have a severe affect on the US economy?

The latest analysis, done at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., found that natural shifts in the output of the sun and other factors were responsible for the warming from 1900 to 1950, but could not explain the sharp and continuing rise since 1970.

The report's section on agriculture focused on several studies in which fields and grasslands were exposed to doubled concentrations of carbon dioxide, with growth patterns in plants shifting in ways that could harm yields.

In such conditions, it said, plots of shortgrass prairie in northeastern Colorado contained less of the nutrient nitrogen, and their grasses were less digestible than those that grew with no extra carbon dioxide.

"In another experiment, increased CO2 stimulated the growth of five of the most important species of invasive weeds, more than any other plant species yet studied," the report said. "This suggests that some weeds could become bigger problems as CO2 increases."

We can all learn more as we go?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/science/26climate.html?hp

And the Times can be questioned. Everyone knows the Times is not objective! Jason Blair proved that as did the Iraq War! "Quagmire in Iraq" that was the headline day 5 of the Iraq war and you know what? IT WAS A SANDSTORM THAT SLOWED US DOWN!!!!!!

However, you of all people have no use to listening to the other side of this debate! US is FAR CLEANER than most of the planet. Our CO2 levels are not catastrophic! They will never get to the catasptrophic levels environmentalists are claiming. Anyone that has studied atmosphere, biology, and weather could tell you that! I've noticed alot of greener plants around here lately and I can tell you precisly why! The Plants and Trees around here are sopping up all the CO2. I'm breathing out CO2 right now! Am I polluting my own air supply? Am I the cause of Global Warming? Get off of it CH! You of all people need to look into BOTH SIDES!!! I have and frankly, I question the other half since I'm not seeing clear and concise facts whereas the info against this is coming from Meteorologists, Botinists, and NOAO who have studied all of this in detail and they're saying the complete opposite of what environmentalists are saying.

Until you've brushed up on the other side of this debate, don't expect anymore replies to your posts from me!

Actually, for at the very least western Europe, that just isn't true. Europe recycles waste in significantly higher levels than USA. The tap water is perfectly safe to drink in France (I don't know why you would think it isnt'), and I believe for example Finland and Britain have the world's highest qualtity tap water after New Zealand. To counter this, tap water quality in major American population centres such as San Francisco, Fresno, Pheonix, and Alberquerque has found to be poor.

Those are major population centers. I can tell you where I live, the tap is very clean. Besides, San Fran can drop into the ocean for all I care. As for the rest, can I see some numbers please!

According to studies, around 3,5 million people are employed in recycling related activities (ie the bodies that perform the recycling) in the EU-15 (pre-enlargement) compared to between 2 and 2,5 million in the USA.
Another study (in France and Austria) as well as a number in the USA have concluded that recycling creates 5 to 7 times the number of jobs as incineration and 10 times more than landfilling! They also tend to be higher quality jobs. So, although this shouldn't be the reason for recycling, there is even an economic boost (which I have to say I didn't know about until recently).

Again. Sources? Its fine to quote this but you need to back it up. Until then, nice talking to you.

And the Times can be questioned. Everyone knows the Times is not objective! Jason Blair proved that as did the Iraq War! "Quagmire in Iraq" that was the headline day 5 of the Iraq war and you know what? IT WAS A SANDSTORM THAT SLOWED US DOWN!!!!!!

However, you of all people have no use to listening to the other side of this debate! US is FAR CLEANER than most of the planet. Our CO2 levels are not catastrophic! They will never get to the catasptrophic levels environmentalists are claiming. Anyone that has studied atmosphere, biology, and weather could tell you that! I've noticed alot of greener plants around here lately and I can tell you precisly why! The Plants and Trees around here are sopping up all the CO2. I'm breathing out CO2 right now! Am I polluting my own air supply? Am I the cause of Global Warming? Get off of it CH! You of all people need to look into BOTH SIDES!!! I have and frankly, I question the other half since I'm not seeing clear and concise facts whereas the info against this is coming from Meteorologists, Botinists, and NOAO who have studied all of this in detail and they're saying the complete opposite of what environmentalists are saying.

Until you've brushed up on the other side of this debate, don't expect anymore replies to your posts from me!
The other side of the debate is a non starter. I have looked at the evidence that both sides have put forward. Your overwhelming refutation seems to stem from your constant harping that it will be too costly to implement. There have been many areas of research to look at on this topic and I believe that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence has fallen on the side of reason, and that is that global warming is indeed a reality that needs to be addressed sooner than later.

And to answer your question, yes you are technically polluting your own air supply by breathing. Given the right circumstances, CO2 can and has been extremely deadly to mankind. If you think about it, you will agree.

The other side of the debate is a non starter. I have looked at the evidence that both sides have put forward. Your overwhelming refutation seems to stem from your constant harping that it will be too costly to implement. There have been many areas of research to look at on this topic and I believe that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence has fallen on the side of reason, and that is that global warming is indeed a reality that needs to be addressed sooner than later.

Global Warming is a Theory. It is NOT scientific Fact. Anyone with a brain will tell you it is not scientific fact. CO2 emissions are not going to be catastrophic. It gets absorbed by plants and trees. They breath in CO2 and breath out O2. The USA has limited its CO2 output without the use of Kyoto. Kyoto in contrast, is DOA. It won't do what it stated it would do. The numbers aren't based on facts. CO2 Levels won't get as high as they're saying ever. If your going to harp on nations, then harp on China or India or both since they WILL SURPASS THE USA! We are far cleaner than Europe or Canada thinks we are. Companies can upgrade their equipment now without the red tape thanks to Bush. Companies are investing into cleaner technology. Thanks to Bush, companies don't have to build new plants to meet federal guidelines but they can Upgrade for alot less than it would if they have to build a new plant! Our air is cleaner than it ever has been. Our water is cleaner than it has been in 30 years. We don't cause that much harm to the environment as these people say we do. Volcanoes throw up MORE GREEN HOUSE GASES than the entire world does COMBINED if not 3x as much.

And to answer your question, yes you are technically polluting your own air supply by breathing. Given the right circumstances, CO2 can and has been extremely deadly to mankind. If you think about it, you will agree.

In a way your right. CO2 poisoning has occured but that is due to falty filters or clogged filters. Same with CO. However, if your in a ventilated area, it won't cause a problem. I have studied this and I'm looking at pro and cons to the THEORY of Global Warming and the numbers are not there to prove that it is as catastrophic as people make it out to be. I've taken atmosphere course in last year and thoroughly enjoyed it. Yea we talked about global warming but both sides got presented in debates. And you know what, when push came to shove, the pro-Global Warming people was placed on their heals because they COULD NOT back it up. Same thing is happening here.

BTW, the NYT is also starting to question the Theory of Global Warming now too.

Those are major population centers. I can tell you where I live, the tap is very clean. Besides, San Fran can drop into the ocean for all I care. As for the rest, can I see some numbers please!
Is San Fran not a part of YOUR America? What a callous comment to make? You care more about Iraqi "liberation" than about the lives of 1 Million fellow Americans? Perhaps if you think a little bit more about what you have stated, you will realize that it was not such a good comment to make?

Canuck, the insinuations that anyone that doesn't agree with you hasn't thought about what they are saying is, quite frankly, insulting. Your way is not the only valid way to deal with the problems of human pollution. Nor is your interpretation of global warming theory universally accepted. Looking down with condescension upon those that disagree with you is not a good way to make your point.

Canuck, the insinuations that anyone that doesn't agree with you hasn't thought about what they are saying is, quite frankly, insulting. Your way is not the only valid way to deal with the problems of human pollution. Nor is your interpretation of global warming theory universally accepted. Looking down with condescension upon those that disagree with you is not a good way to make your point.
Perhaps you have only been reading my posts? You obviously have not looked at some other very hostile posts?

I do not believe that my posts are condescending in the least, perhaps you might try looking at the other posters before you jump to a rash conclusion. Surely I have bantered with people who have brought forward debate in a hostile manner, but for the most part, I do believe that I have tried to bring the debate forward in an honest manner by posting links. We can all learn just by going through the exercise?

Perhaps you have only been reading my posts? You obviously have not looked at some other very hostile posts?

I do not believe that my posts are condescending in the least, perhaps you might try looking at the other posters before you jump to a rash conclusion. Surely I have bantered with people who have brought forward debate in a hostile manner, but for the most part, I do believe that I have tried to bring the debate forward in an honest manner by posting links. We can all learn just by going through the exercise?

Most of the other truly hostile posts were made by ignorant people that aren't even worth considering. I don't think that you are ignorant. I think you just have a predetermined conclusion that you aren't willing to even consider revisiting.

However, you have tried to pass off your judgment as the only valid conclusion and have essentially used the fine art of handwaving to disregard contradictory evidence and theories. I'd like to note that you didn't even address that issue in your response.

I havc been re-reading some posts on this thread and the overwhelming response from Americans has been:

Denial: that global warming is just a theory, that it is not causing irreversible damage to the environment. To that end, a group of 17,000 people (some have suggested scientists, which is just not true) have signed a petition suggesting that global warming is over rated, even though the promoters of that petition have actually received monies from the oil industry.

Too costly: that the US economy would collapse if Kyoto was implemented, and generally painting a picture of doom and gloom. Meanwhile, many European countries have been actively developing ways and means to control pollution and generally are doing a better job of it than their North American counterparts. Europeans are becoming the champions of reduce, reuse, and recycle technologies, whereas North Americans are very much into the “disposable” mindset.

Close minded: to the point of wanting to shout down anyone that would support initiatives to save the planet from destruction. That anyone who supports Kyoto is somehow anti-American or unpatriotic, or that it will somehow help 3rd world countries to the detriment of the US. Putting up walls instead of debating the issue in a clear-headed manner does nothing to resolve the debate. Winning this debate is not what this is all about. Finding answers to the problem and developing solutions is a far more practical approach.

What truly surprises me on this issue, is that the US is not exerting the leadership that the world expects of them. It certainly would be ironic in that the US could suffer economic hardship because it didn’t get involved. If Russia ratifies Kyoto, and there is pressure from the EU for them to do so, then the Kyoto Protocol will kick in worldwide. If the US remains outside this agreement, it could cause irreparable harm to their economy.

Although the US is the world’s manufacturing “giant”, the fact remains that the US imports far more than it exports. “Kyoto” based countries meanwhile will be working diligently to promote and develop the technologies that help to keep the environment in check. There would obviously be a greater need to build or enhance trading relationships amongst these countries. If this happens, then there will be less requirements for made in the USA products? As China explodes into the global scheme of things, perhaps they will be looking for non-polluting vehicles, and systems and will look towards the pro “Kyoto” countries that are developing that technology, and looks right past the USA?

If the US doesn’t deal with this issue because it is too “costly”, then perhaps the rest of the world will make a decision for them, and that in itself could be a “costly” mistake?

I don't think anyone has suggested that the US not deal with its pollution issues. If they have, then they are, quite frankly, uneducated. However, we are not exactly certain what effect human pollution has in the atmosphere. Should we work to clean up our act and better use our resources? Absolutely.

Is Kyoto the only way to go about it? No. With as many loopholes and credit buys Kyotos has and the exclusion of "developing nations" from the controls, I remain unconvinced that it'll do that much good at all. There is evidence that volcanoes "pollute" the atmosphere much more than humans ever have. I also think we've come a far way from the soot sunsets of the pre-Industrial Age, though there certainly is more work to be done. Pointing fingers like Kyoto is the end-all-be-all of environmentalism doesn't do any good, IMHO.

As far as economic harm from not being involved in Kyoto, that's a stretch that I just find hard to buy into. There are so many other myriad factors at play here in the global market that it just seems silly that not ratifying one protocol would have that big of an effect.

I havc been re-reading some posts on this thread and the overwhelming response from Americans has been:

Denial: that global warming is just a theory, that it is not causing irreversible damage to the environment. To that end, a group of 17,000 people (some have suggested scientists, which is just not true) have signed a petition suggesting that global warming is over rated, even though the promoters of that petition have actually received monies from the oil industry.

Too costly: that the US economy would collapse if Kyoto was implemented, and generally painting a picture of doom and gloom. Meanwhile, many European countries have been actively developing ways and means to control pollution and generally are doing a better job of it than their North American counterparts. Europeans are becoming the champions of reduce, reuse, and recycle technologies, whereas North Americans are very much into the “disposable” mindset.

Close minded: to the point of wanting to shout down anyone that would support initiatives to save the planet from destruction. That anyone who supports Kyoto is somehow anti-American or unpatriotic, or that it will somehow help 3rd world countries to the detriment of the US. Putting up walls instead of debating the issue in a clear-headed manner does nothing to resolve the debate. Winning this debate is not what this is all about. Finding answers to the problem and developing solutions is a far more practical approach.

What truly surprises me on this issue, is that the US is not exerting the leadership that the world expects of them. It certainly would be ironic in that the US could suffer economic hardship because it didn’t get involved. If Russia ratifies Kyoto, and there is pressure from the EU for them to do so, then the Kyoto Protocol will kick in worldwide. If the US remains outside this agreement, it could cause irreparable harm to their economy.

Although the US is the world’s manufacturing “giant”, the fact remains that the US imports far more than it exports. “Kyoto” based countries meanwhile will be working diligently to promote and develop the technologies that help to keep the environment in check. There would obviously be a greater need to build or enhance trading relationships amongst these countries. If this happens, then there will be less requirements for made in the USA products? As China explodes into the global scheme of things, perhaps they will be looking for non-polluting vehicles, and systems and will look towards the pro “Kyoto” countries that are developing that technology, and looks right past the USA?

If the US doesn’t deal with this issue because it is too “costly”, then perhaps the rest of the world will make a decision for them, and that in itself could be a “costly” mistake?


First of all, if you look at this, the point of Kyoto is to frankly, punish the US. If you insist that it is otherwise, then why does it not make a proviso for future emissions? After all, if it is indeed a global problem, then the least it can do is set a limit on ALL countries, not just the current country being the world's whipping boy for things gone wrong. I think that would appeal more to vaunted "equality".

Second, the levels of CO2 exhibited by the cities, given the concentration of people there, is not very suprising. Indeed, the miniscule quantities of CO2 in general give me no cause for alarm. However, and I do say however, I DO beleive in global warming. That being said, the Earth cyclically goes through situations involving global warming with or without humanity. Hence the Ice Ages, hence the subsequent warming of the earth's atmosphere. To be blunt, the Earth will warm and there is not much humanity can do about it.

I am NOT an idiot, nor do I disagree with you that CO2 CAN be a pollution. However, the levels you have stated are not levels that are threatening in the global span of things. Even 600 parts per million in infintisely small. CO2 is produced by people whether you like this or not. I would be more concerned with propagation of plantlife to absorb the CO2 as opposed to some arbitrary slashing of emissions. Preach about the rainforest, not US industry regarding CO2.

On another note: America actually has a quite active environmental awareness, moreso than many would like to give credit for. After all, it seems to be quite fashionable to disregard American progress and only harp on failures. Will you tell me next that Canada is completely beautiful, with nowhere near the levels of pollution? I have been to Vancouver, supposedly one of the "most beautiful cities in the world". The level of "environmental awareness" in quite a few parts would have to cause me to beg to differ (For even worse situation, check out Mexico City). Humans are selfish creatures, and to attribute any different qualities to people from another nation are, as stated before, insulting at best. Europe is neither enlightened nor destitute as regards civilized or proper behavior. Being that people are greedy as they are, if Europe or Canada were such wonderful countries, why not a far larger emigration practice from the US, or a lower immigration INTO the US? Or will you counter that Americans are supposedly too stupid to realize that as well?

Those are major population centers. I can tell you where I live, the tap is very clean. Besides, San Fran can drop into the ocean for all I care. As for the rest, can I see some numbers please!



Again. Sources? Its fine to quote this but you need to back it up. Until then, nice talking to you.

Yes, many areas of the USA do have high quality water quality, unfortunately not everywhere though. Likewise, some parts of Europe do not have such good quality water. However, overall, western Europe can claim to have a better standard of potable tap water.

PS:

The source for the tap water (!) was the American Environmental Protection Agency. Also the American Journal for Public Health has reported on this.

The source for the recycling statistics was the EU and CoE, as well as a number of American studies as I mentioned.

...yawn...

It's our government's fault. Not like we actually elect them or anything.

I havc been re-reading some posts on this thread and the overwhelming response from Americans has been:

Denial: that global warming is just a theory, that it is not causing irreversible damage to the environment. To that end, a group of 17,000 people (some have suggested scientists, which is just not true) have signed a petition suggesting that global warming is over rated, even though the promoters of that petition have actually received monies from the oil industry.

Too costly: that the US economy would collapse if Kyoto was implemented, and generally painting a picture of doom and gloom. Meanwhile, many European countries have been actively developing ways and means to control pollution and generally are doing a better job of it than their North American counterparts. Europeans are becoming the champions of reduce, reuse, and recycle technologies, whereas North Americans are very much into the “disposable” mindset.

Close minded: to the point of wanting to shout down anyone that would support initiatives to save the planet from destruction. That anyone who supports Kyoto is somehow anti-American or unpatriotic, or that it will somehow help 3rd world countries to the detriment of the US. Putting up walls instead of debating the issue in a clear-headed manner does nothing to resolve the debate. Winning this debate is not what this is all about. Finding answers to the problem and developing solutions is a far more practical approach.

What truly surprises me on this issue, is that the US is not exerting the leadership that the world expects of them. It certainly would be ironic in that the US could suffer economic hardship because it didn’t get involved. If Russia ratifies Kyoto, and there is pressure from the EU for them to do so, then the Kyoto Protocol will kick in worldwide. If the US remains outside this agreement, it could cause irreparable harm to their economy.

Although the US is the world’s manufacturing “giant”, the fact remains that the US imports far more than it exports. “Kyoto” based countries meanwhile will be working diligently to promote and develop the technologies that help to keep the environment in check. There would obviously be a greater need to build or enhance trading relationships amongst these countries. If this happens, then there will be less requirements for made in the USA products? As China explodes into the global scheme of things, perhaps they will be looking for non-polluting vehicles, and systems and will look towards the pro “Kyoto” countries that are developing that technology, and looks right past the USA?

If the US doesn’t deal with this issue because it is too “costly”, then perhaps the rest of the world will make a decision for them, and that in itself could be a “costly” mistake?

That was some serious owning of The 'Patriots'

First of all, if you look at this, the point of Kyoto is to frankly, punish the US. If you insist that it is otherwise, then why does it not make a proviso for future emissions? After all, if it is indeed a global problem, then the least it can do is set a limit on ALL countries, not just the current country being the world's whipping boy for things gone wrong. I think that would appeal more to vaunted "equality".

Second, the levels of CO2 exhibited by the cities, given the concentration of people there, is not very suprising. Indeed, the miniscule quantities of CO2 in general give me no cause for alarm. However, and I do say however, I DO beleive in global warming. That being said, the Earth cyclically goes through situations involving global warming with or without humanity. Hence the Ice Ages, hence the subsequent warming of the earth's atmosphere. To be blunt, the Earth will warm and there is not much humanity can do about it.

I am NOT an idiot, nor do I disagree with you that CO2 CAN be a pollution. However, the levels you have stated are not levels that are threatening in the global span of things. Even 600 parts per million in infintisely small. CO2 is produced by people whether you like this or not. I would be more concerned with propagation of plantlife to absorb the CO2 as opposed to some arbitrary slashing of emissions. Preach about the rainforest, not US industry regarding CO2.

On another note: America actually has a quite active environmental awareness, moreso than many would like to give credit for. After all, it seems to be quite fashionable to disregard American progress and only harp on failures. Will you tell me next that Canada is completely beautiful, with nowhere near the levels of pollution? I have been to Vancouver, supposedly one of the "most beautiful cities in the world". The level of "environmental awareness" in quite a few parts would have to cause me to beg to differ (For even worse situation, check out Mexico City). Humans are selfish creatures, and to attribute any different qualities to people from another nation are, as stated before, insulting at best. Europe is neither enlightened nor destitute as regards civilized or proper behavior. Being that people are greedy as they are, if Europe or Canada were such wonderful countries, why not a far larger emigration practice from the US, or a lower immigration INTO the US? Or will you counter that Americans are supposedly too stupid to realize that as well?

I bet you cried on 9/11, I did as well but they were tears of joy.

Ignorant moron, The US has no progressive Environmental policy, Scientists regurlarly take payoffs from corporations, and you have an appalling fossil fuel usage rate as well as appalling recycling rates.

I bet you cried on 9/11, I did as well but they were tears of joy.

Ignorant moron, The US has no progressive Environmental policy, Scientists regurlarly take payoffs from corporations, and you have an appalling fossil fuel usage rate as well as appalling recycling rates.

The US had a progressive policy under Clinton. Have you ever been to the US?

...

WHAT PART OF "STAY AWAY FROM THE FORUMS" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ban.jpg

DO. NOT. RETURN.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

WHAT PART OF "STAY AWAY FROM THE FORUMS" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ban.jpg

DO. NOT. RETURN.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Way to go Myrth!!!!!!!!!!

the us has never, and will never have a sensible environmental policy, and they seem to not be able to see past tomorrow, is it not enough to plunder the wealth of other smaller, lesser armed countries?....i'd really like to know what the end game will be, world ruler?, world policeman?.....you take what is not rightfully yours, to satisfy the need of a greedy, self rightrous, arrogant and we know best populous....can your short-sighted leaders not see the future or something...the tide will turn......sorry, but my rant for the evening, coz i've had enough of pompous shitheads....wake up please, for all our sakes.

Absolutely. Americans stink. They suck big time! The planet is dying and the corporations are laughing!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I bet you cried on 9/11, I did as well but they were tears of joy.

Ignorant moron, The US has no progressive Environmental policy, Scientists regurlarly take payoffs from corporations, and you have an appalling fossil fuel usage rate as well as appalling recycling rates.

I need some Moron-B-Gone......

the us has never, and will never have a sensible environmental policy, and they seem to not be able to see past tomorrow, is it not enough to plunder the wealth of other smaller, lesser armed countries?....i'd really like to know what the end game will be, world ruler?, world policeman?.....you take what is not rightfully yours, to satisfy the need of a greedy, self rightrous, arrogant and we know best populous....can your short-sighted leaders not see the future or something...the tide will turn......sorry, but my rant for the evening, coz i've had enough of pompous shitheads....wake up please, for all our sakes.

May I ask what country you are from? If you tell me the US is the only country that has ever acted this way, I will laugh at you, and so will every other reasoned being.

You must evidently assume that the US collectively polls its citizens and says "Gee, 'tis a fine day to go about stamping on other countries and stealing their goods."

the us has never, and will never have a sensible environmental policy, and they seem to not be able to see past tomorrow, is it not enough to plunder the wealth of other smaller, lesser armed countries?....i'd really like to know what the end game will be, world ruler?, world policeman?.....you take what is not rightfully yours, to satisfy the need of a greedy, self rightrous, arrogant and we know best populous....can your short-sighted leaders not see the future or something...the tide will turn......sorry, but my rant for the evening, coz i've had enough of pompous shitheads....wake up please, for all our sakes.

Are you from the country of NoCapitalLetters..? Very "egalitarian".

US as "World Ruler"..? Who would want THAT job..?

That would be like Nanny to a huge pack of 4 year olds.

US as "World Policeman"..? Perhaps. But only insofar as we "enforce" our own interests by "disrupting" those we perceive as potentially dangerous to those interests.

If you don't like our dollars, remove yourselves from our influence. We do not take what is not ours. We BUY it...!

We are not the best populace, we are who we are, and we are AMERICANS.

We are proud of our country, as should you be of yours. We are proud of our accomplishments, as should you be of yours.

We are awake,.. it is the indolent adolescent children of children such as yourself that need to wake up,.. grow up,.. and face reality.

I believe you mean Congress not Pentagon. And Congress has already made it decision, unanimous against ratifying Kyoto.Um, no, I meant the Pentagon. If you will kindly consult the context of my comment, you will see that I was referring to the danger of cataclysmic climate change rather than the passage of the treaty. Reading comprehension – it’s a beautiful thing:

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

Justification? well, we're america. screw you hippie commie scum. like joining the kyoto treaty is gonna make the rest of the world like us any more than they do now? come on. you wont be satisfied until you see mighty america cower to your whims. Wonder why im such an arrogant american? cuz you guys convinced me that i am. good work. PAX AMERICAN

Back to what this started as: While Kyoto Protocol is as you yanks claim, quite worthless, it is still one step in the right direction. The Kyoto protocol became rubbish after the politicans took over the negotiations from the scientist, who actually proposed far greater cuts in emissons.

I´m not one for unresonable US bashing (although i strongly dissaprove, uh... HATE the US government), but i seem to recall, out of the mists of my memmory, that there is a certain link between a dmocratic nations government and its populace.... You guys may not vote for Bush, but your peers did! And would it really make any real difference if Kerry won? Clinton, in his days of glory, bombed medical factories (alleged chemical warfare plants) in Libya, got Taliban into power in Afghanistan and supported the Indonesians in their masacres in East-Timor. What makes you belive Kerry would be any better? Yes, he would probably not do the rabbid dog/chimp routine that your current head guy has going, but isn´t it better to be told right out that you nation is being run by a fundamentalist christian with no connection to traditional christian values, and a mean streak?

Concerning your precious economy, shove it! Money is not an important subject, if you worry so much for the poor, then cut your bloody standard of living. If americans didn´t eat so much meat, all that cattle feed could be used to reduce malnutrition and starvation in Africa. In my oppinion environmental protection comes first! Humans are a distruptive force everywhere, in every field. Even when we try to conserve: New national parks in Africa BUY elephants, girraffes etc. at auctions and then place them where they were not before!

Kyoto would be a first step on a long road. Kerry would(perhaps) be a step towards normalization of global power politics. But what really needs to change, is the way most of us human beeings think about our place in the world! If not, i see only one solution: TOTAL GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back to what this started as: While Kyoto Protocol is as you yanks claim, quite worthless, it is still one step in the right direction. The Kyoto protocol became rubbish after the politicans took over the negotiations from the scientist, who actually proposed far greater cuts in emissons.

I´m not one for unresonable US bashing (although i strongly dissaprove, uh... HATE the US government), but i seem to recall, out of the mists of my memmory, that there is a certain link between a dmocratic nations government and its populace.... You guys may not vote for Bush, but your peers did! And would it really make any real difference if Kerry won? Clinton, in his days of glory, bombed medical factories (alleged chemical warfare plants) in Libya, got Taliban into power in Afghanistan and supported the Indonesians in their masacres in East-Timor. What makes you belive Kerry would be any better? Yes, he would probably not do the rabbid dog/chimp routine that your current head guy has going, but isn´t it better to be told right out that you nation is being run by a fundamentalist christian with no connection to traditional christian values, and a mean streak?

Concerning your precious economy, shove it! Money is not an important subject, if you worry so much for the poor, then cut your bloody standard of living. If americans didn´t eat so much meat, all that cattle feed could be used to reduce malnutrition and starvation in Africa. In my oppinion environmental protection comes first! Humans are a distruptive force everywhere, in every field. Even when we try to conserve: New national parks in Africa BUY elephants, girraffes etc. at auctions and then place them where they were not before!

Kyoto would be a first step on a long road. Kerry would(perhaps) be a step towards normalization of global power politics. But what really needs to change, is the way most of us human beeings think about our place in the world! If not, i see only one solution: TOTAL GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



hahahaha idealism at its worst. blame all the problems on america. as if every problem started once america became a world power.

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

although not american
maybe its because their government body voted against it?
seems a bit unfair to ask the average american that uses this site to defend a vote that he or she took no part in

although not american
maybe its because their government body voted against it?
seems a bit unfair to ask the average american that uses this site to defend a vote that he or she took no part in

and i thought the united states was a democracy, where the people's power is able to alter what the government does. enough petitions may be collected to alter the government, i think. no?

I could be wrong, but I thought it was VP Gore that signed it.
Gore was the one that went to Kyoto.

and kill all the cows and pigs , that will make a BIG dent in the darn CO2s !

and i thought the united states was a democracy, where the people's power is able to alter what the government does. enough petitions may be collected to alter the government, i think. no?

Clinton never brought it before the US Senate. Under the Constitution of the United States, all treaties have to be approved of by the US Senate. However, as stated before, President William Jefferson Clinton never brought the Kyoto Protocal to the Floor of the Senate.

And you know why? Every single Senator, INCLUDING KERRY, voted on a Senate Resolution and the vote was Unanomous. Now, I know that Formal Dances posted the link once in here but I guess people choose to ignore it. It basically said that President shouldn't bring a treaty to the Floor of the Senate that would do Economic harm to the US Economy. Like it or not, Kyoto would have severaly damaged the US Economy.

Would you like a link to this Senate Resolution?

The Kyoto agreement is dead....it was DOA and those who are complaining about it just don't see it. Why SHOULD the US sign an agreement that only places restrictions on it and lets other countries like China pollute as they see fit?

Absolutely. Americans stink. They suck big time! The planet is dying and the corporations are laughing!

So it's bad when Americans/capitalists do it but when Chinese/communists do it it's OK? This is the kind of doubletalk that turns me off political partisanship.

I was never asked to sign up for the Kyoto treaty.

The Kyoto protocols are based on unproven scientific theory. To commit to something that could have irreperable harm to the US economy is not only foolish, but insane as well.

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


*coughs* Ahem. I'm not talking about investments here, however http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf Please explain why out of the top 9 economies America has not accepted the Kyoto agreement. (Even though under Clinton you signed up for it)

*coughs* Ahem. I'm not talking about investments here, however http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf Please explain why out of the top 9 economies America has not accepted the Kyoto agreement. (Even though under Clinton you signed up for it)
Because, unlike the majority of Europe, I don't feel America should be as lemmings before the "kyoto" tide.

*coughs* Ahem. I'm not talking about investments here, however http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf Please explain why out of the top 9 economies America has not accepted the Kyoto agreement. (Even though under Clinton you signed up for it)

Because our Senate has the balls to not approve it! I never seen them this united against something. Even they know how much economic harm it would do to our country and have told Clinton NOT to bring it before us because if you do, it'll be voted down.

Thank God for the US Senate.

Because our Senate has the balls to not approve it! I never seen them this united against something. Even they know how much economic harm it would do to our country and have told Clinton NOT to bring it before us because if you do, it'll be voted down.

Thank God for the US Senate.


But if 99% of the global community (most certainly not exact figures!) has signed up for Kyoto then it shouldn't matter if the economy goes down because all of the country's rival economies will also go down. And so all the countries will remain in the same position.

But if 99% of the global community (most certainly not exact figures!) has signed up for Kyoto then it shouldn't matter if the economy goes down because all of the country's rival economies will also go down. And so all the countries will remain in the same position.
So, you are saying that if our economy goes down (something it can ill afford at the moment) and more people are out of work, more people are without healthcare, more people live below the poverty line it's ok because other countries suffer similar affects?
Forgive me if I wish to spare the American people the affects that the Kyoto protocols would have on them, regardless if "99%" of the world community choses to shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak.

But if 99% of the global community (most certainly not exact figures!) has signed up for Kyoto then it shouldn't matter if the economy goes down because all of the country's rival economies will also go down. And so all the countries will remain in the same position.

Well, for one thing, the loss would not be equitably shared amongst these economies. The US would suffer disproportionately because its economy is disproportionally large. And the weaker the US economy is, the more the market tries to balance it out amongst the other nations of the world, which would actually lessen Kyoto's impact on those other countries.

However, the most important idea does not come from comparing the US with other major First World powers that signed on, but in comparing it to major economies that would not be limited by Kyoto, especially China (which has already been brought up sooo many times in this topic, so stop continuing this topic since it has already been explained dozens of times). I see no reason why the developed world ought to handicap itself against the developing world, especially considering all of the achievements that the developed world has accomplished in such a short amount of time and how much it may yet accomplish.