NationStates Jolt Archive

According to America, the Kyoto protocol is too drastic. However, scientists (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996494) say that the Kyoto protocol will have barely any effect, being as it is, hardly a restriction at all. However, the US still believes that it must ignore environmentalism in order to protect its economy, despite the fact that it has the strongest economy in the world, and still would even if it made restrictions to greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of pollution.

And they are entitled to their beliefs. Let's see how it works after Russia has ratified the protocol, and it actually kicks into action. It may happen the USA must come rescue all our economies. :)
If the proof was solid the planet is warming... I'm sure the USA would already be in... that's just me though...

Probably not the kind of answer that you're looking for, but here it goes: One more of the consecuences of having a government influenced by corporations and the economical interests of the politicians themselves.

If it would hardly have any environmental effect why bother? Besides it would cripple the American economy, while leaving our competitors in China and other developing countries free to pollute and grow. The amount of pollution reduction it calls for would lead to too many reductions in energy consumption by industry. This leads to a decrease in gdp growth. Actually several of the countries that passes it, haven't started phasing it in, because they know it will hurt their economies. It is a pipe dream.

And they are entitled to their beliefs.

no, they aren't. at least, they are not entitled to act on their beliefs when the consequences of their actions have a massive negative impact on everyone else in the world.

Hehe...

it would cripple the American economy, while leaving our competitors in China and other developing countries free to pollute and grow.
So your main competitors are developing nations now? The '1st world' has mainly ratified it by now. Of course you must protect your economy, if it's in such a bad state. :)

People seem to forget that having agriculture decimated worldwide by climate change and pollution will damage economies much more than protecting the environment.

no, they aren't. at least, they are not entitled to act on their beliefs when the consequences of their actions have a massive negative impact on everyone else in the world.
You haven't been paying attention lately then. They do act like they please (or rathe IT does). Bitching and moaning has done what now...?

Hehe...


So your main competitors are developing nations now? The '1st world' has mainly ratified it by now. Of course you must protect your economy, if it's in such a bad state. :)


If you see China as anything other than a main competitor (for everyone), then you are deluding yourself. :headbang:

If you see China as anything other than a main competitor (for everyone), then you are deluding yourself. :headbang:

Well I have to tell you that if you don't think that preventing the destruction the environment is a very big concern then you are deluding yourself.

You haven't been paying attention lately then. They do act like they please (or rathe IT does).

doing something and being entitled to do it are totally different concepts.

I think issues like this shouldbe taken to the polls and voted on. But that's just me.

What destruction? Some scientist think Earth is still warming up from the last ice age. Or are you referring tor rain forests, swamps, etc? If so,then it is developing countries you need to talk to, not America.

If you see China as anything other than a main competitor (for everyone), then you are deluding yourself. :headbang:
Oh, I do see it as a competitor for everyone. There's nothing much to compete over if some of the more drastic climate scenarios are actually accurate, is there? Now, I don't say they necessarily are. Would it be better to be safe than sorry...I sure don't know. I'm under the impression that after a period of some time, China too would have to reduce its emissions (don't quote me on this though).
I wish you stopped banging your head to the wall, it can't be healthy.

People seem to forget that having agriculture decimated worldwide by climate change and pollution will damage economies much more than protecting the environment.
Well I have to tell you that if you don't think that preventing the destruction the environment is a very big concern then you are deluding yourself.
What you seem to misunderstand, is that your assertion of climate change and destruction of the environment is by no means a scientific fact.

There remains substantial scientific doubt as to the truth behind global warming as an effect of human actions. As such, it's particularly ill-advised to risk any detrimental affect on the economy based on unproven climate change theory.

If it would hardly have any environmental effect why bother?

because we have to get started on this several decades ago. every year we delay we just make things worse sooner, and wind up with drastic long-term changes to the environment arriving in the very short term with no hope of ever repairing things. better to start with kyoto and keep pushing than to do nothing.

There remains substantial scientific doubt as to the truth behind global warming as an effect of human actions.

no. there isn't. all assertions to the contrary are either decades old, come from people not in the field, or are being funded by the very industries that must be stopped.

There actually was a good thread about this issue here before. People really took effort to find facts about the issu in that one. Some of you might wan't to look it up. Re-inventing the wheel is of course a nice option too.

no. there isn't. all assertions to the contrary are either decades old, come from people not in the field, or are being funded by the very industries that must be stopped.
Not even close to the truth.

Ask yourself this then, if you feel human actions are the cause of recent (disputed) temperature increase trends.
Why was it, on average, hotter 1000 years ago than it is today?

What destruction? Some scientist think Earth is still warming up from the last ice age. Or are you referring tor rain forests, swamps, etc? If so,then it is developing countries you need to talk to, not America.

So what if some scientists are being paid to say that global warming is "fake"? No scientist who valued his/her credibility would make such a claim. Destruction of the environment includes the air and sea as well. Air being the principle concern right now - release CO2 (carbon dioxide) into the air creates something called the greenhouse effect. This means that heat from the sun gets trapped inside the atmosphere. As a result, the world will see great climate change - sea levels rising, storms, droughts, floods, warming, cooling. But CO2 is not all that is released. Chemicals, such as unburnt hydrocarbons are released into the atmosphere, where people can breath them. These, of course, are carcinogenic.

However, the toxicity of pollutants to humans is but the tip of the iceberg. When other animals and plants suffer from pollution, trouble arises. The stability of the environment in which we live depends on the rest of life on earth, as well as on us. If we start killing things with pollution or climate change, or making it possible for organisms to live in places they couldn't use to thanks to warming, serious trouble arises.

Not even close to the truth.

Ask yourself this then, if you feel human actions are the cause of recent (disputed) temperature increase trends.
Why was it, on average, hotter 1000 years ago than it is today?

If it was hotter before, then we would be worried about global cooling. Unless the natural effects have taken a sudden U-turn, it's pretty sensible to assume that humans caused the recent increases.

So what if some scientists are being paid to say that global warming is "fake"? No scientist who valued his/her credibility would make such a claim. Destruction of the environment includes the air and sea as well. Air being the principle concern right now - release CO2 (carbon dioxide) into the air creates something called the greenhouse effect. This means that heat from the sun gets trapped inside the atmosphere. As a result, the world will see great climate change - sea levels rising, storms, droughts, floods, warming, cooling. But CO2 is not all that is released. Chemicals, such as unburnt hydrocarbons are released into the atmosphere, where people can breath them. These, of course, are carcinogenic.

However, the toxicity of pollutants to humans is but the tip of the iceberg. When other animals and plants suffer from pollution, trouble arises. The stability of the environment in which we live depends on the rest of life on earth, as well as on us. If we start killing things with pollution or climate change, or making it possible for organisms to live in places they couldn't use to thanks to warming, serious trouble arises.

But this is still in the realm of hypothetical. Enacting provisions that would have detrimental affect on economies based on junk science is, well... suicidal.

If it was hotter before, then we would be worried about global cooling. Unless the natural effects have taken a sudden U-turn, it's pretty sensible to assume that humans caused the recent increases.
It's more sensible to assume that the recent (disputed) increases are the result of natural cycling.

But this is still in the realm of hypothetical. Enacting provisions that would have detrimental affect on economies based on junk science is, well... suicidal.

Refusing to seriously reduce pollution based on junk science would be suicidal, but that doesn't seem to be a problem to you. I don't know who told you that environmental concerns are only hypothetical, but you should give them a smack. Anyone can see that toxic chemicals kill living things, and anyone can see that carbon-dioxide increases temperature. Look at the planet venus - further from the sun that mercury, but hotter. Why? Its atmosphere of carbon dioxide.

But this is still in the realm of hypothetical. Enacting provisions that would have detrimental affect on economies based on junk science is, well... suicidal.
Global Warming is a fact.

Of course it might be a coincidence that it has followed relatively accurately the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for the last century BUT if lowering emissions could help our planet to remain in a more habitable condition then I'm for it. Also, dropping pollution levels and resource waste in general are the keys to *sustainable* development.

Besides, going green early just equals to more profits later: You don't want to be tail-gaters, I presume..

So what if some scientists are being paid to say that global warming is "fake"? No scientist who valued his/her credibility would make such a claim.

They don't just value their credibility, they value their consciences as well. No (respectable) scientist would ever take a bribe.

And they are entitled to their beliefs. Let's see how it works after Russia has ratified the protocol, and it actually kicks into action. It may happen the USA must come rescue all our economies. :)
If the proof was solid the planet is warming... I'm sure the USA would already be in... that's just me though...

There is solid proof that the planet is, in fact, warming. What is uncertain is the amount that human technology has contributed to the speed of said warming. Earth, as a planet, has survived ice ages and warming periods since the beginning. That suggests that earth naturally cycles from hot to cold (it happened well before the automobile) and back again. The trouble is trying to keep the planet habitable for humans regardless of the actual reasons for global warming. How do we do that? We put a lid on things that we know contribute to global warming. It's really very simple. I think we should sign on Kyoto ASAP and see if it'll help things out... *shrugs* What's the harm? It'll improve the breathability of the air at any rate.

It's more sensible to assume that the recent (disputed) increases are the result of natural cycling.

#1 they are not disputed by anyone who isn't an idiot or a corporate hack. (and this is why the global-warming deniers really bug me; they have to argue like creationists and ingore all the data that they disagree with ideologically)

#2 non-human causes alone cannot explain the current warming, whereas our models show that they can for earlier climate trends. there are several aspects of anthropogenic forcing on the climate, without which our models cannot explain the observed data of the past century and a bit.

Isn't it odd how corporate-sponsored sources seem to disagree with the idea of Global Warming more than any other…

There is solid proof that the planet is, in fact, warming. What is uncertain is the amount that human technology has contributed to the speed of said warming. Earth, as a planet, has survived ice ages and warming periods since the beginning. That suggests that earth naturally cycles from hot to cold (it happened well before the automobile). The trouble is trying to keep the planet inhabitable for humans regardless of the actual reasons for global warming. How do we do that? We put a lid on things that we know contribute to global warming. It's really very simple. I think we should sign on Kyoto ASAP and see if it'll help things out... *shrugs* What's the harm? It'll improve the breathability of the air at any rate.
Yeah, I failed to say "warming because of human action"... sorry. For the record; I'm for strict measures. Restriction of pollution can hardly be bad - even if the current warming wasn't entirely (or at all) a result of human behaviour. You can only win really.

Here's a link to the past thread about this: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350341&page=1&pp=15&highlight=kyoto
The good stuff (some scientific facts) starts aroung page 15-20.... if my memory serves me at all.

What's the harm?


The economic growth will slow to a snail's pace. No politician wants to be the one to kill the economy. That is suicide politically.


just go read the other thread. it explains everything pretty well

The economic growth will slow to a snail's pace. No politician wants to be the one to kill the economy. That is suicide politically.
It's interesting the American economy is the only one the Kyoto protocol affects that way. Of course it can be that all the other governments that have ratified the treaty are really dumb. When talking about politicians, you can never rule that possibility out...

That is suicide politically.

Hence, "Short Term Thinking".

The economic growth will slow to a snail's pace.

i thought my side was supposed to be the one full of pessimists who don't believe in human ingenuity or something. do you honestly believe that we would be unable to come up with alternate ways of doing things once we have to? like it or not, we are going to have to make rather drastic changes in the way we run things in the relatively near future. it is just a matter of deciding whether we want to start on it now and hopefully head off even worse environmental damage (and the human damage that will go along with it) or waiting until our resource use forces us to change in 10 to 20 years.

New technologies will easily replace the environmentally-unfriendly ones we get rid of.

Good, long-term thinking there. I really think that people should look beyond their noses every so often (and gasp with horror when they see what awaits them if they don't ACT).

The economic growth will slow to a snail's pace. No politician wants to be the one to kill the economy. That is suicide politically.

Yes. Continue using the *cheap* and *unlimited* fossile fuels... :D

Besides those in favour of the treaty can *AFFORD* to be wrong... :cool:

And now, the parade of nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocols:

Romania

Yay!

And now, the parade of nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocols:

Romania

Yay!
I have seen that from you before. Please, dig deeper. I think you'll find close to....well, over 100+ nations. You can start here: http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf
And after that make a 'GOOGLE search'. Now, I know, google may be frightening....but go ahead, it won't bite. See how many countries you can find that have ratified the protocol.

The reason why Kyoto would cost that much to the industries is that past governments have failed to enact and/or enforce tougher environmental laws. Countries that have done so will have far less money to spend to go back up to speed. The US, for example has even decreased it's environmental policies under the current administration. As long as they refuse to do so, it will only cost more when they finally decide to join the bandwagon.

As a side note, I'd like to mention that the latest environmental studies done in Canada says that 40% of the pollution in the air comes from south of the border.

Refusing to seriously reduce pollution based on junk science would be suicidal, but that doesn't seem to be a problem to you. I don't know who told you that environmental concerns are only hypothetical, but you should give them a smack. Anyone can see that toxic chemicals kill living things, and anyone can see that carbon-dioxide increases temperature. Look at the planet venus - further from the sun that mercury, but hotter. Why? Its atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
No one is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Without the greenhouse effect, we couldn't survive.

What Im saying is that global warming as a result of human activity has not been proved to any degree of certainty. Global warming occurs. It's a naturally occuring cycle.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm points to scientific conclusions global warming isn't occuring as being reported by the global warming activists.

http://www.coaleducation.org/issues/top10.htm points out several myths proponents put out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,68667,00.html Some of the very scientists who claim global warming is a danger say the treaty won't and can't help.

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/ba/ba230.html more myths and disputing global warming

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html and finally testimony from the founder and president of the The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) a non-partisan, non-profit research group of independent scientists.

Free Soviets chooses to dismiss any evidence that goes against global warming as a human cause/concern because people are "idiot"s or a corporate hack.

Rather I think Free Soviets refuses to accept evidence to the contrary of his beliefs, based on his own emotional not rational thinking.

I like Canada mostly, but it is a little too easy to point the finger.

It turns out that rainfall samples have determined that the filth from super-tall smokestacks at nickel smelting plants in Sudbury ON are ending up in Norway!

And making people there sick, of course.

The atmosphere stops at no border checkpoints.

No one is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Without the greenhouse effect, we couldn't survive.

What Im saying is that global warming as a result of human activity has not been proved to any degree of certainty. Global warming occurs. It's a naturally occuring cycle.


CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore it creates a temperature increase proportion to the amount there is. There is much more than there used to be, therefore there is a greater temperature.

Simple mathematics.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore it creates a temperature increase proportion to the amount there is. There is much more than there used to be, therefore there is a greater temperature.

Simple mathematics.
Incorrect. Temperature does NOT increase in proportion to the ammount of CO2.

According to ice core samples CO2 concentration was about 280 ppmv.
In 1958 a measurment site was placed ontop of the Mauna Loa volcano. The atmospheric CO2 level was measured at 316 ppmv.
Today its measered at 370 (approximately and in 1998)

This is in increase of 31% over pre-industrialization times, yet we do not see anywhere near a 31% increase in temperature.

Since 1958 it was only a 17% increase. Yet we haven't seen a 17% increase in temperature.

The mathematics in question are no where near simple.

Incorrect. Temperature does NOT increase in proportion to the ammount of CO2.

According to ice core samples CO2 concentration was about 280 ppmv.
In 1958 a measurment site was placed ontop of the Mauna Loa volcano. The atmospheric CO2 level was measured at 316 ppmv.
Today its measered at 370 (approximately and in 1998)

This is in increase of 31% over pre-industrialization times, yet we do not see anywhere near a 31% increase in temperature.

Since 1958 it was only a 17% increase. Yet we haven't seen a 17% increase in temperature.

The mathematics in question are no where near simple.

I apologize, your criticism of my mathematics is justified and accurate. I did not mean to claim proportionality. What I meant was that as concentration increases, temperature increases. Still a valid point, though, regardless of my previous assertion of a false relationship.