NationStates Jolt Archive

So what are peoples opinions of Kyoto?
Do you agree with it or go with the American government's idea that it's bad for business?

Personally I think it's great that the world is trying to do something about the awful mess we've got ourselves into. I find it entirely selfish of the US government to just think about money, even when they as a nation produce 25% of the Earth's carbon emissions. If this is going to work and if we're going to stop ruining our home, every nation has to do something about this, rather than sweeping it under the carpet.

So what are peoples opinions of Kyoto?
Do you agree with it or go with the American government's idea that it's bad for business?

Personally I think it's great that the world is trying to do something about the awful mess we've got ourselves into. I find it entirely selfish of the US government to just think about money, even when they as a nation produce 25% of the Earth's carbon emissions. If this is going to work and if we're going to stop ruining our home, every nation has to do something about this, rather than sweeping it under the carpet.

I don't really think it matters if it's bad for business.
Is it really more important to allow the US to go on pumping out pollution for the sake of industry than to try and prevent our planet from turning into a giant desert?

Will the planet actually turn into a desert? I thought global warming was supposed to cause more rainfall in the form of massive storms.

I am from alberta, dont listen to these foos, fossils fuels are our friends! Keep using those SUVs , I like your yankee money! :p

Will the planet actually turn into a desert? I thought global warming was supposed to cause more rainfall in the form of massive storms.

It isn't supposed to do anything, models cannot predict with exactitude the effects of global warming. What is observed is a warming that , due to its intensity, cannot be due to natural causes, and that might have terrible consequence.

The US position is "we will not harm our economy for it until we know exactly what those so called 'terrible' consequences will be", while other countries (which are not, by far, as economically powerfull as the USA) prefer acting before we know the exact consequencies. Because we might not know the results of the warming, until we face them.

The US is all for the environment - we just don't want to be stuck with the tab for the whole world. China cities have far worse air quality than American, why should they not be held to the same standards?

The US is all for the environment - we just don't want to be stuck with the tab for the whole world. China cities have far worse air quality than American, shy should they not be held to the same standards?


hey! china is going to buy alberta oil too! Sweeeet

China's signed the Kyoto protocol

The US is all for the environment - we just don't want to be stuck with the tab for the whole world. China cities have far worse air quality than American, why should they not be held to the same standards?
It's about a combined effort

Loads of pollution in Europe just drift from one country to another. Only together can we fight it. The more the merrier

Get what you can for yourself and screw the rest. It's all about me and what benefits me despite the negative impact it may have on the rest of the world or even the future of my children. Who cares if we dont see the sun again for three thousand years or whatever impact global warming ultimately has on the Earths health. I'm with the conservatives on this one. NOT!

China's signed the Kyoto protocol

A protocol that holds different nations to different standards, right.

A protocol that holds different nations to different standards, right.
USA = China????

Not by a long shot. China doesn't have the money USA has

A protocol that holds different nations to different standards, right.
There is set to be a new round of agreements within that already ratified within which it is expected, by China particulary, that developing nations will also have to cut their emissions.

China's signed the Kyoto protocol
Yes, but if you bothered to read it you'd see that they are held to different standards. Why wouldn't they sign it if the US has to foot the bill!

USA = China????

Not by a long shot. China doesn't have the money USA has


So then why should they get a pass on pollution? Their CO2 is no less hazardous.

There is set to be a new round of agreements within that already ratified within which it is expected, by China particulary, that developing nations will also have to cut their emissions.

That one has a chance to be accepted.

Yes, but if you bothered to read it you'd see that they are held to different standards. Why wouldn't they sign it if the US has to foot the bill!
You say that in the false belief that I have not read it, or at least parts of it. It is not just the US that is effected, but the world. Stop complaining about the damage it will do to your economy, which would be negligible, and think about the bigger picture.
Also, if other developed nations, primarily those in Europe and Japan, can sign the treaty without it having hazardous effects to their economy, doesn't it follow the US could do the same?

So what are peoples opinions of Kyoto?
Do you agree with it or go with the American government's idea that it's bad for business?

Personally I think it's great that the world is trying to do something about the awful mess we've got ourselves into. I find it entirely selfish of the US government to just think about money, even when they as a nation produce 25% of the Earth's carbon emissions. If this is going to work and if we're going to stop ruining our home, every nation has to do something about this, rather than sweeping it under the carpet.

The idea that the Kyoto protocal is "bad" for business is bullshit.
It applies only if you forget that there are plenty of Green business out there. There is plenty of money to be made by recycling companies, clean energy companies, etc..

About the competition issue.. Bush fears that the US wont be able to compete? Well, if you admit that the US is made out of morons, than that is true. But if you give credit to the US business, you will understand that if EVERYONE signs the damn protocol, everyone will be on the same level of competition. Actually, by not signing the treaty, the US companies have unfair advantages.

Understand that most people that are against the treaty have the support of the old, polluting industries, that dont want to spend the money to perfect their methods.

My opinion?

Well, it's a good start on a set of standards, but it has a long way to go.

As it stood (well before the current administration) when it was defeated (95-0 by the Senate; no chance for the President to veto); it produced a reasonable first effort at a rough draft.

Since then, the real work has been going on. Many smaller countries have been pressured to sign on, but everybody has been busy hammering out the details.

After a few more rounds of work, a good model should emerge. All it has to do is set a standard against which everybody will be measured. Easy to type, really tough to work out as a set of treaties.

No matter what comes of it directly, it's already changed the world by getting the dialog going among the WTO members. Large and small, all the voices are getting their say.

I completely agree. Even though countries with developing industries don't have the technology or infrastructure to effectively combat pollution, it shouldn't result in the US footing the bill.

Well, it is sorta true that it hurts our economy. I read a book about the future of energy usage, and the writer was clearly an environmentalist. Anyhow, he said that compliance for the US would take up to 3% of our GDP. However, the Eurozone's will be 1.5%, and Japan's will be 1.2%. This is because of demographic issues, such as the two regions being more urban, and therefore needing less cars. It'd be a far better idea if America were to adopt a unilateral plan for itself, as it often does.

I want to know why China was exempted from the Kyoto Protocol but not the US, especially when you take into account that China currently produces between 4 to 5 times the ammount of pollution as the US. I also would like to know why the active volcanoes of the world aren't being forced to sign this document and be regulated by it seeing how even a single erruption produces more air pollution than humanity does in a years time.

I think we should find a way to deal with places like Mexico City where the breathing the air for just a single day is worse than smoking a pack of cigs before we move onto the less polluted/polluting spots.

I want to know why China was exempted from the Kyoto Protocol but not the US, especially when you take into account that China currently produces between 4 to 5 times the ammount of pollution as the US. I also would like to know why the active volcanoes of the world aren't being forced to sign this document and be regulated by it seeing how even a single erruption produces more air pollution than humanity does in a years time.

I think we should find a way to deal with places like Mexico City where the breathing the air for just a single day is worse than smoking a pack of cigs before we move onto the less polluted/polluting spots.

Where did you get the figures from that state China pollutes 4-5 times more than the US? The Chinese can't afford to drive 100 yards down the road in their SUVs nor are they any where near as industrialised as the US. But we definately need to target these large developing nations now, to change their fuel source, so that it doesn't come to the levels that the US is producing at the moment.

Ofcourse there are differing standards.

Different countries have different capabilities. Different countries create different amounts of emissions.

Taking a unilateral position would be fine, if the actions of the US weren't going to affect the rest of the global community. Russia signed on...why can't the US and Australia for that matter.

It's a global problem that needs to be addressed globally, not unilaterally.

The US creates 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, so yes, you should foot the fricken bill.

It's not as though it doesn't affect the rest of the parties similarly.

I also would like to know why the active volcanoes of the world aren't being forced to sign this document and be regulated by it seeing how even a single erruption produces more air pollution than humanity does in a years time.


Ah, you were being funny right??? Please tell me this was an attempt at humour?

I completely agree. Even though countries with developing industries don't have the technology or infrastructure to effectively combat pollution, it shouldn't result in the US footing the bill.

Rather funny - though not in a funny way - that people can place a dollar value on the future of the entire planet, and on the generations of people after ourselves who will have to suffer.

You say that in the false belief that I have not read it, or at least parts of it. It is not just the US that is effected, but the world. Stop complaining about the damage it will do to your economy, which would be negligible, and think about the bigger picture.
Also, if other developed nations, primarily those in Europe and Japan, can sign the treaty without it having hazardous effects to their economy, doesn't it follow the US could do the same?

Do you actually think these things through before you write them?

They are held to different standards.

It is not about who is effected, it is about everyone being held to the same standards. Why WOULDN'T anyone who cares about the environment want that?

Unless, of course, their goal really had nothing to do with the environment and instead was an economic assault on their biggest competitor...

.....if EVERYONE signs the damn protocol, everyone will be on the same level of competition. Actually, by not signing the treaty, the US companies have unfair advantages.

Understand that most people that are against the treaty have the support of the old, polluting industries, that dont want to spend the money to perfect their methods.
Apparently you would rather swallow the party schlong than look it up yourself. The level of competition would not be equal because the standards would not be applied evenly.

US industry is substantially more efficient per emissions than most of the world already. I do give you credit for using the term 'old polluting indusrties' - It completely absolves you from having to consider that is nonsense. Or does it?

The US is all for the environment - we just don't want to be stuck with the tab for the whole world. China cities have far worse air quality than American, why should they not be held to the same standards?
What standards are you talking about?

The US has 5% of the world's population and creates 34% of the world's greenhouse gases.

Get your act in order US. The Kyoto Protocol will now come into effect now that Russia has signed the accord.

What standards are you talking about?

The US has 5% of the world's population and creates 34% of the world's greenhouse gases.

Get your act in order US. The Kyoto Protocol will now come into effect now that Russia has signed the accord.
The US also produces disproportionally more agriculture, food, medicines, clothing, textiles and electronics. Your point?