NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets get some facts straight here. There are countries in Asia, most of Asia has a lot of factories and many countries over there have no business regulations, in America there are regulations you have to have certain polutant control, and lets not forget, in the US, it is illegal to chop down a tree and not replant a new one. (In large quantities.) That is illegal logging. Meanwhile down in South and Central America, they dont have those laws, they cut down their rainforests and dont ever replant their trees. Sometimes, they dont even sell the wood, or use it. They just push it aside and let it rot. Meanwhile they build there farms on what used to be the rainforest. However as you all know rainforest soil has very little nutrients, and in a couple years, they have to do the same thing all over again. Therefor our oxygen gets reduced and the Carbon Dioxide (the stuff that holds in heat) increases. And lets not forget, in the US, advancements in technology have allowed more crops to be planted in smaller amounts of area, our tree rate in some parts of the country has been going up. Along with other countrys who use this new technology.

Hey Im not saying there isnt global warming, Im not saying there is. Im just saying if there is the US is NOT responsible for all of it. Some of it yes, but not as much as Asia and South/Central America.

You bring up an interesting point. When calculating how much each nation contributes to greenhouse gas output do they take into account how much CO2 is absorbed by agricultural and preserved forest areas in that country? If they don't then it might unfairly accuse the US of making a greater negative environmental impact.

It's all BusHitler's fault. He is Satan. :gundge:

It's all BusHitler's fault. He is Satan. :gundge:
Thank you for the usefull and constructive comments. We truly value your erudite opinion and hope you will continue to post such simple and commonsense, yet profound messages.

I wasn't aware that America was being blamed for global warming. They do contribute to it with their overuse of cars, but like you say it is just as bad in other countries.

Greenhouse gases are not the only cause of global warming. There are other factors such as the Sun getting hotter.

Back in the 1970s, scientists were worrying about the world getting colder. The average tempuratures were dropping. It is only a new trend where the temps are slightly increasing.

You're welcome! :cool:

Is it really fair to blame the US for global warming?

I think it's ok (read: fair) to blame the US for every ill that has befallen the world since the dawn of time.

I think it's ok (read: fair) to blame the US for every ill that has befallen the world since the dawn of time.
We know you do.

Back in the 1970s, scientists were worrying about the world getting colder. The average tempuratures were dropping. It is only a new trend where the temps are slightly increasing.

Amazing how a big ball of molten rock will fluctuate in temperature, ain't it? A little basic geology goes a long way. :)

We know you do.

It's my right as an American.

Is it really fair to blame the US for everything that happened, since they went from AWOL British Colony to Indepndant Nation about 200 years ago.
The US is a relativily young nation (actually its just a 1/8th of Englands age, counting from the fall of the Romans)

It's my right as an American.
It certainly is. It would also be your right to walk down the street yelling about infected vaginal secretions, but neither is going to win you any friends.

I think it's ok (read: fair) to blame the US for every ill that has befallen the world since the dawn of time.
I second that.

The US has consistently refused to endorse the Kyoto protocols, or to consider any other form of verifiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

For the paranoid, please note that Kyoto is not an attempt at running a world government, even if it is a convention started by the "evil" UN, and is not designed to only punish Americans for doing what everybody else does. It is not controlled by the French, Russians, Jews, Freemasons etc etc.

For those Americans who are still capable of realising that they co-exist on the same planet with non-Americans, it may well be worth asking why the US continues to hold out.

Sources :

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html

http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/a/aa090402a.htm

The USA isnt the only one to blame for global warming, but it can be blamed for not doing enough.

Short answer: no.

It certainly is. It would also be your right to walk down the street yelling about infected vaginal secretions, but neither is going to win you any friends.

Bah! Who needs friends? I'm an American, remember? It's my god-given right to piss off anyone I want to because, frankly, we got the bomb and aren't afraid to use it.

(ps. If you can't read sarcasm, then you must be American too)

I know this isn't Co2 emissions, but some report I read a few weeks ago said that the deadliest form of air pollution has fallen 10% in 4 years...

What global warming? I have a PhD in Theoretical Physics, do computer modeling for a living and has been doing it for 20 years, my current job title is Senior Mathematical Modeler. And in my very humble opinion anyone who claims to have a computer model predicting global temperature in 100 years is not a scientist but a charlatan. Predicting global climate even just a coupla decades into the future is way, way, way beyond the capabilities of modern science, and no reputable scientist will ever dare to say anything on the subject because it would be just idle speculation. As for Kyoto, virtually all international environmental agreements are very evil. CFC ban has already killed thousands and DDT ban has already killed millions, yet there is absolutely no scientific evidence that CFCs and DDT are harmful. Fortunately, Kyoto is dead - the treaty officially ends in 2012 and nobody's going to renew it.

Lets get some facts straight here. There are countries in Asia, most of Asia has a lot of factories and many countries over there have no business regulations, in America there are regulations you have to have certain polutant control, and lets not forget, in the US, it is illegal to chop down a tree and not replant a new one. (In large quantities.) That is illegal logging. Meanwhile down in South and Central America, they dont have those laws, they cut down their rainforests and dont ever replant their trees. Sometimes, they dont even sell the wood, or use it. They just push it aside and let it rot. Meanwhile they build there farms on what used to be the rainforest. However as you all know rainforest soil has very little nutrients, and in a couple years, they have to do the same thing all over again. Therefor our oxygen gets reduced and the Carbon Dioxide (the stuff that holds in heat) increases. And lets not forget, in the US, advancements in technology have allowed more crops to be planted in smaller amounts of area, our tree rate in some parts of the country has been going up. Along with other countrys who use this new technology.

Hey Im not saying there isnt global warming, Im not saying there is. Im just saying if there is the US is NOT responsible for all of it. Some of it yes, but not as much as Asia and South/Central America.
The US is responsible for too much of it, that's for sure. We pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, we have more SUVs per capita than any other country, and we consume 23% of the world's oil. The US is more to blame than any other country in the world.

I think it's ok (read: fair) to blame the US for every ill that has befallen the world since the dawn of time.
Poverty in India is there because of America? The Sudanese genocide exists becuase of America? The AIDS crisis in Africa exists because of America?

The US is responsible for too much of it, that's for sure. We pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, we have more SUVs per capita than any other country, and we consume 23% of the world's oil. The US is more to blame than any other country in the world.
Shouldn't that be balanced against our huge agricultural enterprises and our vast protected forests (which use up CO2)?

Shouldn't that be balanced against our huge agricultural enterprises and our vast protected forests (which use up CO2)?
It helps, but it doesn't even come close to offsetting it.

It helps, but it doesn't even come close to offsetting it.
How much does it help? Shouldn't it be taken into consideration for determining how many greenhouse gasses we can emit?

Amazing how a big ball of molten rock will fluctuate in temperature, ain't it? A little basic geology goes a long way. :)

1. The sun isn't molten rock, it is super heated gas.
2. The US has never been fair in the world order, look at the "Free Trade Agreement" with Canada. First some facts, my Province, Alberta, provides 50% of the US's Fuel Oil (FIFTY PERCENT!) If there is ever an energy shortcoming in both countries, and Canadian oil can solve one, but not the other, then according to the "free trade agreement" (note the quotes) we have to give the oil to America, wow how fair, we were legally screwed. However the good news is all it would take is a six month notice and Canada can pull out of the NAFDA Treaty.
3. It doesn't matter who produces the most greenhouse gas, I look at it this way, we are overdue for an Ice Age, a Nuclear War, and every other pitiful thing that can be thrown in Humanities path, Global Warming will offset the Ice Age and a potential Nuclear Winter, and makes the atmosphere perticularily thick with toxic pollutants, which could very well make the difference between obliteration by Asteroid, or a narrow escape as it burns up.

1. The sun isn't molten rock, it is super heated gas.
2. The US has never been fair in the world order, look at the "Free Trade Agreement" with Canada. First some facts, my Province, Alberta, provides 50% of the US's Fuel Oil (FIFTY PERCENT!) If there is ever an energy shortcoming in both countries, and Canadian oil can solve one, but not the other, then according to the "free trade agreement" (note the quotes) we have to give the oil to America, wow how fair, we were legally screwed. However the good news is all it would take is a six month notice and Canada can pull out of the NAFDA Treaty.
3. It doesn't matter who produces the most greenhouse gas, I look at it this way, we are overdue for an Ice Age, a Nuclear War, and every other pitiful thing that can be thrown in Humanities path, Global Warming will offset the Ice Age and a potential Nuclear Winter, and makes the atmosphere perticularily thick with toxic pollutants, which could very well make the difference between obliteration by Asteroid, or a narrow escape as it burns up.
I think he was refering to the earth as a ball of molten rock. Granted, the surface temp. is determined by the sun's energy, not by heat radiating from the center, but what are you gonna do?

I think he was refering to the earth as a ball of molten rock.

That's what I was referring to, yep.

1. The sun isn't molten rock, it is super heated gas.

Yes, I know. I've heard the song.

First I think most sciences agree that the C02 and other gases that mankind is poluting the enviroment effect the climate. And many think that it can have pretty drastic effect on us human. Because as a humanrace we need a consistent climate like for example it rain then it should and dry then it should. Of course there are naturalchanges to but it's stupid that we humans increases who's changes well for example the dutch and the people in bangladesh need a stabil waterlevel because increas in one meter or two will make a lot of people refugees. And both rich american farmers and poor african farmer don't need unexpted climatechanges that will lead to econimc hardship for the american and starvation for the africans.

So then it could be seen as the wrong that the most advanced (maybee maybee not) and richest countries don't give a *shit* about and want to increas there CO2 to output even if there already is polutien 5 timer more per capita (and I think that value would still be really high counting in the forest) then the avrage world output per capita Europe atleast try to do something about it even if it's not enough. But it could be really good know that the western country would be a good example now before the chines that is 4 times more then the americans want the same lifestyle with the same CO2 output. Sorry if it's a bit incoherent but tired generally and also specific about the people that think it's ok that human is cutting the branches they sit on.

How much does it help? Shouldn't it be taken into consideration for determining how many greenhouse gasses we can emit?
Like I said, it does not help enough to offset the greenhouse emissions we create.

Like I said, it does not help enough to offset the greenhouse emissions we create.
It doesn't offset them completely, or it doesn't offset them any significant ammount?

The US has consistently refused to endorse the Kyoto protocols, or to consider any other form of verifiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

For the paranoid, please note that Kyoto is not an attempt at running a world government, even if it is a convention started by the "evil" UN, and is not designed to only punish Americans for doing what everybody else does. It is not controlled by the French, Russians, Jews, Freemasons etc etc.

For those Americans who are still capable of realising that they co-exist on the same planet with non-Americans, it may well be worth asking why the US continues to hold out.

Sources :

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html

http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/a/aa090402a.htm

I agree totally and what's more, nearly all industrialized western nations have signed Kyoto. Even Russia - REPEAT: EVEN RUSSIA!!! - has signed Kyoto! Now that leaves only the USA and some others who yet have to sign. The argument that Japan has not signed despite Kyoto being in Japan is heavily exaggerated. The Leagea of Nations was created by the US, but it was not involved. Does that mean the Leagea of Nations was a failure and should never have been created? No, it gave Europe a new stage to settle disputes. Even though people like Mussolini and Hitler didn't give a hoot, things might not have gone as smoothly as in current history. And that wasn't all that smooth anyway so take a guess how much worse it could have gotten. Just because things don't work doesn't mean they shouldn't be tried. Some polution reduction is better than no polution reduction at all. Kyoto hasn't even failed yet and even if it will, we've tried and reap the results. I have not seen the US give it a try.

Oh yeah, I forgot poluting industry owns Bush. Fat chance that he will stab his friends in the back. Even if his friends (read: Berlusconi, Saud family, Rumsfeld) have no misgivings about screwing him over good. Ah well, at least Putin has seen the light-flash and wants to change dirty industry into nuclear weapons industry. Soon, the US will have soooooo much nuclear energy that there is no need for poluting the world anymore! Gas mask sales will rise, radiation suits can be tailor made and you can enjoy that glow on the horizon 24/7. Talk about stabbing people in the back...

The US has consistently refused to endorse the Kyoto protocols, or to consider any other form of verifiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

For the paranoid, please note that Kyoto is not an attempt at running a world government, even if it is a convention started by the "evil" UN, and is not designed to only punish Americans for doing what everybody else does. It is not controlled by the French, Russians, Jews, Freemasons etc etc.

For those Americans who are still capable of realising that they co-exist on the same planet with non-Americans, it may well be worth asking why the US continues to hold out.

Sources :

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html

http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/a/aa090402a.htm
The argument is whether it is fair or not to blame the US for global warming. There are other countries who did not sign you know.

Oh yeah, I forgot poluting industry owns Bush. Fat chance that he will stab his friends in the back. Even if his friends (read: Berlusconi, Saud family, Rumsfeld) have no misgivings about screwing him over good. Ah well, at least Putin has seen the light-flash and wants to change dirty industry into nuclear weapons industry. Soon, the US will have soooooo much nuclear energy that there is no need for poluting the world anymore! Gas mask sales will rise, radiation suits can be tailor made and you can enjoy that glow on the horizon 24/7. Talk about stabbing people in the back...
Interesting fact : Kyoto was rejected 95-0 and unsigned by President Clinton in 1997, Bush had nothing to do with it.

I'm from New York... there's a great deal of snow here and the temperatures are some of the lowest on record. Don't tell me there's global warming.

I'm from New York... there's a great deal of snow here and the temperatures are some of the lowest on record. Don't tell me there's global warming.

Amen.

I'm from New York... there's a great deal of snow here and the temperatures are some of the lowest on record. Don't tell me there's global warming.
There's Global Warming... :D

Seriously though, it's unfair to blame the solely the US for Global Warming, they were merely part of the equation. It is however fair to blame the US for not attempting to do anything about Global Warming. Whether it is true that Global Warming is occuring or not, what is happening is an increase in pollutants in the atmosphere which are causing health problems across the world.

The argument is whether it is fair or not to blame the US for global warming. There are other countries who did not sign you know.

Yes, you are right of course.

Its everbody else's fault.

Nothing to do with the US.

Why should they help clean up, or attempt to improve things for the future.

After all, its not as if they are on the same planet is it?

How much does it help? Shouldn't it be taken into consideration for determining how many greenhouse gasses we can emit?
I was under the impression that as a whole the US isn't exactly worrying about being balanced as far as it's share of emissions. We obviously use a disproportionate amount of energy and emit a disproportionate amount of pollution. Really, the issue should be how the entire world can be more efficient and less polluting as a whole. Balancing the equation is just sort of arbitrary, you're still polluting. As a world leader and a huge amount of the equation, I'd say that we at least have a good chunk of the responsability. No, we're not to blame for it all, but we certainly are a good deal of the problem end of it.

I'd say a big issue is the incentive driven nature of corporations. I highly doubt that goodwill is sufficient to supercede the high profitability of doing it fast cheap and dirty. While just personal opinion, I think it really does come down eventually to forcing them to take others into accountability. It's rediculous to imagine that at this point all these huge corportations are playing fair. I don't see Smith's "Invisible Hand" working, corporations work towards eliminating competition, and are largely opperating in a manner that in the long run hurts the consumer.

Like the call for "incentives" to rebuild the east coast's electric grid. There's a reason why monopolies are given to necessary services, you don't want redundancy in providing the service to cut into the quality. Having a deregulated energy market is basically begging everyone to abuse the public grid till it falls into disuse. Incentive? No customers = no company. Rediculous, eh? Capitalism has it's place, but it seems that it's getting to a point where corporations are controlling too large a chunk to be healthy for the common good. Competition is definitely stiffled in many areas.

The US does emit about 35% of the world's greenhouse gasses. So I would say we carry a lot of the blame for global climate change (not warming. that's a misleading term). We're doing a lot of the damage, but it's the Third World that'll get hit really hard...
The US should really do more.

Lets get some facts straight here. There are countries in Asia, most of Asia has a lot of factories and many countries over there have no business regulations, in America there are regulations you have to have certain polutant control, and lets not forget, in the US, it is illegal to chop down a tree and not replant a new one. (In large quantities.) That is illegal logging. Meanwhile down in South and Central America, they dont have those laws, they cut down their rainforests and dont ever replant their trees. Sometimes, they dont even sell the wood, or use it. They just push it aside and let it rot. Meanwhile they build there farms on what used to be the rainforest. However as you all know rainforest soil has very little nutrients, and in a couple years, they have to do the same thing all over again. Therefor our oxygen gets reduced and the Carbon Dioxide (the stuff that holds in heat) increases. And lets not forget, in the US, advancements in technology have allowed more crops to be planted in smaller amounts of area, our tree rate in some parts of the country has been going up. Along with other countrys who use this new technology.

Hey Im not saying there isnt global warming, Im not saying there is. Im just saying if there is the US is NOT responsible for all of it. Some of it yes, but not as much as Asia and South/Central America.
CARS my dear CARS! If the US didn't have so many d*** cars, this wouldn't be so big an issue. There was an issue about the cars in National Geographic maybe early 2004? that suggested, nay, said that it was the cars. Then there was that one in the fall of 2004 that talked about global warming as a whole, that article was at least 30 pgs long. :( Not to mention the US has an energy output nowhere equal to consumption, which is usually electricity, which is usually created by fossil fuels. Sorry if this sounds like some sort of flame :( but... grrrrr....... :headbang:

I agree totally and what's more, nearly all industrialized western nations have signed Kyoto. Even Russia - REPEAT: EVEN RUSSIA!!! - has signed Kyoto! Now that leaves only the USA and some others who yet have to sign.

Actually, Russia has indicated it would sign off on it, but has yet to formally ratify the treaty and hence cannot be said to have "signed Kyoto."

The US does emit about 35% of the world's greenhouse gasses. So I would say we carry a lot of the blame for global climate change (not warming. that's a misleading term). We're doing a lot of the damage, but it's the Third World that'll get hit really hard...
The US should really do more.

Yeah, it seems that the wrong question was asked.

How about

Is it really fair of the US to accept no responsibility for global warming?

or perhaps

Does complaining that it is not fair to blame you provide you with sufficient excuse to do nothing?

or

How to avoid responsibility by claiming unfairness

Or perhaps the question is: Is it fair to blame the US for a supposed event put forth by a extremely young branch of science which was contradicting itself 30 years ago?

Or perhaps the question is: Is it fair to blame the US for a supposed event put forth by a extremely young branch of science which was contradicting itself 30 years ago?

In hindsight I guess the real question is : Can the US in fact accept responsibility for anything at all. Or is that an unfair question?

Global warming : Everybody else does it, not fair to blame the US. Not their fault at all.

Iraq War : The fault of the UN, which should have gone to war themselves, even if there was no WMDs. Not the fault of the US.

Torture of prisoners : Not the fault of the US. Everybody does it, and its war.
Certainly not the fault of the US.

Guantanamo Bay detainees : The fault of the Geneva Convention, they should never have left a loophole. And, everybody else does it. Clearly, not the fault of the US.

The pattern is depressingly familiar. And sounds increasingly infantile.

Global warming : Everybody else does it, not fair to blame the US. Not their fault at all.

Iraq War : The fault of the UN, which should have gone to war themselves, even if there was no WMDs. Not the fault of the US.

Torture of prisoners : Not the fault of the US. Everybody does it, and its war.
Certainly not the fault of the US.

Guantanamo Bay detainees : The fault of the Geneva Convention, they should never have left a loophole. And, everybody else does it. Clearly, not the fault of the US.

Global Warming - Again, this isn't exactly a proven science, and even if the planet is warming, humanity's contribution may be minimal.

Iraq War - Oddly enough, a month or two after we took Baghdad the Syrians announced they had a viable stock of chem weaps. Wonder where it came from. And the UN/certain security council countries were unwilling to do certain things concerning Iraq because of the little thing known as the OFF scandal.

Torture of Prisoners - I will assume that you are referencing AG here. Is a government directly responsible for what a relatively few number of soldiers do, especially when they punish those responsible and take steps to attempt to ensure it doesn't happen again?

Guantanamo - Meh, when there is actual evidence of torture and not various allegations that tend not to match I will lend creedence to the accusations, until then I ignore them.

Lets get some facts straight here. There are countries in Asia, most of Asia has a lot of factories and many countries over there have no business regulations, in America there are regulations you have to have certain polutant control, and lets not forget, in the US, it is illegal to chop down a tree and not replant a new one. (In large quantities.) That is illegal logging. Meanwhile down in South and Central America, they dont have those laws, they cut down their rainforests and dont ever replant their trees. Sometimes, they dont even sell the wood, or use it. They just push it aside and let it rot. Meanwhile they build there farms on what used to be the rainforest. However as you all know rainforest soil has very little nutrients, and in a couple years, they have to do the same thing all over again. Therefor our oxygen gets reduced and the Carbon Dioxide (the stuff that holds in heat) increases. And lets not forget, in the US, advancements in technology have allowed more crops to be planted in smaller amounts of area, our tree rate in some parts of the country has been going up. Along with other countrys who use this new technology.

Hey Im not saying there isnt global warming, Im not saying there is. Im just saying if there is the US is NOT responsible for all of it. Some of it yes, but not as much as Asia and South/Central America.


I'm not blaiming the US for global warming, but I do believe it's fair to say that - as a nation that has less than 5% of the world's polulation, yet consumes about 30% of the world's resources - the US has a larger share of the responsibility than any poor nation you can mention, no matter how much rainforest that poor nation is chopping down. Yes, they need to stop chopping down their rainforest, but these poor people have to make a living too, you know. If the only way they can make a living is by chopping down the rainforest, then that's what they'll do, and all of us fat, rich, self-righteous slobs up north really have no right to blaim them for it as long as we're not offering them any alternative.

Also, although the issue of global warming can not and should not be blaimed on the US alone, the fact that the US keeps refusing to cooperate with other nations to help alleviate the problem makes you look VERY bad internationally.


Oh, and by the way, it is not entirely accurate to say that rainforest soil has little nutrients. There's plenty of nutrients in this soil as long as there's a rainforest on top of it. I think what you are referring to, however, is the fact that the rainforest keeps recycling it's resources at a pretty fast rate, so the nutrious top layer of the soil is pretty thin. With the forest gone, this nutrious soil is often washed away completely within just a couple of years because firstly, there is no longer any source of fresh nutrients and second, there is no longer any forest covering the soil and protecting it from erosion. In other words, no new nutrients are added to the soil and when it rains, the nutrients that are still there tend to end up in the nearest river...

Or perhaps the question is: Is it fair to blame the US for a supposed event put forth by a extremely young branch of science which was contradicting itself 30 years ago?

30 years is a pretty darn long time as far as science goes.

Would you, for instance, be willing to limit yourself to only using computer technology that was available 30 years ago?

Guantanamo - Meh, when there is actual evidence of torture and not various allegations that tend not to match I will lend creedence to the accusations, until then I ignore them.

All questions of torture asside, the fact is (and the US Government admits this) - the prisoners were NOT treated by the rules of the geneva convention regarding POWs.

The US Government's stance on this was "we never declared war, therefor it wasn't technically a war, so they aren't technically Prisoners of War".

Few countries are willing to officially call the states on things like this, because of the political repercussions. When one does, nothing happens because the countries that want to be looked at more favorably tend to back the US.

As far as the actual issue of the thread is concerned - the US probably produces more pollution per year than almost any other country. The enviromental laws are better in the US than most places, but when you total up all the things that produce polution, the US overbalances quite a few of them.

Cars and (of all things) cows are, if i remember right, far bigger contributers to greenhouse gasses than factories, when taken as a whole. The US is, as i recall, the biggest consumer of both, both numerically and by percentage, of any country in the world.

That said, it's not fair to say "the US is at fault". It is fair, however, to say that the US should be doring more about it than, say, Japan or Canada.

The thing that should upset americans is that really, the kyoto protocals and other similar things aren't followed because they would make rich people get richer at a slower rate.

(Yes, I said cows. And it's not a joke... There's a truely phenominal amount of cows in the US, and they produce immense amounts of gass...)

Even Russia - REPEAT: EVEN RUSSIA!!! - has signed Kyoto!
Russia actually benefits from Kyoto. It's good business for them. It's good they signed it, but their intentions weren't really that pure and innocent. Russia has already dropped it's CO2 emissions to the same level as in 1990 (or more accurately, has never increased emissions after 1990). So they can sell their "pollution share" to those European countries who can't cut their emissions enough.

I'm from New York... there's a great deal of snow here and the temperatures are some of the lowest on record. Don't tell me there's global warming.
You are joking, right?

Actually, Russia has indicated it would sign off on it, but has yet to formally ratify the treaty and hence cannot be said to have "signed Kyoto."
Russia has ratified it already.

In hindsight I guess the real question is : Can the US in fact accept responsibility for anything at all. Or is that an unfair question?

Global warming : Everybody else does it, not fair to blame the US. Not their fault at all.

Iraq War : The fault of the UN, which should have gone to war themselves, even if there was no WMDs. Not the fault of the US.

Torture of prisoners : Not the fault of the US. Everybody does it, and its war.
Certainly not the fault of the US.

Guantanamo Bay detainees : The fault of the Geneva Convention, they should never have left a loophole. And, everybody else does it. Clearly, not the fault of the US.

The pattern is depressingly familiar. And sounds increasingly infantile.

That is so cliche. How can you blame the US for that torture? It was the soldiers. That is so stupid to blame the country, that is like saying it is the fault of Europe for the death of millions of people all over the rest of Europe because they didnt wash up and therefor spread the black plague all the way to Asia.

It wasnt the US government, as much as Rummy sucks, he did NOT say to torture the Iraqis.

I'm not blaiming the US for global warming, but I do believe it's fair to say that - as a nation that has less than 5% of the world's polulation, yet consumes about 30% of the world's resources - the US has a larger share of the responsibility than any poor nation you can mention, no matter how much rainforest that poor nation is chopping down. Yes, they need to stop chopping down their rainforest, but these poor people have to make a living too, you know. If the only way they can make a living is by chopping down the rainforest, then that's what they'll do, and all of us fat, rich, self-righteous slobs up north really have no right to blaim them for it as long as we're not offering them any alternative.

Also, although the issue of global warming can not and should not be blaimed on the US alone, the fact that the US keeps refusing to cooperate with other nations to help alleviate the problem makes you look VERY bad internationally.


Oh, and by the way, it is not entirely accurate to say that rainforest soil has little nutrients. There's plenty of nutrients in this soil as long as there's a rainforest on top of it. I think what you are referring to, however, is the fact that the rainforest keeps recycling it's resources at a pretty fast rate, so the nutrious top layer of the soil is pretty thin. With the forest gone, this nutrious soil is often washed away completely within just a couple of years because firstly, there is no longer any source of fresh nutrients and second, there is no longer any forest covering the soil and protecting it from erosion. In other words, no new nutrients are added to the soil and when it rains, the nutrients that are still there tend to end up in the nearest river...

I Europe was one country, and had as many people as we did, at the same level of richness, you would probably consume about the same amount of recources too. Its not fair that just because Europe has a lot of poor countrys the richer ones blame us for what is happening to the earth.

People are saying that cars cause the most CO2 emissions(and they're right), but the man doesn't let me ride my skateboard around town. They don't let me ride my bike on the sidewalk. And it's too far to walk. Many branches of the man say the environmental state is a problem, but they're outlawing the solutions.

Actually, coal fired power plants cause most CO2 emissions.

In hindsight I guess the real question is : Can the US in fact accept responsibility for anything at all. Or is that an unfair question?

Global warming : Everybody else does it, not fair to blame the US. Not their fault at all.
Everbody else is also cuting down the amount that they are doing it.. except the US


Iraq War : The fault of the UN, which should have gone to war themselves, even if there was no WMDs. Not the fault of the US.
UN's Fault? The Peace keepers fault? I dont know what you know about the UN.. But going to war is not something that the UN does.. They are made just for the reason to keep the pease! And what do you mean with "even if there was no WMDs"? Should it be ok for the blue barrets to storm the White House if whey thougt it was the right thing to do?

Torture of prisoners : Not the fault of the US. Everybody does it, and its war.
Certainly not the fault of the US.
Rouge Nations does it.. And even they keep it to a minimum.. Should we start to think of USA as a Rouge Nation? I don't blame the US for the torture.. Just the soldiers that did it and pe people that gave the order...

Guantanamo Bay detainees : The fault of the Geneva Convention, they should never have left a loophole. And, everybody else does it. Clearly, not the fault of the US. Oh yea! Next time I find a loopehole that gives me the right to rape, abuse, torture or kill everyone that
I can, I will.. Then I will blame it all on the Law that had a Loopehole in it!

Best of luck with you kindergarden graduation! :D

I Europe was one country, and had as many people as we did, at the same level of richness, you would probably consume about the same amount of recources too. Its not fair that just because Europe has a lot of poor countrys the richer ones blame us for what is happening to the earth.

Ok, lets take a look at the EU. Not the whole of Europe, only the EU. It has 456 million ihabitants. Iirc the US does have some 200 million less. The average EU25 citizen has an income of around 80% of an US citizen, and that is taking into account the 10 new nations, mainly developing ex-Warsaw-Pact members, who have an average income of a third of the old EU15. Is there any problem understanding these facts, or did you chose to ignore them? Or did you just post without any thought and knowledge at all?

As for Kyoto, virtually all international environmental agreements are very evil. CFC ban has already killed thousands and DDT ban has already killed millions, yet there is absolutely no scientific evidence that CFCs and DDT are harmful.
Are you talking about this DDT? (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt/ddt.htm)

I Europe was one country, and had as many people as we did, at the same level of richness, you would probably consume about the same amount of recources too. Its not fair that just because Europe has a lot of poor countrys the richer ones blame us for what is happening to the earth.

Actually, as has already been pointed out by someone else, Europe has MORE people than the USA. Almost 3 times more people if you count all of us, and even if you count only the EU nations, they still have some 150 - 200 million more people than the USA. And I thought I was quite specific about the point that I do not blame the US alone for all of Earth's problems. I just said you had a larger part of the responsibility than those poorer countries mentioned in the first post of this thread. Yes, you are quite correct that the rich nations of Europe are at more or less the same level as the US is. The big difference is that we're trying to cooperate on addressing the issue and your government keeps refusing to join us in any such efforts.

It's kind of like you keep telling the world you don't care if we're all going to hell as long as you can keep getting richer. -And then you keep asking why people are annoyed with you and if it's really fair to accuse you of this and that, as if you really don't have a clue - or you really don't care...

-And still you wonder why people get mad at you...