NationStates Jolt Archive

It's nice that the world's most powerful leaders finally accepted that climate change is at least in part influenced by human behavior:
All of us agreed that climate change is happening now, that human activity is contributing to it, and that it could affect every part of the globe.
Source (http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1119518698846)

its a shame they wont do anything about the problem, now they acknowledge that it is one :mad: .

its a shame they wont do anything about the problem, now they acknowledge that it is one :mad: .
Considering how voiciferously some conservatives scream that humans have no influence on global warming, this is a big step forward.

Considering how voiciferously some conservatives scream that humans have no influence on global warming, this is a big step forward.

Yes, but when will they actually start to do something about it?

Yes, but when will they actually start to do something about it?
Well, most of the G8 leaders are in on the Kyoto protocol. And getting China, India, and the US to admit that humans contribute to it, is getting somewhere. At least Bush isn't denying it.

Well, most of the G8 leaders are in on the Kyoto protocol. And getting China, India, and the US to admit that humans contribute to it, is getting somewhere. At least Bush isn't denying it.

But he's not comitting to do anyting about it either.

yes, its a start to acknowledge the problem, but it means sod all unless action is taken!

Kyoto Pact is shit, yes a number of nations have put their signature beneath it, but that isn't meaning shit since most nations aren't anywhere near reaching their targets, and the biggest polluters (India, China, the Third World) don't have to reach any targets. I rather have someone like Bush, who doesn't sign it, because he admits he won't able to reach the targets, then most European Leaders, who sign it, but break their promise, and will renounce the Kyoto Pact soon.

And when you look at the climate, you notice that even if the targets would be reached, it wouldn't matter considering the difference it would make would be 0.03 degrees celsius, according to the greenhouse theory, one volcano outburts would change the climate so severly it would make 5 kyoto pacts obsolete....so if we are lucky, the kyoto pact isn't going to matter.

But don't worry, the Kyoto Pact will matter, that is from a economical point of view, if we would decide to limit the CO2 like the Kyoto Pact wants, or if we would only try (which europe is doing, we try, but we will fail, the only way we could suceed is through nuclear energy, but we don't want to use that) the economy would get a major hit, and would collapse.

Such a economic collapse will stop the research for clean technologies, which is the ONLY way through which we can put a real stop to climate change, because we can't stop emitting CO2, our economy is based on it. For the time being, we have other ways to combat Climate Change, then by cutting CO2, boosting research in clean technologies, cutting Methane Emissions (which is cheaper, is more effective, and is what President Bush is doing) or using Nuclear Technology, however on a long term, we need to develop new technologies, you don't develop new technologies through making the economy collapse.

The Greenhouse Theory is still bullshit, most leaders are just trying to make themselves look good, it's the downside of democracy, public relations, most leaders are afraid to get kicked out of office, and they hope to point at Climate Change, as a great catastrophe, which they combatted! I can say for President Bush, that he has the second-term thing, usually Presidents in their second term try to achieve a feat, which will make the go into history positively, it wouldn't suprise me if for President Bush, that will be climate change.....as for other leaders, they are scared of the public, and for Greenpeace. Pussies.

Interesting that uranium prices have nearly tripled in the last 2 years.

To be honest, I don't really like what you posted above and like to disagree with almost everything.

As for this:
(...)The Greenhouse Theory is still bullshit, most leaders are just trying to make themselves look good, it's the downside of democracy, public relations, most leaders are afraid to get kicked out of office, and they hope to point at Climate Change, as a great catastrophe, which they combatted! I can say for President Bush, that he has the second-term thing, usually Presidents in their second term try to achieve a feat, which will make the go into history positively, it wouldn't suprise me if for President Bush, that will be climate change.....as for other leaders, they are scared of the public, and for Greenpeace. Pussies.
Ignorance like this is what brought us into the position that we have to even think about Global Warming. I can deny it, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. Talk to some Inuits in Alaska who have to move their homes because the water rises and the winters start later. Talk to those peoples in the Pacific who soon have to abandon their islands because in about 20 years they will do the "Atlantis". Haven't you noticed that the numbers of Hurricanes has greatly increased over the last few years? It never rains in Southern California? This year it definitely did and the landslides were all over the news... I could show you hints like this for hours. The climate is changing. The conclusion to this you'll have to make yourself though, and I believe you've come to the wrong conclusion.

Apart from that many EU-nations are apparently already meeting their targets...

Oh no, I am not claiming that Climate Change is bullshit, because the climate always changes, with or without humans, I am claiming that the greenhouse theory is bullshit, and there is a big difference between these two.

It's very possible that the climate is changing, I have seen different statistics, since many organisations benefit from the whole apocalypse thing, and tend to only show the worst-case scenario's, and only show area's where it got hotter. When you have 10 weather stations on Antartica, and 9 say it's getting colder and 1 say it's getting hotter, most of the public will point at that single weather station and claim "SEE OMG CLIMATE CHANGE"

Climatology is a young science, one of the tendencies of young sciences is to be wrong on certain things, usually, these theories can be proven or disproven, by objective scientists, however the influence of organisations who have a vested intrest in the greenhouse theory is so big, that enough scientists don't dare to accept that the greenhouse theory is bullshit, because if they do, they will excommunicated, and they will have greenpeace protestors in front of their house daily.

We just do not know what is going on, the Greenhouse Theory is just that, a theory, and by making the economy collapse through the Kyoto Pact (or other pacts, which usually will only do the economy more harm) you will not help anyone, and in the long-run, whether the greenhouse theory is or isn't true, the climate will only take a bigger hit. If you want to get a cleaner environment? Invest in research to clean technologies (And no, wind or solar energy isn't a option) but those clean technologies won't get their if your going to shut down the economy.

It's good that there are still organisations with the guts to look objectively at the climate, like www.techcentralstation.com

...by making the economy collapse...
:rolleyes:

Well, I'll be damned. Now here we have one person I would even less like to see as PotUS than Lil Boy Bush.

No Leonstein, the only EU nations meeting their targets are either excluded from the Kyoto Pact because they are emerging economies, so they will always reach their targets, and France and a Scandinavian Nation (either Norway or Sweden, I forgot which) both of which heavily rely on Nuclear Energy.

The emissions of the European Union are only going up, like is explained here: http://www.techcentralstation.com/062905A.html , with as scource, a report from the european commission itself...

No Leonstein...
1) Disregard the "Where free markets meet technology" site as a credible source on this topic. As an Economics student, I find it amazing what these Business-types can pull out of their arse sometimes and claim to use economics to back it up...and they can use whatever source they want. If they use the numbers to argue for fallacies, it is of no importance.

2) Nuclear Fuel, hey? Well d'uh!

3) Germany reduced it's Co2 emissions between 1990 and 2000 by 18%. Even disregarding the reunion, that is till about 9%. According to Kyoto we're supposed to lower them by 21% between 2008 and 2012. So we are on target.
Same goes for the UK, which currently saved about 90million tons of CO2. There it was liberalisation and free market legislation with certain frameworks that made it possible. They could do it, so can the US.
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/umwelt_naturschutz/bericht-4070.html

That's a good link, thank you!

Hmmm, could you respond actually to the article, and the report that emmissions went up, when they were supposed to go down, from the european commission site? Also about the site, it focuses both on economics and on technology, which are obviously related, when your having problems getting enough food to eat, you first thought isn't "hey, let's develop a fusion reactor so that we can eliminate the climate change problem!"

http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/newsreleases/ghg_inventory_report-en

Between 2002 and 2003, Italy, Finland and the United Kingdom saw the largest emission increases in absolute terms (15 million tonnes, 8 million tonnes and 7 million tonnes respectively). Italian emissions increased mainly from households and services by 6 million tonnes (+8%) and from manufacturing industries by 5 million tonnes (+6%), in particular in iron and steel and cement production. In the UK, emissions from public electricity and heat production increased by 10 million tonnes (+6%) due to a strong increase of coal consumption in thermal power stations (+12%). In addition, emissions from manufacturing industries increased by 4.5 million tonnes (+5%). These emission increases were partly offset by declining emissions in household and services and coal mining.

As you can see here:

http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/newsreleases/Images/GHGrelease/figur3.gif

Only Ireland and Portugal actually decreased their emmissions in 2003.....Greenhouse emmissions did decrease, however CO2, which is regarded as the big evil increased massivley.

http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/newsreleases/Images/GHGrelease/figure1.gif

As it is explained here, the European Union is clearly breaking the promises it made when it signed the Kyoto Treaty......and yet we, europeans, dare to demand from President Bush to sign Kyoto? It might be justified if we were following that red dotted line, and then we would still be interfering with affairs we had no right to interfere in, but we don't, our emissions are only increasing.

Unfortunatley, I do not have statistics over 2004 and 2005 (this report is from June 2005) I'll need to dig up the article from which I got the thought that it was Scandinavia and France decreasing their emmissions.....it just shows all the contradictory information which you get in these climate debates.

Also about the site, it focuses both on economics and on technology...
Don't you think I noticed?
The point is, I deal with that kind of crap every day. Their Economics is flawed, because it makes some basic assumptions which are ridiculous. Their type has done that for decades now, and they have been proven wrong every step of the way.
"Classical" (=right-wing) economics works only for the very long run, and even then only conditionally. Using it as justification for Politics is stupid, and thus it is clear that it is only used after a preferred policy has been chosen in order to look like one has "evidence".

If Germany is already struggling to meet the targets for a treaty which only "helps" the climate very limitly, how does it think it can help in a treaty which is really going to decrease the temperature, with more the a lousy 0.03?
That is a good question, and I don't know enough about what has been done so far and what still can be done.
Obviously some radical changes in technology might work, like Bio-Diesel cars, nuclear fusion plants (the first research reactor is being built in France) and so on.
But my link doesn't talk about "struggling", so that seems to depend on perspective anyways.

As it is explained here, the European Union is clearly breaking the promises it made when it signed the Kyoto Treaty......and yet we, europeans, dare to demand from President Bush to sign Kyoto?
As four your final point, I will point you towards this site here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_co2_emi
Then tell me it is somehow not justified that we try to get the US to reduce its' emissions (as well as China).

My link also says that the rest of the EU is not doing enough. I don't know which country you're from, but it seems like some nations (namely Germany, and the UK according to my info) are doing most of the work required.

Personally I don't think Kyoto is perfect, far from it. But one needs to start somewhere. Instead, people are bickering about nothingness, and keep blasting ridiculous amounts of crap into the air.
When people criticise Kyoto, they usually criticise doing anything on climate change at all. And that is stupid, because no matter what sources you might find (sometimes) - man-made climate change is internationally accepted by scientists, and now by Politicians as well. You are hanging on to a straw, because you're scared you might lose a few dollars - or even worse, just because of your ideology. That's just counterproductive.

First of all, economics aren't the point of discussion here, and while I believe in right-wing economics (classic-liberalism)

In Germany, Angela Merkel, the likely next Chancellor, has questioned the Kyoto Protocol, and the United Kingdom, just isn't going to reach it's targets.

China and India are 2 and 5th, however don't have to reach any targets, considering they are emerging economies, and their emmissions are growing massivley, hell China seems to be the first to get near the United States in emissions.

I don't say that we can just rape the planet, however stopping climate change through cutting emissions isn't going to do anything, because there is a reason why the United States is emitting the CO2. It's the economy, and if your going to cut the CO2 emissions, the United States is bound to go into recession (reports made by the Clinton Administration confirm this.)

Nations in a recession don't have the comfort to care about climate change, do you think the people in Africa care about climate change? Probably, the United States just understood that they wouldn't be able to reach the targets, and I can respect that. President Bush has a anti-climate change policy, which focused on cutting Methane, which is more efficient to combat climate change.

There are alternative ways to combat the climate change (which I might add, once again isn't by far as disastrous as being claimed by the environmentalists, we are just getting out of a small ice age, so offcourse the temperature will go up.) by researching new technologies like fusion energy, and hydrogen. By making more use of nuclear energy, or just by developing minor technologies, by making fossil fuels more efficient, or making solar and wind energy actually productive.

Also, I live in the Netherlands ;)

http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/newsreleases/Images/GHGrelease/figure1.gif

So you where on that site and just decided to ignore this:
http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/newsreleases/ghg_report2005-en

The EEA report analysed a global emission decrease to 15 % below the 1990 level by 2050, which is within the range mentioned by the Environment Council. However further research is needed to better quantify the required global emission reductions. The EEA report further assumed EU emission reduction targets of 20 % below the 1990 level by 2020, 40 % below by 2030 and 65 % by 2050. These assumed targets are within the ranges mentioned by the EU Environment Council.

First of all, economics aren't the point of discussion here, and while I believe in right-wing economics (classic-liberalism)
I appreciate it, but urge you to get out an economics textbook and look at the theories and the facts.
Right now, all you have is faith I'm afraid.

In Germany, Angela Merkel, the likely next Chancellor, has questioned the Kyoto Protocol...
Well she would, wouldn't she. She's a conservative right-winger and as close as Germans get to being neocons. And the time people vote for her, I will laugh at them (but that isn't the topic here, so I won't elaborate).

China and India are 2 and 5th, however don't have to reach any targets, considering they are emerging economies, and their emmissions are growing massivley, hell China seems to be the first to get near the United States in emissions.
I said Kyoto isn't perfect. It should be updated.
Nonetheless, isn't it completely irrelevant what part of the planet CO2 is being emitted from? Cutting them in Germany cuts them world-wide - which is all we want.

... there is a reason why the United States is emitting the CO2. It's the economy, and if your going to cut the CO2 emissions, the United States is bound to go into recession (reports made by the Clinton Administration confirm this.)
Now, you know as well as I do
a) it is unlikely. Business always resists change because they don't want to have to modernise. They can, of course, if they have to.
b) a recession is not the end of the world. It is natural and necessary for a capitalist economy to go through these stages.
c) in the long term, the US is bound to miss out on modern technologies if it continues to hang on to outdated methods.

President Bush has a anti-climate change policy, which focused on cutting Methane, which is more efficient to combat climate change.
Methane? Well that's new. But anyways, I would say the effectiveness has not been proven either (I assume it is effectiveness and not efficiency you're talking about), and that it is merely cheaper to large US industries to cut methane than it is to cut CO2.

There are alternative ways to combat the climate change (which I might add, once again isn't by far as disastrous as being claimed by the environmentalists, we are just getting out of a small ice age, so offcourse the temperature will go up.) by researching new technologies like fusion energy, and hydrogen. By making more use of nuclear energy, or just by developing minor technologies, by making fossil fuels more efficient, or making solar and wind energy actually productive.
Well, the people in the 3rd world that it really shouldn't matter too much if their crops will die, and their cities flooded.
And new technology is the answer. Obviously - but do you think anyone will actually build it if they don't have to?
Right now, Business does well as is. Investing in new technologies costs billions - that they obviously don't want to spend (otherwise they would). If there aren't laws that make them cut emissions, they will never make the effort. That too is economics.

Oh, and I live in Australia, and therefore I need to sleep. I'll be back tomorrow (which is about 1 or 2 in the morning for you...)

So you where on that site and just decided to ignore this...
Well well well...that changes things.
Nonetheless, I'll go to sleep now.

I've now come across a totally different statistic which claims it is the UK and Sweden....http://reports.eea.eu.int/technical_report_2004_7/en/annex1_tech7-2004_ID879.pdf
This one is much more detailed....I'm still in the process of reading it through.

@Seosavists: These are only plans, I am more intrested in actual achievements, and so far, there aren't that many of them. These are all very nice plans, how-ever this quote just about says it all:

The remaining reductions would be achieved by international emissions trading involving the rest of the world.

The post claims that there is a great shift in policy, there isn't, there will just be some money shifting around, through that useless emissions trading scheme. Also note the "would."

I came across this newspost, however I haven't found it worthy, considering they are plans, and the european burocracy is notorious in fucking up plans. For me, this plan isn't anymore real then the Lissabon Agenda, very nice words, but in reality, nothing will change.

I appreciate it, but urge you to get out an economics textbook and look at the theories and the facts.
Right now, all you have is faith I'm afraid.


Well she would, wouldn't she. She's a conservative right-winger and as close as Germans get to being neocons. And the time people vote for her, I will laugh at them (but that isn't the topic here, so I won't elaborate).


I said Kyoto isn't perfect. It should be updated.
Nonetheless, isn't it completely irrelevant what part of the planet CO2 is being emitted from? Cutting them in Germany cuts them world-wide - which is all we want.


Now, you know as well as I do
a) it is unlikely. Business always resists change because they don't want to have to modernise. They can, of course, if they have to.
b) a recession is not the end of the world. It is natural and necessary for a capitalist economy to go through these stages.
c) in the long term, the US is bound to miss out on modern technologies if it continues to hang on to outdated methods.


Methane? Well that's new. But anyways, I would say the effectiveness has not been proven either (I assume it is effectiveness and not efficiency you're talking about), and that it is merely cheaper to large US industries to cut methane than it is to cut CO2.


Well, the people in the 3rd world that it really shouldn't matter too much if their crops will die, and their cities flooded.
And new technology is the answer. Obviously - but do you think anyone will actually build it if they don't have to?
Right now, Business does well as is. Investing in new technologies costs billions - that they obviously don't want to spend (otherwise they would). If there aren't laws that make them cut emissions, they will never make the effort. That too is economics.

Oh, and I live in Australia, and therefore I need to sleep. I'll be back tomorrow (which is about 1 or 2 in the morning for you...)

Well, in September, I'll be going to a new study called International Bussiness Studies, but I am not sure if I'll even attend it. considering my parents want to move to Australia or New Zealand :( :( :(

So far, I have tried to educate myself a bit, in other words, reading alot of libertarian/classical-liberal weblogs :D :D :D :D

And well, Bussiness will modernize, it's happening here in the Netherlands, I went to school for most of the year in a Hydrogen-Fuel Bus, with a big Shell logo on it.....I don't know the details of it however, but I do think Bussiness is willing to innovate, because of competition, and because of public relations. Here in the Netherlands, there are enough electricity companies (private) offering green electricity.

I do fully admit that large corporations won't be too radical with developing new technologies, and will only do it gradual, and after 5 independent reports have stated that they won't lose profit through it :D But I guess that will only allow smaller companies, who have more guts to get up. But offcourse, your the expert, so just kick my ass good on that subject, it might make me read a book :p

Indeed, recessions are necessary, healthy, and happen often, but I do believe recessions will also happen without cutting CO2 emissions, and cutting CO2 just won't change the climate in the long-term, we will continue to rely on CO2 untill we develop new technologies, and I rather focus on that. Also, I am fairly sure that if it doesn't modernize, the US economy will get a hit, and you know what, that' s good, hopefully it will send out an lesson to other nations and corporations that if you don't modernize and go looking for new technologies, you will take a hit.

I've now come across a totally different statistic which claims it is the UK and Sweden....http://reports.eea.eu.int/technical_report_2004_7/en/annex1_tech7-2004_ID879.pdf
This one is much more detailed....I'm still in the process of reading it through.

@Seosavists: These are only plans, I am more intrested in actual achievements, and so far, there aren't that many of them. These are all very nice plans, how-ever this quote just about says it all:



The post claims that there is a great shift in policy, there isn't, there will just be some money shifting around, through that useless emissions trading scheme. Also note the "would."

I came across this newspost, however I haven't found it worthy, considering they are plans, and the european burocracy is notorious in fucking up plans. For me, this plan isn't anymore real then the Lissabon Agenda, very nice words, but in reality, nothing will change.

Useless emission trading sheme? Dude, go research a bit over the Chicago sulfur dioxide exchange board. Its a way that helped, THRU FREE MARKET MECHANISMS, to lower pollution output in the US. That mechanism WORKS. It lowers emissions, and it doesnt wreck the economy of the companies.. well, it does wreck those enificient companies, but it rewards the good ones, like it happens in a free market. The Kyoto protocol is basically the CCFX in a worldwide scale. There is no reason to think it wouldnt work. Those that fear it are either protecting inneficient companies, or fearing to loose a basis of political support (this last one being Bush).

So there. You have here more than words, you have achievements. Why are you fighting the transposition of this good example, that mixes both Technology and free market (you seem to like that) to the rest of the world?


http://www.chicagoclimateexchange.com/


Edit: Even if global warming isnt being caused by human activity, acid rains, massive changes in local enviroments due to pollution, and reduction of quaility of life are damn good reasons to ACT NOW on pollution.

Well, most of the G8 leaders are in on the Kyoto protocol. And getting China, India, and the US to admit that humans contribute to it, is getting somewhere. At least Bush isn't denying it.

As a point of order, Bush never denied climate change exists, only that he's not sure HOW MUCH it effects the planet.

Secondarily, it was Clinton who refused to sign it, after it was defeated in the US Senate 95-0! (5 abstains).

Thirdly, the fact that India & China are not bound to it, even though China has 16 of the top 20 polluted cities on Earth is a joke. All the treaty does is clean up the living room, while making a mess of the kitchen.
I heard Tony Blair speak on this on C-SPAN yesterday, and I'm happy to see that there is agreement on this point!!

Well, is it a good sign when the price of carbon emissions are peaking according to the Financial Times?
(http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e7a4f326-cbbc-11d9-895c-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=_ftalert_ftarc_ftcol_ftfree_ftindsum_ftmywap_ftprem_ftspecial_ftsurvey_ftworldsu b_ftym_ftymarc_ic_ipadmintool_nbe_poapp_printedn_psapp_reg,s01=2.html)

Doing Emission Reductions through the European Trading Scheme is going to be fake, and is going to be a form of money distribution between those who exceed Kyoto Targets, and those who did good in negotiations.

And the price of Carbon Emissions is only going up, and eventually, the people are going to pay for this, and for what, for a lousy 0.03 degree celsius (!)

And like I said earlier on, developing new technologies is a better way to combat pollution then the trading of emissions.

Well, is it a good sign when the price of carbon emissions are peaking according to the Financial Times?
(http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e7a4f326-cbbc-11d9-895c-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=_ftalert_ftarc_ftcol_ftfree_ftindsum_ftmywap_ftprem_ftspecial_ftsurvey_ftworldsu b_ftym_ftymarc_ic_ipadmintool_nbe_poapp_printedn_psapp_reg,s01=2.html)


Depends; If you are an ecological efficient company, its great for you, you can sell extra emission credits for a shit load of money.
If you are an ecological enifficient company, than you are screwed.



Doing Emission Reductions through the European Trading Scheme is going to be fake, and is going to be a form of money distribution between those who exceed Kyoto Targets, and those who did good in negotiations.

Proof? Why?

Even if there are companies that "did well in negotiations" and have more pollution allowance than they should, the incentives to lower pollution output are STILL there, therefore it is still expectable that everyone works hard to llower their pollution levels, and make money with it.


And the price of Carbon Emissions is only going up, and eventually, the people are going to pay for this, and for what, for a lousy 0.03 degree celsius (!)


a) It is more than 0.03 celcius, you are in denial
b) Again, so what if the pollution credits are going up? If you worked well, that is great! If you condemn the price of carbon emissions going up, you are condemning the forces of market.. are you a communist?


And like I said earlier on, developing new technologies is a better way to combat pollution then the trading of emissions.

That is like saying that it is better to find the cure for cancer than treating people with cancer with existing technologies. Sure we should develop new technologies, but that is not enough.

http://www.realclimate.org/