NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163888,00.html

US, Australia, India and China have agreed to a new Greenhouse Gas Pact.

Though I don't believe in Man-Made global warming, I'm all for helping the environment provided that it doesn't break the bank.

This is a good start in protecting our environment.

This is fine with me, because it isn't a sham like Kyoto and makes the world's newest, and soon biggest, polluters accountable.

Yes, a working agreement that will actually help reduce emissions and not allow them to increase like Kyoto. A more fiscally responsible plan too.

It is funny that this plan will do far more to help the environment than Kyoto!

I am in favor of it because it will help the environment and it won't break the bank.

Anyone have more thoughts on this?

I'm willing to shelve cynicism until I see the details of this agreement.

Though I don't believe in Man-Made global warming...
Is this really even an issue? I thought the serious debate was over whether or not humanity's effect was significant and serious.

There was a thread on this a while ago and that didnt mention anything about what was actually in the agreement either. What is it all about?

Though I don't believe in Man-Made global warming, I'm all for helping the environment provided that it doesn't break the bank.
That's a pity, because someone else (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7883.asp) does:

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.

There was a thread on this a while ago and that didnt mention anything about what was actually in the agreement either. What is it all about?

We'll learn more about this later apparently. Later today by Bush and at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations security forum tomorrow.

This is fine with me, because it isn't a sham like Kyoto and makes the world's newest, and soon biggest, polluters accountable.
Yes, especially since there's NO OBLIGATION to curb emissions. Really effective in my eyes.

hmmm, Yes, interesting... very intersting. my Contribution is this:

diarrhea n.
Excessive and frequent evacuation of watery feces, usually indicating gastrointestinal distress or disorder.

Yes, especially since there's NO OBLIGATION to curb emissions. Really effective in my eyes.

I didn't read the article posted but i did read the one on the BBC website and there seems to be no rules about cutting emmisions, only that they will try to do it by spreading technology....which is kinda dumb because that's how europeans do it. we impose laws that have to be met and the way to meet them is through new technology, you know making a light bulb use half the energy that sort of thing...or simply replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources...but of course that would make coal miners unemployed and that wouldn't do especially as the US economy seems so shitty at the moment.

Why doesn't the us just impose some sort of emission laws on it's cars and industry to the standards of say Britain which seems to be doing all right economically?

By the way I thought I would add that I don't eally like kyoto.

Before anyone posts a reply to my post just ask yourself one question. Since when has GWB given two shits about the enviroment?

Seems to me that they agreed to do nothing. At least there aren't any details on the article regarding how are they going to cut emmissions, by how much, and by when. It also doesn't say anything about accountability.

I'd have to see that before saying if it's better than Kyoto or not.

I love that when we start talking about pollution, the world's major polluters (the US being the biggest) start pointing fingers at emerging economies as the 'next worst polluters' in some sort of attempt to shift attention. Like, hey, we've been doing it for ages, but how dare these new countries pollute! They should follow our example! Oh wait...that is what they are doing. I mean...DO WHAT WE SAY, NOT WHAT WE DO!!! :eek:

Especially since our companies love operating in these nations who've scrapped their environmental regulations to entice us there, and who are exploiting polluting, but cheap energy sources like coal instead of jumping straight into, I don't know...solar and wind power? Funny...that sounds familiar (Industrial revolution anyone?).

Before anyone posts a reply to my post just ask yourself one question. Since when has GWB given two shits about the enviroment?His ranch is virtually independent of fossil fuels for energy and heating/cooling. He's basically trying to get away with not doing anything. I mean, when have "volontary measures" really taken hold in environmentally friendly technology? Didn't GWB want to make SUVs free from gas mileage restrictions?

Seems to me that they agreed to do nothing. At least there aren't any details on the article regarding how are they going to cut emmissions, by how much, and by when. It also doesn't say anything about accountability.

I'd have to see that before saying if it's better than Kyoto or not.
There basically won't be any accountability. It's all volontary, so American companies can pollute as much as they want without risking fines or other lawsuits.

His ranch is virtually independent of fossil fuels for energy and heating/cooling. He's basically trying to get away with not doing anything. I mean, when have "volontary measures" really taken hold in environmentally friendly technology? Didn't GWB want to make SUVs free from gas mileage restrictions?

Pretty much, and why do I think his ranch is nothing more and a stunt. Fact is that the USA is the biggest total polluter per person than any other nation. Without it doing osmehting nothing happens.

There basically won't be any accountability. It's all volontary, so American companies can pollute as much as they want without risking fines or other lawsuits.
Yes, and since cleaning up pollution has long been voluntary, we can see that this system really, really works. :eek:

Pretty much, and why do I think his ranch is nothing more and a stunt. Fact is that the USA is the biggest total polluter per person than any other nation. Without it doing osmehting nothing happens.
I think his ranch is like that because he knows damn well what's going to happen when we run out of oil and he'll at least have the comforts of electricity and heating that he doesn't have to pay for.

Yes, and since cleaning up pollution has long been voluntary, we can see that this system really, really works. :eek:
Hey, we've seen it work with the automobile industry, haven't we? [/sarcasm]

Hey, we've seen it work with the automobile industry, haven't we? [/sarcasm]
Well clearly the hybrid cars balance out the SUVs...

I'm glad to hear that China and India are being encouraged to curb emissions. Hopefully this agreement can work in harmony with the Kyoto Protocol, before we move on to stronger restrictions on pollution.

Why is everyone (besides me) who supports the Kyoto protocol attacking this new treaty? And vice versa? Does everything have to be a partisan debate where you have to take one side?

I'm glad to hear that China and India are being encouraged to curb emissions. Hopefully this agreement can work in harmony with the Kyoto Protocol, before we move on to stronger restrictions on pollution.

Why is everyone (besides me) who supports the Kyoto protocol attacking this new treaty? And vice versa? Does everything have to be a partisan debate where you have to take one side?Because it makes the impression that those four are doing something even though they aren't. Kyoto doesn't go far enough in some respects and now there's a treaty that's even softer. This way the US and the others can claim they're protecting the environment, even though it's bullshit.

It is funny that this plan will do far more to help the environment than Kyoto!

Are you on drugs???

The plan say nothing more that we should reduce greenhouse gas without naming the gas or setting objective!!!

Did'nt you read the last half of the article

I'm all for helping the environment provided that it doesn't break the bank.With that mentality the bank will eventually have to break anyway.

I'm glad to hear that China and India are being encouraged to curb emissions. Hopefully this agreement can work in harmony with the Kyoto Protocol, before we move on to stronger restrictions on pollution.

Why is everyone (besides me) who supports the Kyoto protocol attacking this new treaty? And vice versa? Does everything have to be a partisan debate where you have to take one side?
No, you're not alone.

I love that when we start talking about pollution, the world's major polluters (the US being the biggest) start pointing fingers at emerging economies as the 'next worst polluters' in some sort of attempt to shift attention. Like, hey, we've been doing it for ages, but how dare these new countries pollute! They should follow our example! Oh wait...that is what they are doing. I mean...DO WHAT WE SAY, NOT WHAT WE DO!!! :eek:

Especially since our companies love operating in these nations who've scrapped their environmental regulations to entice us there, and who are exploiting polluting, but cheap energy sources like coal instead of jumping straight into, I don't know...solar and wind power? Funny...that sounds familiar (Industrial revolution anyone?).

Need you be reminded that alot of clean fuel tech has recently been invented. Meaning the last 25 years. Why not share this tech with emerging nations to avoid the mistakes the US and Europe has made in polluting the enviroment? Sounds logical doesnt it?

The original Kyoto was just a shame and a backdoor attempt at income redistribution by nerfing the developed nations and turning a blind eye to the developing ones.

And actually Russia and India are the two most polluted countries on the Planet.

The original Kyoto was just a shame and a backdoor attempt at income redistribution by nerfing the developed nations and turning a blind eye to the developing ones.

And actually Russia and India are the two most polluted countries on the Planet.

Yeah will have to agree with this assesment of the Kyoto.

Does everything have to be a partisan debate where you have to take one side?
Yes. What else would you expect?

About Kyoto: Aren’t many nations not meeting the standards set by the treaty or whatever it is? I obviously know very little about the whole thing, so, bring on the partisan articles!

There basically won't be any accountability. It's all volontary, so American companies can pollute as much as they want without risking fines or other lawsuits.

That's the genius of Bush's plan. Companies are guaranteed to comply with this agreement, because it isn't compulsary. They technically can't violate the agreement, because they're not required to do anything. Far better than Kyoto which leaves open the possibility of violating standards by actually providing standards to be violated.

I'm sure that Bush would never agree on anything that could even remotely improve the state of the environment.

I'm sure that Bush would never agree on anything that could even remotely improve the state of the environment.I'm sure he could, but not because it would benefit the environment. He'd have some evil ulterior motives...

It is my theory that Bush has a very defined reason for wanting global warming. The global temperatures rise, so logically the oceans temperatures rise causeing an increase in number and severity of huricanes. This was made clear last hurricane season and is becoming so this seaon already. These hurricanes sweep through the gulf of mexico and plough over CUBA. You heard it here first, the president of the USA is using hurricanes to attack Cuba.

It is my theory that Bush has a very defined reason for wanting global warming. The global temperatures rise, so logically the oceans temperatures rise causeing an increase in number and severity of huricanes. This was made clear last hurricane season and is becoming so this seaon already. These hurricanes sweep through the gulf of mexico and plough over CUBA. You heard it here first, the president of the USA is using hurricanes to attack Cuba.Yeah, hurricanes are actually a cooling mechanism for the earth. Global warming could very well be a reason why we have had so many lately...

I'm sure that Bush would never agree on anything that could even remotely improve the state of the environment.

unless it just so happened to involve making halliburton a shit ton of money

We'll learn more about this later apparently. Later today by Bush and at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations security forum tomorrow.

So you support this aggreement without knowing anything about it?

And actually Russia and India are the two most polluted countries on the Planet.FACT: The US is the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

FACT: The US is the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gases.


Some sources name the Gansu province in China as officially the most polluted place on Earth.

"...Gansu's mineral resources include coal, copper, gold, nickel, zinc, and large deposits of iron ore and oil."

Some sources name the Gansu province in China as officially the most polluted place on Earth.

"...Gansu's mineral resources include coal, copper, gold, nickel, zinc, and large deposits of iron ore and oil."
That statement does not contradict in any way the Fact that the US is the worlds greatest emitter of Greenhouse gases.

That statement does not contradict in any way the Fact that the US is the worlds greatest emitter of Greenhouse gases.

Sure, I have no reason not to believe you. Was just commenting in the line of pollution in general.

Any pact in relation to environmental issues is surely welcome by the International community, and should NOT be interpreted as a barrier to progress with regards to the Kyoto Protocol.

It does however fuel worldwide suspicion, especially within G8 nations (Primarily Britain who holds 2005 presidency), that this new agreement will be used as a barganing point especially for the USA (who have come under extreme pressure lately) in order to avoid signing any binding agreement with defined timetables and frameworks.

Carefully examining this new pact, of which the British Government's Chief Scientific Advisor David King claims they knew nothing about, it can be clearly seen that it is an agreement that acknowledges responsibility to cut greenhouse gas emissions by the US, China, Australia and India, but without signing up to any binding commitments whatsoever.

Any pact in relation to environmental issues is surely welcome by the International community, and should NOT be interpreted as a barrier to progress with regards to the Kyoto Protocol. Yes it should. What it basically does is tell the world that the US cares for Greenhouse Gasses, which is not true. Bush can now claim he's "doing" something and no longer has as much pressure to curb Greenhouse Gas emissions!

I don't see it as much more than lip service, or window dressing by Aus, USA, etc. We look like we're doing something about it, but there's no real substance to it. Nothing to actually make change happen.

No Emission targets, no cuts, no emission monitoring, and the agreement is not binding. This is not an environmental treaty it is simply a trade deal
to further open up developing markets in India and China to Austrailian Coal and Gas producers and US and Japanese new technologies (which may or may not have a factor on pollution levels).

China and India are not bound by Koyto due to their "developing nation" status I believe this status runs out in 2012, I think they maybe covering themselves in case they need to withdraw from Koyto, or they want access to the technologies US and Japan can provide. Australia's participation is obvious due to their reliance on their coal and gas industry. The US and Japan appear to be in it for the extra tech markets opened up. This is at first glance makes sense, as all benefit.

At second glance however, all nations involved can use this as a media boost in the face of highjacking the upcoming UN meeting to expand Kyoto agreement. Which fits as these nations combined produce almost 50% of the worlds emissions.

I believe this is why it was press released as "Cut Greenhouse Gas emissions
treaty" (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the agreement) and not "Open up developing markets in India and China to foriegn capital treaty"

The treaty is fair enough, nation states do as they wish to protect their self interest we all know this. I just dislike the misdirection here.

I'm sceptical about this alternative to Kyoto.
The biggest polluters saying they are going to do something, right ...

I see that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue, and are willing to contribute insightful arguments either for/against/on the fence. If anyone does wish to take this further, see the 'Rival Think Tank' thread and you can sign up. The environment and climate change therein is an issue we will almost undoubtedly discuss.