NationStates Jolt Archive

Who thinks Katrina will cause some US rethinking about Kyoto? Given that one of the effects of global warming is said to be more unstable weather, more frequent hurricanes etc.

You kidding? The US can't "afford" to lose so much industry!

Though to be honest, Kyoto needs some rethinking, too. We need a global environmental protection agency with teeth. Kyoto makes allowances for developing nations, but that does nobody any good. That'll just hit developing nations harder when tougher standards come into place. We need a global agency for the environment that sends tanks into whatever nation violates the laws, and blows the shit out of their factories. And I'm serious.

Kyoto is trash. I'm sorry but whoever came up with it was smoking some serious crap. Kyoto allows developing countries to pollute more... how do you expect that to accomplish anything? I say we need more encouragement for the private sector to pursue better technology. Placing more restrictions on them, limiting their research because they make less money will solve nothing. In fact Kyoto would prevent technological advancement by reducing advancement and growth.

The us govt is too short sighted to worry about climate change, plus someone would have to explain it to Bush, probably with diagrams. :)

.... We need a global agency for the environment that sends tanks into whatever nation violates the laws, and blows the shit out of their factories. And I'm serious.

How about a world police? They could install democracy when not fighting crime. I wonder if some militarily advanced nation would take the job...

The point is moot, since irrespective of the intricacies of Kyoto, USA agreement and entry would have implyed intent towards action, whereas non-admission simply implies a prediliction towards the use of fossil fuels. Surely such organisations as NASA, and various other scientifically advanced organisations, could be apportioned commissions to develop an economically viable and plentiful alternative to fossil fuels? I am somewhat concerned that the environmental future of the globe is dependant upon the judgement of the political equivalent of Barney the purple dinosaur :)

I hope it does force America to rethink its stance on Kyoto but it would be a real shame that it took something as awful as this to do so

Mesatecala is talking nonsence.
Ok, Koyoto isn't a perfect system but it's a start. One that Bush isn't prepared to take because it will effect industry.
The whole point if Kyoto is to effect industry, it puts a cost on carbon emissions, which gives value to technologies that reduce carbon emissions. Thus spurring innovation in this area.
If pollution costs nothing industries will never stop.

Mesatecala is talking nonsence.
Ok, Koyoto isn't a perfect system but it's a start. One that Bush isn't prepared to take because it will effect industry.
The whole point if Kyoto is to effect industry, it puts a cost on carbon emissions, which gives value to technologies that reduce carbon emissions. Thus spurring innovation in this area.
If pollution costs nothing industries will never stop.

I'm not talking nonsense. In fact I'm talking about the fatal flaws in Kyoto. How is allowing developing countries to pollute more going to help the situation? It isn't. How is getting rid of R&D money that private industry has going to help? It isn't. Remember, private industry is responsible for a lot of cleaner technology, not the kyoto protocol. The Kyoto protocol doesn't spur innovation at all (you need to actually read what it is about).

I'm not talking nonsense. In fact I'm talking about the fatal flaws in Kyoto. How is allowing developing countries to pollute more going to help the situation? It isn't. How is getting rid of R&D money that private industry has going to help? It isn't. Remember, private industry is responsible for a lot of cleaner technology, not the kyoto protocol. The Kyoto protocol doesn't spur innovation at all (you need to actually read what it is about).

But where is the motivation for the private sector to develop cleaner fuel sources if it is hideously expensive and unlikely to facilitate re-imbursement?

But where is the motivation for the private sector to develop cleaner fuel sources if it is hideously expensive and unlikely to facilitate re-imbursement?
Exactly. The private sector has one motivation only.

Who thinks Katrina will cause some US rethinking about Kyoto? Given that one of the effects of global warming is said to be more unstable weather, more frequent hurricanes etc.


Not to be sarcastic but eh no one. Something must be done about global warming, no question. But the US isn't the only country that isn't following Kyoto. To be honest unless some geologists come out proof that what happened in New Orleans is going to happen everywhere in the style of The Day After Tomorrow everyone is just gonna sit on their butts.

The shift in the weather isn't just due to global warming, climate shifts happen every couple of 100,000 years we were due for one sometime soon-ish like in 10,000 years buy hey maybe they miscalulated

The world's biggest polluter is the US its official stance is that it doesn't even recognize the fact that human factors contribute to global warming. If anyone deserves to get pummeled by tropical storms due to climate change then it is the Us when they realise the world doesn't revolve around them maybe they'll open their eyes and do some good in this world rather than more harm.

....To be honest unless some geologists come out proof that what happened in New Orleans is going to happen everywhere in the style of The Day After Tomorrow everyone is just gonna sit on their butts.
...
Maybe a few more well-placed 'canes will do the trick. Hopefully not too many. Venezuela might end up having to fulfill their aid promises...

The shift in the weather isn't just due to global warming, climate shifts happen every couple of 100,000 years we were due for one sometime soon-ish like in 10,000 years buy hey maybe they miscalulated
It's not so much a matter of miscalculation as it's the idea that human activity has moved up the timetable a lot. And hurricane specialists have noted that while global warming hasn't had an effect on the number of Atlantic storms this year--those run in pretty regular cycles--it has had an effect on the power of those storms.

As to Kyoto--is it more dangerous to stick with the status quo or to engage in some half-hearted reform that doesn't do much but lets us pat ourselves on the back and act like we're doing something about the problem? I don't have an answer--both seem like shitty options to me. I don't trust the markets to look for a long term solution, and I don't trust governments to look for one either--both are too short-sighted by their very nature.

English Cricketers']The world's biggest polluter is the US its official stance is that it doesn't even recognize the fact that human factors contribute to global warming. If anyone deserves to get pummeled by tropical storms due to climate change then it is the Us when they realise the world doesn't revolve around them maybe they'll open their eyes and do some good in this world rather than more harm.

Please say you don't actually believe this.

Kyoto is worthless. It wouldn't have done anything for the climate; it would have just required payouts as we bought credits from other countries to cover our pollution.

I'm sure sending millions to Kenya every year will stop global warming . . .

I'm not talking nonsense. In fact I'm talking about the fatal flaws in Kyoto. How is allowing developing countries to pollute more going to help the situation? It isn't. How is getting rid of R&D money that private industry has going to help? It isn't. Remember, private industry is responsible for a lot of cleaner technology, not the kyoto protocol. The Kyoto protocol doesn't spur innovation at all (you need to actually read what it is about).

It helps improving the situation because the largest polluters will have to reduce their own pollution. In the long run, should the developing countries become the largest polluters, they too will be forced to either reduce their emissions, or buy pollution credits. Because no one will want to buy pollution credits (spend money), everyone will invest in cleaner solutions, actually allocating more resources to R&D. That is what European car makers did when the Comission started issuing strict enviromental regulations to cars. You did not see any of them go bankrupt.

Curiously, instruments similar to the Kyoto Protocol exist even in the US:
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/index.html

You dont see them complaining about it, do you?


It seems that though you have read, you have not thinked much about it.

Who thinks Katrina will cause some US rethinking about Kyoto? Given that one of the effects of global warming is said to be more unstable weather, more frequent hurricanes etc.

Shit like kathrina happens with polution, and with no polution...
Dont use this tragedy to spread pinko greenpeace propaganda :mad:

Kyoto is worthless. It wouldn't have done anything for the climate; it would have just required payouts as we bought credits from other countries to cover our pollution.

I'm sure sending millions to Kenya every year will stop global warming . . .
Exactly which proves it's not useless, it makes pollution cost something which without Kyoto it doesn't.
So we can either give places like Kenya money or we can spend that money developing cleaner and more efficient energy sources. Which will spur our own industry inventing these energy technologies.
A journey of 1 thousand miles starts with the first steps and the US isn't even prepared to take the first step.
Actually that's not true, Bush isn't prepared, I know a lot of states have their own agenda's for instance California is working hard to reduce power consumption (they get a lot of blackouts due to air con) and reduce emissions.

In the long run, should the developing countries become the largest polluters, they too will be forced to either reduce their emissions, or buy pollution credits. Because no one will want to buy pollution credits (spend money), everyone will invest in cleaner solutions, actually allocating more resources to R&D.
Or they will decide that it's cheaper just to buy other countries off rather than spend for R&D. Or the act of paying will give them a moral sanction for their actions and they can go tell people "See! We're following the environmentally-friendly protocol!" without ever lifting a finger to help the environment.

I repeat: Kyoto is worthless.

Shit like kathrina happens with polution, and with no polution...
Dont use this tragedy to spread pinko greenpeace propaganda :mad:
Sorry. It's not propaganda. Check Tha Nazz's post:
"And hurricane specialists have noted that while global warming hasn't had an effect on the number of Atlantic storms this year--those run in pretty regular cycles--it has had an effect on the power of those storms."

Dont use this tragedy to spread pinko greenpeace propaganda :mad:

Trippingoveryourballs; -the tragedy is not much use. Using tragedies to spread propaganda is common practise. Remember 911. Tragedies should be used to get people thinking. If you have a problem, run to the mods or stick to the prayer thread.

Or they will decide that it's cheaper just to buy other countries off rather than spend for R&D. Or the act of paying will give them a moral sanction for their actions and they can go tell people "See! We're following the environmentally-friendly protocol!" without ever lifting a finger to help the environment.

I repeat: Kyoto is worthless.
I repeat nonsence!
Ok so developed countries for some strange reason decide not to put money into R&D in cutting emissions, even though they are aware of the problem and have ratified the Kyoto protocol (this supposition is stupid but I am continuing on your argument).
So third world countries that don't produce much in the way of CO2 emissions get new wealth, which is in itself a good thing, this stimulates their economy, but they cannot build polluting businesses without raising CO2 emissions and so losing their Kyoto income. So they can plow the money into non-polluting enterprises, they could do the R&D themselves, at the very least they could irrigate and plant trees gaining even more CO2 credits.

Or they will decide that it's cheaper just to buy other countries off rather than spend for R&D. Or the act of paying will give them a moral sanction for their actions and they can go tell people "See! We're following the environmentally-friendly protocol!" without ever lifting a finger to help the environment.

I repeat: Kyoto is worthless.

Maybe they'll do that, but they have an incentive to reduce pollution.

If I were the leader of ANY RL nation I would never accept Kyoto. Global Warming has absolutley nothing to do with Greenhouse Gases. Global Warming is natural, and will stop before any "doomsday scenarios" happen.

Who thinks Katrina will cause some US rethinking about Kyoto? Given that one of the effects of global warming is said to be more unstable weather, more frequent hurricanes etc.

Why would it? Kyoto isn't a fix for global warming. Unstable weather or not, Kyoto is a sham. Congress passed Bush's energy bill, that while won't solve the problem will actually more of an impact than Kyoto ever will. Tax credits to people who buy hybrid cars and for people who use diesel fuel. Now if hybrid manufacturers will just build a car that the average joe can afford to purchase, THAT will make an impact. Kyoto doesn't do anything, it doesn't even claim to do anything.

Who thinks Katrina will cause some US rethinking about Kyoto? Given that one of the effects of global warming is said to be more unstable weather, more frequent hurricanes etc.

Once again, this is a natural cycle. There will be years of active hurricane seasons and years of inactive ones. We just happen to fall into the active category. Also, the weather conditions have been just right for these types of storms to develope.

A vicious cycle yes but due to global warming? no!

As to rethinking kyoto. Experts already proved that it would do nothing to the benefit of the environment so it was relatively worthless and I applaud the Senate for firing the pre-emptive strike to vote against in 1997 I believe it was. Well it get us rethinking it? Nope it won't and I'm glad it won't too.

If I were the leader of ANY RL nation I would never accept Kyoto. Global Warming has absolutley nothing to do with Greenhouse Gases. Global Warming is natural, and will stop before any "doomsday scenarios" happen.

Here here!

Well said Swilatia. Well said indeed. Also, with Global Warming comes Global Cooling. It is a natural cycle of things. When we start having Global Cooling what would you blame that on?

Sorry. It's not propaganda. Check Tha Nazz's post:
"And hurricane specialists have noted that while global warming hasn't had an effect on the number of Atlantic storms this year--those run in pretty regular cycles--it has had an effect on the power of those storms."

Control for the increasing development of beachfront property (which has raised the damage totals associated with hurricanes), and you'll see that there has been no increase in hurricane intensity.

Here here!

Well said Swilatia. Well said indeed. Also, with Global Warming comes Global Cooling. It is a natural cycle of things. When we start having Global Cooling what would you blame that on?
For heaven's sake. We all know that there have been, is, and will be climate changes whether humans exist or not but that's not the point. Humans do increase the amount of greenhouse gases in athmosphere and that accelerates the rate of climate change. The climate is changing more rapidly than ever before and nature can't adjust fast enough.

You want to stop Global Warming, go after those damned dirty water vapor producers. :rolleyes:

You want to stop Global Warming, go after those damned dirty water vapor producers. :rolleyes:

Would that be the Hydrological cycle that brings us rain? :D

For heaven's sake. We all know that there have been, is, and will be climate changes whether humans exist or not but that's not the point. Humans do increase the amount of greenhouse gases in athmosphere and that accelerates the rate of climate change. The climate is changing more rapidly than ever before and nature can't adjust fast enough.
Global Warming/Cooling is 100% natural, and is unaffected by greenhouse gases. The speed of any globabal warming/cooling probably is different each time. It just happened that this time the global warming is going so quickly.

I thank the author of this thread for his political opportunism. Way to trivialize the suffering and death of scores of people by an act of nature into a jab at the Bush Administration. You're awesome. Congratulations on being you.

Here here!

Well said Swilatia. Well said indeed. Also, with Global Warming comes Global Cooling. It is a natural cycle of things. When we start having Global Cooling what would you blame that on?

We'll still blame it on industry. Specifically, we can say that the world's pollution is blocking out the sun, causing the temperature of the earth to decrease. Or something like that--regardless, the key is (1) to blame any system wherein anyone is allowed to generate wealth and (2) punish economically successful countries for outperforming their communist counterparts.

We'll still blame it on industry. Specifically, we can say that the world's pollution is blocking out the sun, causing the temperature of the earth to decrease. Or something like that--regardless, the key is (1) to blame any system wherein anyone is allowed to generate wealth and (2) punish economically successful countries for outperforming their communist counterparts.
That would be stupid.

I thank the author of this thread for his political opportunism. Way to trivialize the suffering and death of scores of people by an act of nature into a jab at the Bush Administration. You're awesome. Congratulations on being you.

I am not trivializing anything. There are other threads for that. I've seen deaths trivialized on these forums often enough to know how that's done around here. Thank you.

It's not so much a matter of miscalculation as it's the idea that human activity has moved up the timetable a lot. And hurricane specialists have noted that while global warming hasn't had an effect on the number of Atlantic storms this year--those run in pretty regular cycles--it has had an effect on the power of those storms.

As to Kyoto--is it more dangerous to stick with the status quo or to engage in some half-hearted reform that doesn't do much but lets us pat ourselves on the back and act like we're doing something about the problem? I don't have an answer--both seem like shitty options to me. I don't trust the markets to look for a long term solution, and I don't trust governments to look for one either--both are too short-sighted by their very nature.

The one thing you should trust is the market as government is notoriously bad for the environment. See China and the USSR's record. Also George Bush snr. set up tradable sulphur permits to stop acid rain, using the power of the market to cut sulphur emissions by 80%. Kyoto will delay global warming by six years at massive cost. This money should not be wasted for the sake of doing something. The money saved from not adhering to kyoto for a year could provide clean drinking water for the ENTIRE world, saving millions more lives than kyoto.

Who thinks Katrina will cause some US rethinking about Kyoto? Given that one of the effects of global warming is said to be more unstable weather, more frequent hurricanes etc.

Nothing. It will be a drop in the toilet bowl...nothing more.

Aside from that, how is Kyoto Exactly enforced? Is the UN going to come and spank us or something? Come write us World court summons?

If the consequencies of global warming affected only the USA, the biggest polluters in the world, in the form of Katrina or whatever, I would find it poet justice... :mp5:

Remarks:
1) I sympathise with all innocent victims, don't call me unsensitive.

2) Of course, the whole world is being affected by global warming. 50% of that is caused directly bu the USA, maybe 80% indirectly, as USA's positions concerning Kyoto make many countries to not implement good policies, because of economic competivity.

Exactly which proves it's not useless, it makes pollution cost something which without Kyoto it doesn't.
So we can either give places like Kenya money or we can spend that money developing cleaner and more efficient energy sources. Which will spur our own industry inventing these energy technologies.
A journey of 1 thousand miles starts with the first steps and the US isn't even prepared to take the first step.
Actually that's not true, Bush isn't prepared, I know a lot of states have their own agenda's for instance California is working hard to reduce power consumption (they get a lot of blackouts due to air con) and reduce emissions.
you are completely missing the point, its not about first steps. the kyoto treaty should be disregarded because there could be a better treaty for mankind and indeed for global warming.

If the consequencies of global warming affected only the USA, the biggest polluters in the world, in the form of Katrina or whatever, I would find it poet justice... :mp5:

Remarks:
1) I sympathise with all innocent victims, don't call me unsensitive.

2) Of course, the whole world is being affected by global warming. 50% of that is caused directly bu the USA, maybe 80% indirectly, as USA's positions concerning Kyoto make many countries to not implement good policies, because of aconomic competivity.
how about china and india. Developing countries pollute far more.

how about china and india. Developing countries pollute far more.
No, their levels of production are increasing at higher rate, but in absolute terms, my statement is correct.

correction accepted but my point is that the US is considerably bigger than china and india making absolute measurements pointless. i.e. the us pollutes more than luxembourg. one of the reasons the us wont join is because india and china are not part of it. even if evryone adhered to it which is incredibly unlikely, as i think only britain has done so, kyoto is completely ineffective. Why waste the money?

If the consequencies of global warming affected only the USA, the biggest polluters in the world, in the form of Katrina or whatever, I would find it poet justice... :mp5:

Remarks:
1) I sympathise with all innocent victims, don't call me unsensitive.

2) Of course, the whole world is being affected by global warming. 50% of that is caused directly bu the USA, maybe 80% indirectly, as USA's positions concerning Kyoto make many countries to not implement good policies, because of economic competivity.

The U.S. is responsible for 20% of the world's emissions.

...I've seen deaths trivialized on these forums often enough to know how that's done around here...

Ok, let's talk person to person here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not doing this deliberately. Nonetheless, I find this really distasteful. That's how I feel.

The U.S. is responsible for 20% of the world's emissions.
good point the stats given by that person are complete nonsense.

correction accepted but my point is that the US is considerably bigger than china and india making absolute measurements pointless. i.e. the us pollutes more than luxembourg. one of the reasons the us wont join is because india and china are not part of it. even if evryone adhered to it which is incredibly unlikely, as i think only britain has done so, kyoto is completely ineffective. Why waste the money?
The Kyoto treaty was ratified by Russia, the EU, Canada, India, among others. India is exempted from the framework of the treaty, it is expected to gain from the protocol in terms of transfer of technology and related foreign investments. China, Australia and other non-signers have made the "Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate" for similar purposes. The USA are one one the very few countries, and the only big one to refuse to make anything for this goal.

The U.S. is responsible for 20% of the world's emissions.
Sorry, my mistake, here. I apologize, I was saying it by heart and double-checked it.
Nevertheless, according to the Wikipedia:
China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the U.S. (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). Even though China is currently exempt, it has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is expected to declare itself an Annex I country within the next decade and make itself no longer exempt. China's per capita emission is among the lowest. The U.S. based NGO Natural Resources Defense Council stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".

Ok, let's talk person to person here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not doing this deliberately. Nonetheless, I find this really distasteful. That's how I feel.

I am indeed, deliberately, trying to fuel a material, objective debate on an issue I find etirely non-trivial. I believe that Kyoto matters, I also belive that civil discussion is important. I, however find tabooing Very Distasteful. As for political opportunism, in my opinion the politician who is not opportunistic will fare as well as the stockbroker who only trades on Tuesdays.

You can save the benefit of the doubt for someone else, got my own. I appreciate the gesture though.

Who thinks Katrina will cause some US rethinking about Kyoto? Given that one of the effects of global warming is said to be more unstable weather, more frequent hurricanes etc.
Probably not. For one, the US has been very busy writing a counter-pact with Australia, China, and a few other nations. For another, the most influential politician for climate preservation, John McCain, has consistently wrote his own bills on the issue for he feels that Kyoto is much too harsh. As long as the Republicans are in control of Washington, and many of their anti global warming pols are against Kyoto, we won't sign it. The Bush Admin. knows that it is in a diplomatic logjam not to do something about climate change, whether it believes it necessary or not. Yet any action they do will never be more extreme than McCain's proposals.

Probably not. For one, the US has been very busy writing a counter-pact with Australia, China, and a few other nations. For another, the most influential politician for climate preservation, John McCain, has consistently wrote his own bills on the issue for he feels that Kyoto is much too harsh. As long as the Republicans are in control of Washington, and many of their anti global warming pols are against Kyoto, we won't sign it. The Bush Admin. knows that it is in a diplomatic logjam not to do something about climate change, whether it believes it necessary or not. Yet any action they do will never be more extreme than McCain's proposals.

You mean ratify it? BTW, even before it was signed during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, the Senate passed without dissent a vote that condemns Kyoto and said that any treaty that causes economic harm to the US shall not be placed before this body. It was done on a bi-partisan bases. Would you like the link to the bill?

Even Democrats recognized that it was worthless and would cost us economically to even try to implement it.

You mean ratify it? BTW, even before it was signed during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, the Senate passed without dissent a vote that condemns Kyoto and said that any treaty that causes economic harm to the US shall not be placed before this body. It was done on a bi-partisan bases. Would you like the link to the bill?

Even Democrats recognized that it was worthless and would cost us economically to even try to implement it.

A link to the bill would be appreciated. As for "economic harm to the US", they must have meant "...in the short run".

A link to the bill would be appreciated. As for "economic harm to the US", they must have meant "...in the short run".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:49:./temp/~r105UABAHv:e1517:

If it doesn't work, let me know. I can find it elsewhere!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205

There's the vote too!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:49:./temp/~r105UABAHv:e1517:

If it doesn't work, let me know. I can find it elsewhere!

Works fine! Thank you.

Ask any meterologist and they will tell you that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They will also tell you water vapor in the atmosphere is also a greenhouse gas. They will also tell you that water vapor is more abundant, and has a much higher affect on global warming than all the other greenhouse gases put together.

Why is it then, that the global warming alarmist websites don't even mention water vapor as a greenhouse gas?

Perhaps it's because that water vapor is naturally occuring, and unaffected by human activity? And if that's the case, their whole case for global warming as a result of human activity goes out the window?

Why do global warming alarmists have to resort to lying to make their point?

The U.S. is responsible for 20% of the world's emissions.

Actually if you think about it that's not acutally true...because the USA doesn't make a lot of what it consumes it must import it, the enviromental consts of importing must be shared by the importer country. America is resposibile for a far greater proportion of the world Co2 than you may think.

...
Why is it then, that the global warming alarmist websites don't even mention water vapor as a greenhouse gas?

Perhaps it's because that water vapor is naturally occuring, and unaffected by human activity? And if that's the case, their whole case for global warming as a result of human activity goes out the window?
...


Water vapour, if counted as a greenhouse gas, has been naturally occurring for quite some time. CO2 emissions, on todays´scale have not. Which is easier to control, do you think? What would you do to minimize water vapour? Cold showers? :p

Who thinks Katrina will cause some US rethinking about Kyoto? Given that one of the effects of global warming is said to be more unstable weather, more frequent hurricanes etc.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA.........your funny.