NationStates Jolt Archive

The tyranni of Katganistan has forced me to change the title of my post and content.

Why America and Russia, why?
A cleaner world for all, is that not better?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/10/climate.conference.ap/index.html

The tyranni of Katganistan has forced me to change the title of my post and content.

Why America and Russia, why?
A cleaner world for all, is that not better?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/10/climate.conference.ap/index.html

Developing nations such as China and India need to be treated as equally as the US. Very simple I think.

The tyranni of Katganistan has forced me to change the title of my post and content.

Why America and Russia, why?
A cleaner world for all, is that not better?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/10/climate.conference.ap/index.html

First of all, posting on NationStates is a privilige, not a right.

Second, Bush and Putin's industrial cronies don't want to comply with the Kyoto protocol because it would require upgrading stone-age facilities. And upgrading costs money. Reducing greenhouse gases cost money. They're making obscene amounts of profit from being able to shape the country's energy policy and sodomizing the consumers, but apparently that's still not enough.

Developing nations such as China and India need to be treated as equally as the US. Very simple I think.
So America resorts to the childish argument of 'They don't have to do it, so why should I?'. Besides, the idea is that the successor to Kyoto would include developing nations (some of which think they could profit greatly from carbon-trading by developing a low-carbon economy from the start). Further, the China/India argument is a decoy, as it's hypothetical damage to the US economy that the American administration is actually worried about.

The tyranni of Katganistan has forced me to change the title of my post and content.

Why America and Russia, why?
A cleaner world for all, is that not better?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/10/climate.conference.ap/index.htmlWhat was the original title?

and what kind of Content it was?

First of all, posting on NationStates is a privilige, not a right.


Yes, and what matters is content, not spelling...

So America resorts to the childish argument of 'They don't have to do it, so why should I?'. Besides, the idea is that the successor to Kyoto would include developing nations (some of which think they could profit greatly from carbon-trading by developing a low-carbon economy from the start). Further, the China/India argument is a decoy, as it's hypothetical damage to the US economy that the American administration is actually worried about.

ALL countries look out for #1 so don't claim the moral high ground, because you don't have it!

Why should America risk an economic disaster (when our economy has already taken severe hits) because Socialist Europe wants to "protect the environment" with a treaty that won't do crap except hurt America and ignores the even bigger environmental train wreak that is CHINA!!!

I do want environmental protections but the Kyoto Treaty is anything but a treaty for environmental protections.

Why should America risk an economic disaster (when our economy has already taken severe hits) because Socialist Europe wants to "protect the environment" with a treaty that won't do crap except hurt America and ignores the even bigger environmental train wreak that is CHINA!!!

Because China pollution comes from it's massive population, and yours (and ours) come from our lust of energy. It's easier for us to cut back then for them.

First of all, posting on NationStates is a privilige, not a right.
[ feels all warm and fuzzy at being granted such an awesome privilige! ] :D

ALL countries look out for #1 so don't claim the moral high ground, because you don't have it!
Don't claim I claimed the moral highground when I didn't. I made two points:

1) Saying 'they don't do it so we shouldn't either' is a logical fallacy
2) The American administration is more concerned about its encomy than the environmental impact of China or India

Neither of these statements have anything to do with morality.

Why should America risk an economic disaster (when our economy has already taken severe hits) because Socialist Europe wants to "protect the environment" with a treaty that won't do crap except hurt America and ignores the even bigger environmental train wreak that is CHINA!!!
America is producing almost twice as much of 'greenhouse gas' (25%) as China (13%). Futhermore, China is worried about the desertification of its North and is beginning to plant vast forests to counter the effects - forests which as they grow should easily offset China's emissions (unfortunately they're using GM trees, but that's another issue).

The point is moot any, as members of the American administration have said they won't sign any treaty that imposes compulsory cuts or could harm the US economy - so it won't make any difference if China and India do join in.

If I could just take a moment to connect the dots here, it seems to me that the U.S. is very afraid of China overcoming them in terms of economy. I think that's the real reason for them shying out of the treaty, if China won't do it as well. Not that they wouldn't pounce on the opportunity to get well ahead of China, if China did join, by not signing ANYWAY.

Point is, Canada's Prime Minister and Bill Clinton both have put down the Bush administration for rejecting this treaty. I think people are getting mad at the American's outright ignorance towards the seriousness of the issue.

Let's face it, America doesn't have too many countries out there that would do for them what Canada would, so why are they angering us with these softwood disputes, and Kyoto? The U.S. is going to piss some countries right off some time soon, if they don't get a good government in there, because you're social standing in the world has been dropping radically ever since Bush stepped into the White House.

Because China pollution comes from it's massive population, and yours (and ours) come from our lust of energy. It's easier for us to cut back then for them.

No, it comes from their unregulated and authoritarian method of economic growth. China's pollution comes from its rapid and unregulated industrial growth that spews out pollution without any kind of real regulation. The government goes hand-in-hand with industry, silencing or covering up pollution disasters and repressing legitimate environmental protest.

China's the biggest consumer of coal in the world, and coal is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases. Their lust for energy is like ours, but there are no laws to stop the pollution.

America is producing almost twice as much of 'greenhouse gas' (25%) as China (13%). Futhermore, China is worried about the desertification of its North and is beginning to plant vast forests to counter the effects - forests which as they grow should easily offset China's emissions (unfortunately they're using GM trees, but that's another issue).

America's emissions growth is flat. China's is growing by double digits, and there's no way to stop it because of their government. China's forest planting doesn't mean anything when they are still ratcheting up pollution without any regulation. Their waterways are becoming steadily undrinkable, the government covers up pollution accidents, and coal burning plants are spewing more CO2 each year.

Wierd, Canada got Kyoto, America do not. And the US managed to cut air pollution ahead of Canada. :confused:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/12/pollution_canada051012.html