Slashdot Mirror
EU Ratifies Kyoto Treaty
An anonymous submitter sends: "Yahoo! News is reporting that all 15 member states of the European Union have just ratified the Kyoto treaty to cut greenhouse emissions by 8% over the next ten years (the US agreed to 7%.)"
There is no greater glory than the FP.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
right up your fucking ASS!
Suck it CLIT here's to the AC's!
IIRC, its not 7%, only 5% but below of the level of 1990. The final goal is 30%. Germany allready lowerd the emissions by about 10%.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Really why is it the US, as the biggest polluter in the world can't they make a significant effort to ratify the treaty like the rest of the world. Why should the US be treated to a special treatment when they set the worst example ?
:)
Sometimes life just isn't fair
This will give American companies an economic advantage. The Kyoto restrictions, if implimented, would bring any industrialized nation's economy to it's knees. Does anyone have any CLUE as to how expensive it will be to reduce all emissions 8%?
Not just in terms of dollars, but in the cost of JOBS, economic growth, and trade?
You see, the money to do all that will come from somewhere. Largely from money that would have been used to build and grow companies, and thus, employ more people...
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
The pact would have required the United States, which accounted for 36 percent of the industrialized world's greenhouse gas emissions in 1990, to trim emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels. But the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010, the European Commission said.
The keyword here is "would." The US isn't ratifying squat, but who's surprised? Financing election campaigns is a costly business, and you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Bush is just behaving like the good boy he promised to be."If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
Well, on the up side for the USA, this will drive up energy costs in Europe, which will in turn drive American economic growth with its cheaper but less environmentally friendly power.
I'd be all in favor of Kyoto, but we would need to build more nuclear power plants to keep energy costs down, which the environmental lobby won't support either. (The only people who think solar and wind are viable are people who own stock in companies that produce solar and wind energy. Gotta love those subsidies)
It's unfortunate sometimes when arguments are won by the people who shout the loudest.
Follow Finland's example and build new nuclear power plants. You can effectively steal from your children so.
I live in Canada, and we are being asked to reduce our emissions by stupid amounts in 8 years. I think its on the order of 10% (i'm probably way off, but correct me if i'm wrong). Now Canada has about 30M people in it. China has over 1 Billion. China is NOT bound by the Kyoto treaty in any way. If each member of their population increases their CO2 usage by a few percent, it will totally wipe out any benefits that Canada, the US, and many other countries could make happen.
If this is a global question, why isn't their anything approaching global participation? Shouldn't the largest country on earth be bound by it as well?
And for a 2nd perspective, there is a lot of controversy in my Province over a proposed Alternative strategy to CO2 reduction being developed in Alberta. Most people supporting Kyoto say "NO! Do Kyoto NOW! It's the only way!" Well Mr and Mrs Environmentalist, if other plans don't reduce enough, fast enough, then you must be in favor of mass genocide of all polluters! In fact, wipe out 99% of the world's population! That'll put a big dent in CO2 production! Or if not mass deaths right away, how about banning the use of all types of fuels that produce CO2! "Sorry Mr Freezing person. Your wood campfire doesn't follow Zero Emmissions Guidelines. You'll need to freeze in winter. Sorry." Anybody can see both of these are unreasonable (well i HOPE everybody thinks these are unreasonable...), but we have to realize that Kyoto is not necessarily the best way of doing things.
There ARE better ways that reduce CO2 emmissions, perhaps not as fast, but not as devastating to economies traditionally dependant on "dirty" fuels. And ignoring other countries that aren't developed yet, just makes them more dependant on CO2, and doesn't help long-term. Get solutions for them implemented right away, because it is easier to change an infrastructure that isn't there yet, rather than try and make a dramatic shift.
Erioll
Then...
Global warming will be delayed by 6 years!
Obviously the US should adopt this treaty right away!
Seriously, Kyoto is fatally flawed. It does not have much effect on global warming other than delyaing it a few years, and that itself is dependent on all of the assumptions above. Furthermore, it does not put controls on the most populous nations in the world, which are rapidly increasing their emissions as their economy improves!
Kyoto is nothing more than another European inspired attempt at hobbling the United States and improving European competitive position. Europe, because of its much greater population density, needs less fuel than the US. Furthermore, its citizens already drive in tiny cars (due to extortionate fuel taxes and other laws) and already suffer a much higher traffic death rate per mile.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Don't be so easily fooled.
The Kyoto Treaty is a wasteful and expensive set of shackles that the US simply doesn't need. We already have the ability to regulate our production of pollutants and the countries that complain about us being the "biggest producer" of greenhouse gases are CERTAINLY not complaining about using the fruits of American labor and thinking in their own countries.
Developing nations pollute the most because it's not cost-effective for their primitive equipment to be run at levels conducive to pollution reduction. They'd ideally like us to fund everything they do, suck America bone dry and then complain about how there wasn't enough.
Watch and wait for 8 years and see how many countries are saddling themselves with millions of dollars in archaic and restrictive pollution control measures while the US has already switched over to alternate technologies.
WE ARE AMERICA AND WE DO NOT CARE WHAT THE NATIONALISTIC AND UNREALISTIC EUROTRASH CALLS US
the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010
That's a far cry from "The US agreed to 7%."
Well, I guess that's technically true - they did agree to it - they just didn't stick to that agreement. At least they're consistent - is there any treaty the US is still party to?
/me waits for the Hague invasion.
Humans have been on the earth for approximately 8-10K years. The earth has been in existence for hundreds of millions of years. We have only been able to get valid and accurate measures for 100 years or so. What kind of wacko would take 100yrs of data, compare it against 100Myrs and come to any scientific conclusion? Only a moron.
Here's a good article which explains why the Kyoto Protocol is a bad idea and the US was wise to stay out of it.
"all 15 member states of the European Union have just ratified the Kyoto treaty"
I'm going to instead "rapify" the Kyoto treaty:
We've agreed to cut back on our greenhouse emissions
Maybe use something clean like nuclear fission
The only thing now that this rapper be dissin'
Is the US of A, 'cos the point they be missin'.
graspee
I hope the United States never goes forward with the Kyoto Treaty.Sure we use alot of the worlds energy, but then again we are the most productive!
Don't forget that we are the cleanest(carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,it's a gas)especially since we unlike many 3rd world countries produce enough wealth to clean up after ourselves.The U.N. is nothing more than a marxist orginization with the sole intention of sticking it's nose into the biz of every country and stealing the weatlh of productive countries.
Termites and other similar insects are probably the most prolific producers of greenhouse gasses on the planet, easily outstripping cattle, and motorvehicles.
Perhaps we could call all of their colonic (heh) Queens into some room somewhere, and demand that they chill for a while?
No? Didn't think so.
Duh.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
The keyword here is "would." The US isn't ratifying squat, but who's surprised? Financing election campaigns is a costly business, and you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Bush is just behaving like the good boy he promised to be.
Bush couldn't ratify Kyoto even if he wanted to, since the Senate voted against it 95-0 in 1997 (admittedly it was non-binding, but it needed 67 votes to pass). Clinton signed the treaty, but during his term, he did nothing to try to implement it.
The recent increase in tarriff was largely aimed at non-European steel producers (namely S. Korea). Europeans also raised their steel tarriffs because Europe would have then been a dumping ground for cheap steel. Now China has also followed the Europeans in raising the tarriffs.
Free market - great huh?
My first thought is, great. We all love the environment, after all.
But a reduction in emissions in Europe will most likely mean fewer appliances, including computers. And we all know that Europe is an important Linux stronghold. This is going to hurt Linux's market share quite a bit, I'm afraid.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
The world is not facing a environmental meltdown. Capitalism is not murdering mother nature. Earth is not an enity named Gia.
This is nothing more than Europe once again surrendoring reason to mass hysteria, liberty to mindless authoritarian tyrants, and science to meaningless drivel.
Europe has never been known for its intelligence; today's actions continues that legacy.
Despite the "chicken little's" screeches proclaiming that Man is destroying the precious earth, every statistical, analytical, and anedotal piece of evidence supports the exact opposite conclusion, i.e. Man's creative mind, his free spirit, his capitalistic soul, is increasing his life span, is raising his standard of living, is giving him cleaner air, is creating for him purer water, and is making human life on earth a paradise.
Get real environmentalists, you are wacko!
Wonder how accurate this is.
"Break out the gin, and the small violin, I'm a raging success as a failure." --Firewater
I can't believe all the skeptism here against kyoto in certain posts. here's an analogy:
you are in a sinking vessel, do you refuse to bail out the water just because the deck is not below water? do you refuse to bail out the water because other people is not bailing out the water? do you refuse bailout the water just because you can't realistically save the ship? do you refuse to throw out the bagage on the ground that you don't want to reduce your comfort of living?
The truly important things in this world are never profitable economically, but without them we wouldn't be here.
Yep, you Americans get the government your bosses pay for. Forget the treaty for a moment and reform the campaign finance system that means you get such callow, brain dead politicians that they would sell your country and its future for a few bucks.
By the way, if you are one of those right wing morons who thinks global warming isn't real, or worse, doesn't matter, go ahead and mod me down. Because I have got a brain I've posted enough intelligent contributions to have karma to burn!
Other world-wide causes the US has declined to participate in.
It's a big list, and you'll see a couple dozen of some very interesting ones. Whenever the capitalistic war-mongering apologists talk about how the U.S. is such a world leader, it always makes me wonder how many other world leaders lead by abstaining from progressive political activity.
The biggest obstacle to world peace and harmony is the United States, BAR NONE. If you're an American who faithfully supports your government, know that you're part of the problem. If you're just a regular joe trying to figure out why people aren't REALLY trying to make the world a better place, take a good look at that list and see that many countries ARE trying.
Nope, Clinton and Gore put us exactly where we are today by killing any program related to nuclear power, including but not limited to:
- Killing the Integral Fast Reactor program at Argonne Nat'l Lab. This reactor design would recycle fuel, reducing the amount of waste produced.
- Killing transmutation experiments which might have been used to treat existing waste.
- Stalling waste disposal programs e.g. Yucca Mountain.
Ahh, so the pension plans of steel magnates have nothing to do with it?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Refusing to change your business even if it may help everyone in the long run... Sounds a bit like the RIAA/MPAA to me. And we all know how they're "legislate away our critics instead of listen to them" plan is working out.
I won't say Kyoto was the best treaty (imposing the exact same pollution restrictions for each country would be better IMHO), but forcing companies to find less polluting and usually cheaper ways to do business is never a bad thing.
bill clinton, check out michael moore's book stupid white men. read the chapter entitled ``democratic party.. doa'' or something like that. the democrats are no more innocent than the republicans. they get their funding from the same people-the citizens who think there is a difference are just lying to themselves.
-- john
If anything, Kyoto will probably result in MORE and SMARTER appliances, with MORE embedded logic to control the systems efficiently, and what better technology to do that with than Linux?
One of the things that scares me to death about our (USA) refusal to pass Kyoto is the fact that the EU will now be driven to develop their energy technologies at a far faster rate than the USA. If they succeed (and there is no evidence they won't) then they could potentially become the place to be in the next century if you are a techie.
Yeah, how dare those pesky employees ruin their bodies working a company and then want to get a decent pension out of it? Don't they understand that it reduces the shareholders profits? Sounds very communistic to me, damn unions putting people ahead of profit, down right unamerican I say!.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Jeez, don't take it personally. I only stated what I knew of the situation, I never agreed on what was happening. Chill dude.
When you have a socialist economy, there's no real reason to have to have competitive products to sell. The government just continues to subsidize your industry, continues to give all the workers six-week paid vacations every year, and eventually (witness Scandinavia) either go broke or wake up and start behaving like adults.
Of course, it also helps to have the big, bad USA defend your sorry worthless asses for forty or fifty years against the Soviet Union. I guess that contributes to extra helping of self-satisfied smugness that all of our European friends have.
China got nailed for flooding the U.S. market with brake drums and rotors not too long ago. I know, that's not the same as the raw material, but they have been known to use tactics like this. If the Chinese are willing to sell a product for less than it cost THEM to produce, how is an American company supposed to compete. Oh wait, we could get serious about the war on drugs, bust some more potheads, and use prison labor... build some foundries next door to our federal pens! Of course, the Chinese would never do something like that...
Hehe, sorry for jumping on ya, just that it's fascinating to see the US perspective of things.
I'd rather say the steel industry is paying the price for the cheap labour they've had over the years. I imagine it is(and was) a hard job which took its toll on employees bodies. The money the business then saved by hard working conditions they have to pay now in the form of pensions, seems fair to me.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Germany reduced its emitions by 19% from 1990 level. 1990 was also the year communisim fell, East and West germany united. East Germany was a centraly planed comunist state, communist goverments had the worst pollution records on the planet.
East germany was full of ineffitient, extremly polluting, money loosing factories.
These factories were going to be shut down on East Germany entering the market economy anyway, but Germany got credit for reducing Greanhous gasses. This facter alone makes Kyotos effect on Germany practicaly none.
This brings us to how unfair Kyoto is to US, as opposed to Europe. Kyoto is binding only to the developed contries and affect mostly manifacturing economies and populations that are growing.
Europe has a falling birth rate and a declining population.
Of the Worlds manifacturing economies, South East Asia is not developed yet, Germany gets to count Communist factory closures, Japan is lossing population as well as manifacturing overseas anyway.
Aulstralia gets to count land use in the carbon equation as the continent is a net carbon sink, the US also absorves more C02 then it releases due to forest expansion (and having more forest now then when Colubus reached North America), this is of course ignored in counting US CO2 emmisions. US companies would have to buy CO2 polution credits from foriegn goverments, subsidizing them, Kyoto is a wealfare scheam, a global tax on mostly US.
In constructing this treaty it was not seariosly expected that the US would ratify it. The US senate voted 95-0 in a resolution that they would never ratify the treaty as is, the treaty would need 65 votes to be ratified.
In fact the best effect that Kyoto would accomplish (as described by its supporters) is that the global warming would be DELAYED by 6 years.
Kyoto is never going to be implimented.
kamil
I thought you had more sense but obviously you have still learnt nothing
roll on the next warning, maybe the last one wasn't enough
fuck the taliban too.
You definitely should.
Here in Finland we had the same discussion a few years ago and the deposit-recycling system was established for aluminium cans.
It turned out that the existing glass bottle deposit-recycling could very easily and inexpensively be extended to include the aluminium cans as well and with the recycling the price of the aluminium cans dropped, too.
These days I mostly buy my beer in aluminium cans. It's so much easier to carry a hundred beer cans - rather than glass bottles - to the nearby supermarket for recycling and refunding. ;-)
The science behind climactic change is beyond any serious dispute.
please computer scientists, stop presenting your pathetic, made on-the-spot theories to try to support your otherwise unsupported claim that Kyoto is not supported by science.
In the USA it takes 15 men to make process the steel 1 man makes in Japan for example.
We have not upgraded our technology.
Do YOU want to pay 15 uneducated men $50 an hour to make your steel? Or do you want to import it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
Folks,
No matter what happens over the next 20+ years we will require industry to produce and transport the consumer goods we can no longer live without.
Subsequently, we will need factories and low labor cost countries to produce our 'necessities'.
Germany cut emissions? Guess what? It moved to China/Malaysia/Eastern European States, etc.
Analogous to the so called 'drug problem' in South America. We require drugs, they are farmed in S. America.
Then we spend tens of millions of dollars going after farmers who supply demand to. Then it shifts to another region.
Guess what? We still use the drugs: squeezing the balloon.
?sp
Visit Rawanda.
Not to mention the fact that they actually make a genuine effort to implement cleaner public transport infrastructure. If Bush really wants to reduce US reliance on Middle Eastern oil why not go the extra mile and start taking some initiatives to reduce reliance on oil all together. Notice I said take initiatives, not abandon it all together tomorrow morning. Oh right, I forgot his administration cares about issues like that.. there's an abundance of evidence in his National Energy Policy to support that.
Furthermore, its citizens already drive in tiny cars (due to extortionate fuel taxes and other laws) and already suffer a much higher traffic death rate per mile.
So how about driving midsized cars rather than the tanks you're accustomed to? They also have more options when it comes to choosing fuel efficient cars (hybrids) because there is demand in the region, as compared to North America where the majority seem content consuming more and more resources.
Here's the text of the first article google pulled up about China's actual progress: DOMESTIC: World Bank Funded Research Contradicts China's Pollution Claims SUMMARY: (8/15) - New evidence funded by the World Bank contradicts China's claims that it is significantly lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Nobuhiro Horii, of Japan's Institute of Developing Economies, said coal mines in Hunan province that the Beijing government ordered closed were in fact kept open. Horii maintained talks he had with people in other provinces indicated the problem was nation-wide. Horii also said improving energy efficiency takes about a decade, and China's claims to be increasing energy efficiency in carbon dioxide production in much faster time are not credible. "Yes, China is increasing energy efficiency, but they are doing it slowly, like everyone else," he said. In April, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California reported that since 1996, China's energy output had fallen 17 percent and its carbon dioxide emissions had fallen 14 percent even as China's economy grew by 36 percent. That same month the European Union office in Beijing found that over five years, China had increased energy efficiency by 50 percent and diminished coal use by 30 percent. However, a report put out by the U.S. embassy in Beijing this month claims China's greenhouse gas emissions have hardly dropped any, if at all. And at a recent conference in Beijing, a Chinese scientist maintained that China will modify its coal consumption total for 1999, taking away half the reductions it previously claimed. Other research indicates China has underreported consumption of oil. Vehicle traffic in Chinese cities has approximately doubled every five years, yet China reported oil consumption increasing just 11.4 percent between 1996 and 1999. Zhou Dadi, director of the Energy Research Institute of the Chinese government's State Development Planning Commission, said while doubts about China's energy statistics are understandable, "we are clearly decreasing our coal consumption." (from uscpf.org)
The end goal of enviroweenies is to defeat what they believe to be a great evil -- capitalism. While capitalism has a visible cost -- profit -- that does not exist under socialism, socialism has an invisible cost -- inefficiency -- that gets weeded out by losses and bankruptcy under capitalism. The fact that most goods are available more cheaply in a capitalist economy implies that profit is less costly than inefficiency. Put differently, profit is a price paid for efficiency.
This post makes me swell with pride at being an American. I have always believed on an individual level that if I found my opinions were in harmony with the vast majority of other people, that perhaps I should re-examine them. It is heartening to know that my entire culture has the same moral courage to go against "the crowd."
It gives me great pride to think that while the rest of the world may be willing to sacrifice everything for "peace and harmony", we Americans still know that Freedom and Liberty are worth going to war over and that evil must be resisted even when that makes you unpopular with everyone else. I do feel bad, however, for those poor souls in the rest of the world that continue to throw away control of their lives and their communities to national and transnational governments in exchange for the promise of "peace and harmony", safety and popularity. I hope they at least enjoy the road to serfdom, because I don't think they are going to like the destination.
I'll take uncertainty and war. I'll take an increased chance of being murdered by a gun if it means that future generations of Americans will get to maintain the ability to resist tyranny. I'll take being unpopular with the global community if it means that we do not sell out our businessmen and laborers to a bunch of champaign socialist and watermelons armed with dogmatic junk science and scare mongering. I'll take the risk of contamination or disease in order to have a real deterrence to our enemies using weapons of mass destruction instead of burying my head in the sand and hoping that a signature on a piece of paper will be sufficient to restrain our enemies. You can have your peace and harmony; I'll live in the world of both risks and reality.
You cannot and should not try using natural sciences to support fundamentally sociopolitical standpoints - ever!
A few examples: eugenics (Darwin) and moral relativism (Einstein).
Global Warming is a scam by university geek professors desperate for self-promotion and by ecoterrorists wanting to revert the world back to the Stone Age.
The only true scientific evidence concludes that we don't know if or why temps may be rising, or if they affect sea levels. Most likely, we are at the end of an Ice Age, which naturally means temps are on the rise.
Your calculations aren't very deep.
Let's add a few factors:
1. CO2 production. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. CO2 is not pollution. It has yet to be scientifically determined what effect an increase in CO2 will have on our environment. It is very easy to say "greenhouse! greenhouse!" But the fact is NO ONE KNOWS! Combined with the devestation of vegetation PLANET WIDE... all we can say is that it will probably have an effect. Good or bad... who knows?
2. Non-emission pollution. I would rather drink the water from a U.S. river than from a third world country. Why is that? Because "pound for pound" the United States is one of the cleanest in the world. By focusing on emissions only, you really don't see the big picture.
3. U.S. environmental laws. I have met the man that was primarily responsible for the 40 CFR... and worked with him for several years. He (and a few other environmental engineers) sat around for a few months and worked out what they thought to be "acceptable regulations" within the guidelines presented to them by the Fed. These laws were pretty much passed carte blanche without any modification from the government... because after all, these engineers are experts. Then the engineers turned around and made lots of money hiring themselves out as consultants to companies. They made $300/hr instructing corporations how to circumvent these laws.
4. Lost jobs. If you have ever worked in industry, you'd realize that the first cost cut is with lost jobs. "Robots don't get benefits." Any increase in costs will result in the loss of unskilled jobs. These new jobs that you speak of will be very few and far between... not to mention drawn from the skilled labor pool.
5. Your "formulae." Is sparse at best. It's a bunch of unconnected reasoning. By themselves each point seems pretty clear... but let's look at what happens when you combine them all together:
Third world countries don't produce emissions higher than the United States, they make up for it by poisoning their only water supplies, cutting down vast stretches of rain forest and by having the highest unemployment (=poverty) rate in the world.
We are free to make our laws anyway we like, but there are only a handful people in the country that have experience in both environmental and industry... and when called on as "experts" there will be no one to look over their shoulders.
As costs increase, the use of energy will decrease as plants close and corporation presidents retire a few years earlier than the typical baby boomer. Without demand for energy at power plant dictated prices, power plants will also close down. As people lose their expensive union jobs, there will be no money for expensive solar and H2 cells.
And the funny thing is, if you remove the CO2 from the emissions, where exactly does it go?
Of course one of the reasons for high rate of anti-semitism in Europe is because Europeans tend to get both sides of the story, i.e. from BOTH Palestineans AND Israelis.
It never seizes to amaze me the lack of professionalism in US media. It's just one step away from turning into the old joke, "When racism was at its peak in the southern states in the US, a white man was driving his car when he accidentally rammed his car into two black men standing by the road, one of the victims went through the windshield while the other was thrown 30 feet away. The two black men were immediatelly charged with vandalism as well as fleeing the scene of an accident and breaking and entering."
Oh, and there IS a reason I'm posting as AC.
I saw this in a science magazine way back and just remebered it while crusising through this hate filled, biased thread.
"Sprinkling iron on the ocean may recreate the climate changes seen in Ocean scientists believe they have recreated one of the key processes that triggers the beginning and end of ice ages."
I'll let you read the rest of the article, but it also theorizes on how to prevent or stave off global warming effects. Have fun.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I was in Alaska recently and attended a seminar on global warming and has speakers on either side of the issue. One of the more convincing speakers told us that he could only get a govt. grant if his research was to prove the existence of global warming. So he submitted his grant proposal with the purpose of proving that there was global warming when his real purpose was to do a subjective study. Anyway his results were the same as every study I have seen on global warming, they were inconclusive. Read any study, they are all inconclusive.
I found it interesting that you had to start out with a premise that there was global warming in order to secure funding.
Hey!! I had an experience with global warming just the other day. I had eaten some tostitos with some tostitos resturant style salsa and, it didn't take but a day to have some global warming comin out my butt. Why even those skeptics that don't believe in black holes I swear I saw one in my toilet right after that and it sucked down all that global warming I just had.
One of the major safty factors in having a larger car is having a larger car than the car you collide with. By this logic, you can't make a car large enough. By the same logic, everyone in America should carry a handgun and violent crime would be completely eliminated. I think the kind of safty you are talking about is giving more than you get.
Have you guys ever noticed that europe is unusally warm considering how high it is from the equator? The reason for the warmness is becasue of the nordic sea pump. Global warming produces to much chaos in the earth's atmosphere and will eventually destroy this mechanism of bringing in warm air to england and other european countries.
This is one reason why so many europeans are for it. No warm air -> no ability to grow food -> mass starvation or immigration out of europe(500-700 million people).
The science behind climactic change is beyond any serious dispute.
Sure it is... and the indisputable proof of that is the way that you will dismiss any evidence of serious dispute (like, say, this) as frivolous. Makes a nice pretty circle... and it's all kosher since you are a self-proclaimed scientific authority, too, right?
When Germans let me drive the speed recommended by their politicians on their roads, maybe I will let them lecture me as an American about energy conservation.
"The science behind climactic change is beyond any serious dispute."
Nothing in science is beyond serious dispute; as that is the nature of science. Good science, anyway. Even someting as simple, elegant, and obviously correct as Sir Newton's theory of gravity was improved upon, and will likely be further refined in the future. I certainly think the science behind climate change is in its infancy, and if our present models of it are correct enough to make predictions centuries into the future then it is so only by some bizzare coincidence. We do not have nearly the amount of data we need to have refined our models that well through deliberate efforts.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I am not a computer scientist. I worked for 5 years as an environmental enginneer doing research on air pollution from stationary sources. I now work for the "evil" oil industry (the one that builds the giant Gaia destroying, oil spraying robots that Capt. Planet fights in the cartoons... you may be surprised to discover that besides fighting the forces of Mother Nature, we also have a small side business providing the fuel that powers almost all the transporation in the modern world).
WTF does this article have to do with science or geeks or ANYTHING? First of all, you're hard pressed to find more scientists that believe in global warming than believe it's a hoax. So it definitely doesn't fit in the "science" angle. And since it has nothing to do with privacy, security or anything else slightly geek/tech related, I just don't get wtf it's up here wasting my screen-space.
Yeah, you are soooo right.
Look at all those old scientific theories coming back - the heliocentric theory is totally discredited, the Milky Way is the only galaxy in the universe, and the electronic signals generating this message propogate through the ether - or was that pholgiston, I dunno, these old theories come back so often.
And I am sure you follow Bishop Ussher's view of cosmology, as that never went out of fashion with the sort of right wing morons you must hang around with.
A few million dollars and stock options to an outgoing executive are pennies compared to the obligations held to the pensioners. Pension plans are notoriously difficult to handle efficiently. I used to work at an oil company, and pension management was bigger than the payroll department. I think we had something like 5000 employees, and almost 20,000 pensioners. That's a huge obligation.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
It's funny to see that everybody here is so concerned about this issue but a recent slashdot poll had the car as the top form of transportation chosen by /.ers.
If you want to do something you need to change yourself and the sytem will bend to accomodate your need.
To start with stop buying V8s till there will be more enviromental friendly and powerfull vehicles on the market. On the other hand stop purchasing products that involve high polution in their creation.
While science is far from proving that the current warming is caused by mankind, let us assume that in fact the hypothesis is correct. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, especially compared to the greenhouse gas called water vapor, but the actions of man have indeed caused CO2 to increase by over 30% in the last 150 years. So... assuming this increase will cause further warming, what should we do about it?
Kyoto attempts to simply reduce the warming. Environmental advocates also advocate a simple (if terribly expensive) strategy of stopping the warming and maintaining the status quo.
However, actually stopping the increase in CO2 is impossible without a massive reduction in population (i.e. a massive human catastrophe or global war). It won't happen for a number of reasons, the most important of which is the resistance of people, especally in developing countries, to the measures necessary to do so.
A more rational approach follows the following principles and facts:
The most rational approach is to accept that global warming is inevitable (if we believe any predictions at all from the imperfect science). We should:
The only good weather is bad weather.
You don't get out much ... do you ?
I'm currently planning my 3rd trip abroad this year, why?
I know many , many people who still hate Germany and frankly are afraid of its famous warmongering.
Sure, I don't doubt that. If you had employed your reading skills, you just might have noticed that I was talking about countries, not individuals.
Anyways, this is getting off-topic and I'm tired of talking to ACs. I put my name on my opinion, do likewise if you want a reply.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I read Slashdot for tech-related stuff, not political posturing. This stuff is freely available in the mainline media and has no place here.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
How is this "News for Nerds"?
Or rather, why is this really "Hi, I'm Michael. I like making political statements any chance I get"
Fscking pathetic.
I come here to read about tech-related stuff, not to see a soapbox for political trolling and argument. This piece of news is available in the mainline media and has no place at Slashdot.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
Because Michael is a leftist, fuckwad and wants to start a flame war. He wants the eurotrash and other leftist tards to post "Oh, look at Bad America for not signing the treaty".
Michael should be fired on the spot for posting this story.
I've been wondering about this for a while now, so I think I'll post here.. maybe someone can help me out.
I live in a sea-side town. One of the popular arguements for environment efficiency around here is that an increase in global tempratures will result in the melting of polar ice caps. The melting will cause an increase in the water level such that towns like mine will become submerged.
My problem is this: Water in a frozen state (especially that with salt content) is of greater volume than in a liquid state. While some of the volume can be discounted as the ice floats, the ice within the water will melt and reduce the total volume of the water in total.
Am I crazy or would that mean the global water level would be lowered?
Peter
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/new
Shame on you USA.
The sun only delivers 2400 watts / m^2 maximum -- do some calculations, you'd need a lot of cells to supply the average household, let alone business!
Hmm, let's see. 1000 W/m^2 * 15% efficiency / 1000 W per average household = 7 m^2 per household. Gee, my roof is only 160 square meters. I don't know where I'll ever find 7 square meters for solar panels.
Also, you don't recall correctly about the composition of solar cells. The most efficient lab cells a little while ago used gallium arsenide, and they may have moved on to something more obscure since then. But the vast majority of commercial solar cells use silicon, which doesn't present much of a disposal problem. Solvents used in manufacturing are also reused within the factory, so solar cell manufacture is not especially dirty.
Wind power: the best solution until it shows up in your backyard.
Wind power goes mostly on open land where there is lots of wind. The farmers and ranchers who own this land love it, because they keep on farming and ranching below the turbines, and they get extra income from their land. There is no reason to put turbines in cities (except maybe this).
Global Freezing is not an old theory. It only seems like it because you're so young. I'm not even middle aged yet and I clearly remember it.
The pseudo-"science" of global-warming/cooling/whatever is totally new and the people/"scientists" talking about this stuff are clueless.
Lemme know when they figure it out and then they can start making wildly inaccurate predictions that varying by 180 degrees over only 20 years.
Bush couldn't ratify Kyoto even if he wanted to, since the Senate voted against it 95-0 [globalwarming.org] in 1997 (admittedly it was non-binding, but it needed 67 votes to pass). Clinton signed the treaty, but during his term, he did nothing to try to implement it.
Well. If you feel unhappy about it, you know what you have to do, don't you? I don't think giving authority to 3rd party in anything has much popular support Stateside right now. But if you don't vote, you didn't do anything. In any case, Kyoto requires nuclear power if you're being a realist. We're building a shiny new one right here.. You'd need to build 40 in US to have same effect per capita. You think that's going to happen?
Note I didn't say it wouldn't be a good idea to do so. Just that I don't think it'll happen, at least not until the deserts in US soil start creeping..
Hey, your computer really isn't using much power compared to other things in your house. Laser printers that never turn off enough are bad. Monitors are really nasty bad. Your Air Conditioner is really bad. Your fridge is too. My dehumidifier scares me even though it *is* energy star compliant. My furnace is only 80afue. 90afue+ units are out these days. My AC unit might be 'high efficiency' but I have no idea what they mean by that scrawling on the side of it.
The idea is to further programs like energystar and promote the use of less energy with the same technology. You dont have to degrade your lifestyle, you just need to start *buying smarter in the future*.
I'm pretty new to the whole house thing, so I've been trying to do so as much as we can. It costs more, but in about 3-8 years (or less) some of these units can save on monthly fees and be paying you back for buying them, assuming they are of good quality.
I'm also looking forward to home fuel cell units that output hot water as a byproudct and increase efficiency over many other types of energy production. Yeah, they use nat gas, but if we are lucky nat gas will be a good idea for about another century or two along with hydrogen until fusion or something else is reality.
-- dieman - Scott Dier
Which part of But the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010 did you miss ?
No... I made this mistake at first.
Remember Archimedes. 1g of ice displaces 1g of water, which is slightly smaller than the icecube, so the icecube floats in your glass (about 1/3 of the volume is above the water, I seem to remember). When the ice melts it becomes 1g of water, which displaces...1g of water. No change at all. Fill a glass, add an icecube and top the glass up until it spills. Leave on a windowsill and watch.
However, much ice is not resting on lakes. Antarctica is mostly on rock, so if that melts and runs into the oceans, the water level does rise. Similarly for glaciers, Greenland etc. Another significant effect is straightforward thermal expansion. Heat up water and it expands, like any material (note this is entirely separate from the expansion on becoming steam). I seem to remember that this expansion could be a significant effect (even a 0.05% expansion is quite a large volume of water).
Moving to the slightly more speculative ideas I've heard:
One factor people are investigating is methane clathrates - organic matter that was covered with permafrost, and decomposed anaerobically to give methane trapped in an ice matrix. It is thought that the carbon in clathrates is more than ALL the other fossil fuels put together (51.9% of 21495 Gigatonnes). Methane is much more effective at Greenhousing than CO2. It may pose a runaway risk - a little man-made global warming melts some clathrates, which warms everything a bit more... and the process accelerates away. This is the reason some scientists believe even small reductions in emissions may reduce the probability of a runaway warming.
Cheers.
The United States of America is the world's last hope. Read it and weap, CO2 breathers.
Nowhere here will you find demands for female clitorectomy, nor male circumcision, nor destruction of those who believe not in Allah, the Green Future, nor Socialism. Beyond our borders, well, there be dragons.
As a result we are hated by Usama, the Foes of Pym, The Friends of Pym, The Friends of the Spotted Owl, et al.
Ho hum. Thus the fate of the last defenders of reason.
Fortunately, we're armed. And we have the WTC as guidance.
Adopt ye'r treaties, ye mighty Europeans (you know, ye that surrendered at the first shot of WWIII). We'll be sipping umbrella drinks when the sands cover all but ye'r highest monuments to ye'r own greatness (Oui, j'include la Defense, you sack of decadent scum).
Ozymandias
--
668: Neighbour of the Beast
I remember it too moron.
You have no idea how old I am but still give off about it. Quite possibly I am older than you - I am certainly older than most round here. And I definately have a higher mental age.
For everyone who has never been to a country like India, but just compares per capita pollution, let me tell you how wrong you are. The pollution in India will make your headspin, literally. I was caught in a bigger than usual traffic jam once, Literally _Gasping_ for air, wanting to leave the car right there and run for some breathable atmosphere, a reaction not unlike being held underwater. For the rest of the day I had numerous symptoms of CO poisoning, among other unpleasant things.
Vehicles there have no (enforced) emmissions controls, some barely have exhaust systems at all, on top of which almost everything is diesel, which means black smoke out the exhaust of everything. Vehicles, and the landscape around them in Calcutta literally have a black tinge to them, which is so consistant you don't even notice until you look up close and you can scrape it off with your fingernails.
Not that it should be an excuse for the US not to do everything it can.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
America is not only one of the largest contributers to pollution but the largest economy and as such, the largest producer of goods and services. I can assure you that energy is needed to produce these goods and services. Allocating polluting "credits" based on a per capita basis is crazy. Look at the depressed economies of Europe. Look at the unemployment rate. Using the dollar amounts of goods and services is still not a good proxy for the amount or importance of the goods produced so please don't oversimplify this issue. In order to come up with a fair solution, it is important to come up with a fair quota that does not unfairly stifle buisiness.
Actually, I think a lot of people would buy environmentally friendly cars if they could. take me for example. Flame this if you want, but it's probably pretty close to home for most people.
I want a new car, and a "green" car would be nice, but I'm far from the richest guy in the world. In one corner I have the 2002 Hyundai Elantra offering a 10 year warrenty, lots of standard options and road side assistance for 5 years totalling up to $11,900 after tax, title and registration. In the other corner is the Honda Insight Hybrid. After a quick price check there's no way I'm getting that sucker out the door for under $19,000 w/o options last I looked. I can have all the good intentions in the world, but the simple facts are that "green" isn't affordable yet. Hell, even that Segway scooter is $8,000. A car that will get me everywhere or a little scooter of limited mobility... Hmmm... Technology in that sector is going to have to be a lot cheaper before the real world goes green.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Can't political people be nerds? Some nerds are extremely political. And some policos are somewhat nerdy.
In any case, the environment matters. And this is an article about something that matters. Since Slashdot lays claim to reporting on "Stuff that Matters," this article seems wholly appropriate.
Get out of your V8-powered Dodge GasGuzzler MarkIV and realize that the dirtier our air gets, the shorter your lifespan is. Yes, you too can take a self-serving (i.e. rational) interest in the environment...
the US gets kicked in the nuts with perl harbor and decides to get involved. it gets kicked in the nuts with 9/11 and decides to get involved again..
how many times is the US gonna have to get kicked in the nuts before it realises that the world is small and getting smaller all the time. we all live on the same planet in what is fast becoming a global community and one country cannot ignore issues just because addressing them isn't convenient.
focusing on the short term with complete disregard for the future can be disasterous. 9/11 is a prime example (cia training and funding of nuts anybody?). careless past actions will always come back to bite you in the ass.
the higher good isn't who can make the most money or who has the most weapons. those things are meaningless in the long term. we must protect our species
The U.S. should refuse to join Kyoto until China is seriously brought into the treaty. China's economy is growing so fast that they'll easily pass the U.S.'s pollution output in the not-so-distant future.
WWIII - its starting all right ... only you'll fire neither the first nor the last nuke ... hope yer doing what you can rather that missing the point etc: That 'ole terrorism thing's been and gone, background music, now.
Get used to it and pay attention to the new nuclear reality.
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
> > It leaves a highly toxic, radioactive and
> > extremely dangerous heritage to our children
>
> But a relatively small amount compared to
> greenhouse gas emissions. Actually, an extremely
> small amount compared to the amount of coal we
> strip out of the ground
>
Of course a lump of coal laying in your front yard ain't the same as a lump of plutonium. Also a fact most people forget is, that the problem is not just at the end of nuclear power (waste) but already at the beginning. In order to strip-mine uranium thousands and thousands of tons of mild to medium radioactive soil has to be moved (somewhere). A lovely example of the proverbial shot-in-the-foot comes to us from China, whose genius planners thought, the occupied tibetan plateau would serve as a great dump site for that radioactive material far away from the chinese population (who cares about the Tibetans). Except that the wind wound up blowing the mountains right into the nearby streams, which happened to flow...you guessed it...right back into China. If there's ever been an "Ooops" situation, this one certainly qualifies.
So nuclear power has many, many problems associated with it...stretching from the enormous impact on the environment (mining the uranium), to safety issues (why do they show roadblocks in front of nuclear plants on TV when the main concern is supposed to be airplanes?), to the generated waste, that *nobody* wants! It ain't the future and it's time to use our intelligence as a species and come up with something better.
Please click here.
Hmmm... China and India's combined CO2 emissions total about 70% of the United States levels as of 1995. Looky here [geocities.com].
Which by the numbers in the article would mean they accounted for 25% the amount of the industrial nations. (36% [from the story] * 0.70)
Considering the US only accounted for about 11% more of the industrial nation aggregate than that and it is the "biggest polluter in the world" maybe other countries ought to clean up after themselves before getting high and mighty? >64% of the stuff isn't made by the US.
That also goes to show what skewed nonsense these numbers are. Unless developing nations C02 is of some different nature than US created C02, the aggregate numbers should include it. By not doing so, you ignore that there are several other countries combined making as much pollution as the horrible US and greatly inflating the percent created by the US. In this case, the US's 23%, by only including 80% of the total C02 output, inflates the US percentage by nearly 25% from 18%. (23% * 0.80 = ~18%)
Also look at the huge difference in the US and other countries with ton/km. Shouldn't this sort of thing be sorted by amount of space a country takes up? The world would have ended if the US polluted half as much as Japan or Germany per ton/km.
With skewed numbers and "the sky is falling" apocalyptic rational, I'm left wondering if there isn't something else at work here.
--
I'll forgive linking to Geocities, I think I had a site there in 1995 =)
Oh, but it is the way of the geek. To be so concerned about the world we live in, yet not really care that our dual athlons that run 24/7 might be contributing to what we care about. I have to laugh sometimes.
It looks like this:
- The Kyoto treaty caps CO2 emissions. CO2 is believed to cause global warming. Global warming is undesirbable. It would disrupt human and natural habitat, for example by melting arctic ice, raising sea levels and flooding coastal lowlands, renedering most major port cities in the world uninhabitable. So, to put it simply: Either limit CO2 emisions or wreak devastation upon the earth.
- The most popular and convenient source of energy is the combustion of hydrocarbons. CO2 emisions are an unavoidabal consequence of hydrocarbon combustion. Energy is a good. Reducing CO2 consumption requires sacrifice; giving up desired activity which consumes energy. (Either that, or redirecting resources from a more-desired activity to the development and manufacture of efficient forms of consumption. Note this also has a cost, and requires a sacrifice.).
-Europe is reducing energy consumption in an effort to prevent global warming. Europeans are giving up something that they want in a effort to save the planet. This is responsible. The U.S. refuses to reduce energy consumption. We are incapable of limiting our consumption. Because global warming harms the entire planet, our energy gluttony will harm not just ourselves, but the entire world. The U.S. irresponsibly harming others.
What's wrong with this picture ?
- Extreme global temperature change is natural and unavoidable. Even if we reduced CO2 emissions to pre-industrial levels, it is certain that at some point in the future global temperature will rise and the oceans will flood the coasts. How do we know this ? It has happened many times in the past. The history of global temperature change is inferred from oxygen isotope ratios in arctic ice cores. The results are not under scientific dispute. If you have heard of ice ages, then it should come as no surprise that the temperature of the earth fluctuates naturally and dramatically. We are a bit below the long-term mean temperature now. Independent of CO2 emmissions, odds are it's going to get hotter next, though it could also get colder. The great challenge is not to restrain our influence on the climate, but to exercise it so to artifically stabilize the climate.
- The relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature is not known. The popular press is full of reports of models which show a link. The scientifically illiterate masses mistake a published model for evidence. It is not. None of the models have been validated using empirical evidence. That can't be done, until we know the future of the global climate. Until then, models are only unverifiable speculation.
- The relationship between global temperature and ocean levels is not known. The belief that rising global temperatures melt arctic ice is a solid one. But warmer temperatures raise levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, increasing actic snowfall. Melting and snowfall counterbalance each other, but predicting which effect dominates relies on accurate and validated models of climate, which we don't have.
-Plants, and especially trees, sequester Carbon; they suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. The correct measure of a nation's contribution to global CO2 levels is not the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activity. Rather, it is the difference between the total amount of CO2 released in the nation (from human activity, farting cows, ants etc.) and the amount removed by plants. The United States maintains vast forests for recreation, preservation, and lumber. Measures of net US release of CO2 place it at zero. Note that that zero is heavily disputed, but those who dispute the zero figure nontheless place the figure close to zero. All estimates of net EU CO2 release reveal Europeans to be great sinners in this regard, that is, if you believe, as do they, that CO2 is sinful.
- The US proposed during negotiations that limits be placed on **net** CO2 emissions. What this means is that any country which wanted to increase energy consumption and consequently increase CO2 emissions could do so, so long as they planted more trees somewhere to mop up the extra CO2. This allows for economic growth(good) and concomitant increases in CO2 production while mandating a compensatory increase in forests (good if you like trees) without raising global CO2 levels (for those who believe in that faith). Europe absolutely refused to use net CO2 release as a measure of compliance. This stance is inconsistant with their stated goal, which is to reduce global CO2 levels. Why ? To foster the image of their own ethical superiority while undermining competitive foreign economies. First they did not want a treaty to which the US would agree because if the US were to sign such a treaty, Europeans would have to abandon their attitude of moral superiority. Second, the only treaty allowable by the europeans was one which damaged the US economy. A treaty which reduced net CO2 emmissions from the US, without damaging the US economy, was not acceptable to them.
-Europe is not in compliance with Kyoto and is likely to never be. Some nations (France) already far exceed allowable CO2 emissions, to a degree that they could not cut back without risking major economic collapse (we're talking soup lines). Kyoto is not meant to be enforced, but to be worn as a badge of moral superiority.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Modern civilization causes global warming? More correctly, episodic global warming has allowed modern civilization to develop over the last 12,000-20,000 years. Is global warming the cause of sea level changes? Temperature changes are a cause of sea level changes. Changes to polar region absorbance, changes to atmospheric reflectance such as due to volcanism, the earth's tilt, and convective changes in the oceans and the atmosphere can also cause melting/ ice accumulation. Carbon dioxide is the primary cause of global warming? As trivial as it sounds, the sun is the primary cause of global warming. Variations in the solar flux at the earth over centuries, millennia and even geological eras are likely large causes of what we discern as global cooling and global warming. The simplest and longest historical records to support a frequent type of solar variation are the records of sun spot cycles since Gallileo (~1610). Look up the "Maunder Minimum" associated with the "Little Ice Age". The 11 year sunspot cycle just finished is the second worst on record for the last 400 years. Sunspot cycles are associated with magnetic reversals(!) of the sun every 11 years. Other potentially valid astrophysical/geological theories have much longer period phenomena. Is anthropogenic carbon dioxide is likely to cause global warming? The earth has been in a several million year cold regime with abnormally low carbon dioxide levels and abnormally low temperatures. Geological carbon dioxide levels associated with then "normal" earth temperature were approximately 1000-2000 ppm over the last several hundred million years. More recently, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280 ppm, current levels are about 360 ppm. The ocean remains in an undersaturated non-equilibrium state that can absorb substantially all the CO2 produced over the decades and centuries. (ppm is part per million) Aren't only USians and the ogres of industry resisting enlightened global mgmt of CO2? Throughout history, myths have been created for the little people (~99% of us are little people politically or intellectually) to derive power and value for elite groups as well as serving as some kind of socialization medium - how do you view the ancient Greek gods? The current carbon dioxide debate seems to naturally favor (a) aspiring statists and elitists of all stripes, (b) entrenched, non competitive societies that would prefer to restrict others' energy usage and economic advancement, (c ) energy consumers from energy deficient and bankrupt countries that prefer bargaining "if you lower the price enough, perhaps I'll take your dirty, stinkingly sinful oil/gas/coal off your hands" rather than on their knees begging for it, (d) academic recipients of governmental, environmental, industrial grants. Most little people are too ignorant to know the true situation either strategically or scientifically. I am chagrined that our public high schools waste precious time in biology, chemistry and other classes on this issue. Even supposing GW (either one) to be correct, I object to such conclusory, non-fundamental material in basic science classes. The real environmental complaints should be localized demands for consistent treatment of pollution abatements. We consumers are often required to utilitize low sulfur, low particulate fuels (natural gas 4 ppm S, gasoline less than 15 ppm sulfur soon) when industrially exempt or grandfathered facilities get to use coal ("low sulfur" coal is about 0.3% - 0.7 % S and burns about twice as much weight per unit of heat as gas; or dirty residual oil with 1+% sulfur, 1%=10,000 ppm) and spew solids. The real energy issue is that we have enough energy to tide us over until (if?) advanced power systems can be brought to bear later this century or the next. See www.dieoff.org for a pessimistic, statist version of this point. (Statists believe in the State) For some independent background (from energy interests or "environmentalists") see http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/ClimateWatch / and some interesting paleoclimatology, http://www.salt.org.il/frame_econ.html. On the Maunder Minimum,
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sunspots.htm Then do your own research!
Not real sure why you even took the time to post this incoherent crap.
China doesn't have anyway near as much to do with world wide pollution as the US has, being only roughly 1/40 of the world population the US is responsible for 1/4 of the greenhouse gasses. I'm really pissed off a post like this gets modded up. If there is any country on this planet that shouldn't be whining about the possible economical problems saving the environment could have, it shouldn't be the richest country on this same planet.
Yes I'm from Europe, the Netherlands to be specific, and very proud of it whereas my country tries to help this planet survive for more than just the next few decades, even if this might cost a few dollars/euros.
signed by a very pissed european,
Jan
By withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol the US showed a lack of interest to decrease the polution of the entire world. What was the reason for this? according to a statement from a US official it was because it was a threat against the american way of life. Well, the rest of the world could accept the protocol so why does the US insist on keeping their polution levels?
The discussion about this has been about how one should meassure the polution but is it not enough to agree to decrease polution? Of course the US must protect their way of life. What does the life of the rest of the world matter compared to that??
Well Mr and Mrs Environmentalist, if other plans don't reduce enough, fast enough, then you must be in favor of mass genocide of all polluters! In fact, wipe out 99% of the world's population!
A brilliant and cunning argument! With such obvious credability too: if we agree to reduce or limit CO2 emmissions it will inevitably lead to GENOCIDE! Wow, you really cut to the heart of that issue.
In fact, I think we should expand upon this idea. I think we should make right turns on red lights illegal because if we don't we're sure to end up with a government sponsored program of MASS SLAUGHTER. Similarly, the Canadian Federal Ethics Councelor should report to the House of Commons, and if you disagree with me, you must be in favour of the MURDER of MILLIONS.
The argument about ratification/non-ratification of Kyoto is an argument between people who say it is environmentally neccesary and people who contend it will hurt the economy. Doomsday scenarios about crimes against humanity don't come into it on either side.
But even if they did (which they don't) you still argue against yourself. "Don't ratify Kyoto," you seem to argue "because if we did it might not be good enough, and then we'll have to do horrible things to finish the job." Well, what happens if we don't ratify Kyoto, according to that logic? We get one of two scenarios: a) there was a never a global warming threat in the first place and we don't have a problem, or b) there was a problem and we did nothing to fix it, and we're still stuck in you're ridiculous nightmare scenario. By your logic the signing of Kyoto adds a third option: c) there is a global warming problem, Kyoto fixes it, and we all go home happy. Even if there is a chance Kyoto would be inadiquate, we might as well give it a try. Better than nothing.
Finally, on the China point: as others have pointed out, China may or may not be on the road to signing on to Kyoto. Now let's just assume, for the moment, that China signing would be a good thing (which is basically what you seem to be saying). If we ratify Kyoto (and not just Canada, but other Western countries as well) then that's a step in the right direction. If we don't ratify Kyoto then we pretty much guarantee that we won't be able to get China to do it, because we'll have no moral suasion when it comes to encouraging them to sign on. China: "Why should we abide by the terms of Kyoto, you didn't." Canada: "oh, um... well we were kind of waiting on you for that" (stares fixedly at shoes). Ok, so Kyoto may not fix everything, but surely doing something is better than doing nothing!
- NG
Its funny how we now call Carbon Dioxide "Green House" emissions like its implied that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that CO2 does NOT cause global warming. Numerous studies have been released over the last 10 years contradicting the global warming theory and the news media/public just doesnt want to open their eyes.
Basicly China and India CAN'T reduce their CO2 exhaust.
But China and India have other VERY serious pollution problems that is not addressed by the Kyoto Protocols.
I have relatives who have visited China in the last few years and they tell me the smokestack and vehicle exhaust pollution problems in Chinese cities make Los Angeles at a Stage II smog alert seem like a minor problem in comparison. And China has never really developed effective means to combat water pollution, with effluents from their major cities going straight out into the rivers and oceans with what amounts to no sewage treatment.
Like I said in another message, I won't support the Kyoto Protocol because it does nothing to reduce Third World pollution problems.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Well, I live in Canada too, and I think the ridiculous costs of ratifying Kyoto estimated by the energy industry and Alberta are on at least as shaky ground as the estimated climactic effects of not ratifying that are often criticized. It's natural for Ralph Klein, the the Canadian Petroluem Producers Association & Chamber of Commerce, and George "Big-Oil" Bush to spread worst-case scenario estimates on the costs of Kyoto, but these scaremongering tactics just muddy an already difficult discussion. An economic meltdown certainly didn't happen when the state of California introduced stringent vehicle emissions standards and it's not in the cards with California's much greater planned controls, for example. Also, the jurisdictions that adopt such controls early will have a head start on building clean energy business and technologies that the rest of the world will inevitably have to adopt.
Two things nobody can deny: the climate is warming and further warming will have serious consequences. Further, the writing is on the wall that limits on carbon output is the way things are moving, whether we ratify Kyoto or not. We can either choose to join with the rest of the developed world and show some leadership, or not and point the finger to countries that cannot afford to adopt Kyoto as the reason we won't either. If Canada can't even take a (relatively) modest step now, how will we make the much larger necessary cuts in the future?
China has 4.6 times the population of the USA (1210 million people). India has 3.6 times the population of the USA (952 million people). Together thay have over 8 times the population of the USA.
They actually produce less than 1/8th of the USA's pollution per capita.
And both are extremely poor countries whose industry is mostly owned by foreign companies (mostly american).
The USA should save some money on bombs and aircraft carriers and spy satellites and spend some money modernising its industry. US industry needs to be competitive and play by global rules; not live off subsidies and tariffs and produce one quarter of the world's pollution. And the only way the american government is going to chage its policy is if the american people start to make some noise. Unfortunately, some (most) people in the USA don't know there's a planet outside their borders.
Funny thing is, the Earth fights back. The USA has more (and bigger) natural disasters (tornados, earthquakes, floods, etc.) than any other country in the world. Makes you think about the Gaia theory...
RMN
~~~
Who said that we need cooler climate or less "Greenhouse Gases"? Why uis this scam under heading "Science"? This is an offence to every honest scientist.
So we do not understand what kept earth temperature in balllance for cecenturies.
We do not know what caused hotter and climate and ice age before the automobile.
We have calculated that man producecd CO2 is a minor contribution.
We have not observed any measurable warming in past decades, but rather cooling.
The only data we have are incomplete coputer simulations, which do not include major factor such as
- consumption by see algae/plankton and its growth
- difference between natural biomass decay CO2 and maninducecd burning (its nearly 0).
- Need for increased CO2 to stimulate plant growth
- Would any working expand or shrink deserts by making them moist?\
- etc
There are hundreds of unresolved issues and we give an unsubstantiated media-induced worldwide public panic a heading of SCIENCE?
Ever remember the Ozone hole craze? This was supposed to be uneviatable end of the word and no measure should have been able to fix it in hundred s of years. So where is the hole? In so called "Science", I guess.
Stop feeding the frenzy,it will die out in less than 5 years on its own.
Petrus
You think the US came up with the idea of dodging the Kyoto agreement all by itself? I have to tell you that my land downunder has been busily employing sophistry to negotiate tiny reductions in its quota of emissions and now seems to be following the US into not doing anything of real significance! Of course being the US sidekick in the asia-pacific region does obligate us not to break ranks with our ally...too bad for the Pacific islands and the Barrier reef...see 'm in real-life while you can!
If you take an ice cube and put it in a glass of water it won't affect the level of water when it melts.
But, if we look at the Antartica, it has a _lot_ of ice on land, and when that ice melts it will raise the waterlevel. The same goes with Greenland.
I'd rather have dozens of windmills in my backyard than a fusion pile. They're called piles for a good reason.
Codeposition fluidized bed electrodes, though, I wouldn't mind.
"The number of people put out of work by lost jobs in existing industries will be compensated by the jobs created in new industries."
He has a point here. If I'm an unemployed steel worker, all I have to do is study hard and get my MSCE and now I'm a tech worker. To bad workers are not simply interchangable cogs in a machine, because life would be so much easier.
It's pretty weird to me that we have 700+ comments and no one has mentioned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This group of experts is about as close as you're going to get to a definitive source for answers on the likely sources, dimensions and costs of climate change. And what do they say? (Well read the reports for yourselves if you really want to know.) But in summary, a large collection of people who've dedicated their lives to understanding the climate via the physical sciences agree:
:-)
We're likely changing the climate, and such change may occur in a non-linear irreversible manner
The likely benefits to be gained from reducing the human causes of climate change are likely bigger than costs of those reductions.
Parroting the words of oil-company PR firms may make you feel better about being irresponsible. But most of the physical world doesn't really care what you believe.
Fluid dynamics and statistical mechanics and organic chemistry study systems that have a surprising resistance to TV commercials as well as those who do not
Think about it. All of those cud chewing, methane expulsing moo-moos. Its all their fault!!
As the submitter of this story, I'd like to say a couple of things:
;-)
1. Sorry. It wasn't meant to be submitted anonymously, I realised I'd done it only after I hit the final submit button. I assume I'd highlighted my name on the submission form or something and hit space, or otherwise cleared it. Either that or there's a bug in Slashcode...
2. The original was a little longer, and people complaining that I didn't read the article I linked to would have seen that the comment about the US agreeing to a 7% cut in emissions was coupled with a comment implying they'd gone back on their word. I assume the Slashdot editors thought I was trolling or something - no, I'm just pissed off about the issue. The US did agree to such a thing, that is, that's what they negotiated and agreed to at the Kyoto summit. They then went back on that agreement, with the legislature and Bush both rejecting what they'd signed up for.
Depressing.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
What about this, fuckwit?
Ever remember the Ozone hole craze? This was supposed to be uneviatable end of
the word and no measure should have been able to fix it in hundred s of years. So
where is the hole?
It's doing quite well, fuckwit. Just because it's not anymore fashionable to write about and you in your amazing ignorance would prefer to pretend it's not there doesn't mean it's any less of a threat.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Screw anyone that says I can not
--
E_NOSIG
KarmaWarrior, I just gotta hand it to you. You admitted your fault after getting me totally confused AND you admitted your true identity. Just gotta say it...ehm... WELLDONE!
--Delilah
You'll have to prove that the CO2 "poison" is the problem first. Which is the whole problem with Kyoto....
Beware: I believe all are created equal, and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
>Ever remember the Ozone hole craze?
Yes i remember it every summer when i have to put truck loads of sun screen on because the is a big hole in the ozone down here by new zealand.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/ne wsid_2023000/2023835.stm
I am not a big believer in global warming, as caused by humans. However, I am a big believer in responsible consumption and taking care of our planet. Reducing polution (including CO2 emmisions) is part of being good stewards of our planet.
It is very sad to see posters trotting out the "economit hit" FUD argument against ratifying Kyoto. This same FUD was trundled out when companies were forced to stop using CFCs. Various companies whined, complained, and behaved like 3 year olds asked to pick up their toys---spouting all kinds of horse pucky about how they were going to lose their shirts, financially speaking.
In fact, the opposite turned out to be true. Those companies that embraced the change early turned out to be economic winners. The change from use of CFC-based solvents to other (often it was to using distilled water) almost always saved money and reduced employee health risks.
The fear mongering endorsed by meany of the posters to this thread is no different that the FUD Microsoft trotts out w.r.t. its corporate agenda.