Slashdot Mirror
Europe Slips on Kyoto Greenhouse Targets
covertlaw writes "Emissions of greenhouse gases from the European Union increased in 2001 for the second year running. According to the unratified Kyoto Treaty, the EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012."
Meanwhile, in another triumph of European bureaucracy over humanity, the Lascaux cave paintings are being damaged by fungus as a result of mismangement by its curators.
Who would you pay the fine too ?
I mean you break a city law, you pay a fine to the city government, you break a state law, you pay a fine to the state government...
What is the group that you would pay for breaking a "global law". Or do we just have a country go and invade you to shutdown your polluting industry
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
The other question is who is responsible for measuring the gas output of various things like everybodies lawnmower, fireplace, car, etc.
Kinda glad the US didn't get into this mess, who knows how to enforce it, or even measure compliance
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Well, for the first thing, you don't have the forest fire story right. There were two effects running in parallel: first, the government policy of stopping forest fires ASAP, and second, the logging companies' habit of only cutting down the largest trees (most profitable). That is what resulted in the large amount of kindling.
Also, the pollution from a forest fire is a lot less toxic than many of the industrial pollutions. You don't hear about ground water being poisoned by a forest fire, do you? Or about tree smoke concentrating in the bodies of whales? There is a big problem with perchlorate poisoning ground water in California. Concentrations of around 10PPB (billion) are a major problem. It doens't take very much of that chemical to produce a problem for thousands of people.
Your premise B needs revising. Obviously, everyone needs food, and logging and mining are necessary. BUT, the approach must be a sustainable method. One hundred years ago, a standard method to mine gold involved using huge amounts of mercury. If I have to explain why that is bad to you then you need a huge amount of education.
As for the comment on saving owls and so on, well, how do you want to protect endangered species? If it doesn't taste good, let it die off?
You need to think your approach thru a bit more. You give too much credit to the compromise process. You know why the compromise is flawed? For the same reason that democracy in the US is flawed: the people with the influence to solve the problem have incentives to ignore the problem.
If I could, I would make the executives of companies that dump toxic waste have to live with their families in the areas that were poisoned. I'm sure that would quickly straighten out a lot of the problems.
Basically, a dog is smarter than collective humanity - a dog won't shit on its food or bed.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Future generations. Governments invest such fines in Certificates of Deposit due to mature over a term greater than any constituent lifespans.
... And then again...
The USA would have ratified Kyoto automatically if only they would have been driving European cars.
Yes, Kyoto is "unfair" in the sense that exceeding levels can be traded with third world countries. Kyoto is "unfair" in that it starts from emission/surface instead of emission/population.
But ratifying Kyoto might at least have shown the USA's intention to do something about its mass consumption. It might have shown they feel responsible for burning over 25% of worldwide resources, while constitutin less than 10% of its population/surface. And, ultimately, it might have led to some form of responsible and respectful behaviour - or it migh have not...