Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Continues Opposition to Kyoto Environmental Treaty
fenris_23 writes "The AP is reporting
that President Bush has reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Treaty despite President Putin's acceptance of the treaty and recent scientific evidence directly linking greenhouse emissions to arctic warming. 'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality."
Well I guess that about says it. Either you're against polution or against jobs. Take your pick.
in the dike-building industry based on sea-level change, for instance......
This treaty doesn't hold India or China to the same levels that the USA and EU are held to.
If they want the treaty to be approved it has to treat everyone the same, this one doesn't.
He could lose his job if the Kyoto treaty were supported here?
'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
If that's the case, why does the President support off-shoring American jobs? Sounds like he's speak out of both ends of his a$$ to me.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Would have been nice to see a softer line from Bush on this one, but not unexpected.
"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job"
He doesn't need any treaties for that!
Are there reports done on the financial benefits (eg in medical bills) of Kyoto Treaty?
And why must reducing gas emission equate to job loss? Couldn't companies be more efficient instead?
In IT outsourcing, which costs a lot of jobs to foreigner countries, there are suggestions that with the increased exports to other countries, outsourcing probably isn't so bad after all.
--
Play iCLOD Virtual City Explorer and win Half-Life 2
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Think of all the fishing jobs this will create when we have that much more water!
Not a single lost job. That's a pretty high threshold for a policy or treaty. I guess free trade agreements are off the table for the next four years.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
the sole purpose of the kyoto treaty is to cripple the US economy. it does NOT put restrictions on developing nations, they are able to pollute as much as before, but the US must drastically cut out. so of course everyone but the US is going to agree to it!
I like the spin that the white house put on it. Loss of american jobs, pfft.
Because it won't pass Congress. You know, that body that has to ratify any treaty? Clinton didn't sign it either, for the same reason. Why sign something you know won't be ratified?
[o]_O
Is the fate of the environment now in the hands of the US?
You mean the jobs lost by hiring over seas workers to develop the technology necessary to meet kyoto? You mean the jobs lost at home with workers having to help provide services to allow companies to meet kyoto? You mean the jobs lost because of the opening of a new market specifically trading pollution thus allowing companies to profit from not polluting and thereby dedicating resources and employing people to work for green house gas emisions?
Sounds like the same "logic" that President Bush has been using for while.
President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,'
In contrast to the fifty million jobs our children will lose? I mean I'm sure our kids will love to watch New York disappear under a few metres of water.
Simon.
well i guess all real estate he onws is more than 60 meters above sea level - so he just doesnt care
Can someone please explain the rationale behind the loss of 5 millions jobs if Kyoto was adopted excuse.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job,'
This is yet another reason why this man (and by extension, increasingly America) is reviled the world over. How can one job be more important than the environment? It's a truly ludicrous statement.
Huge taxbreaks to corporations that allow them to offshore even more jobs while at the same time justifying losing american jobs through the Kyoto pact as a excuse to not join it..
Bush must think were all stupid..
Out of curiousity, how many jobs would be created in research, production and implementation of green technologies?
If you're going to defend outsourcing by pointing to the number of jobs created by the cheaper goods, shouldn't you also point out the green-inspired jobs, and the savings in health care from cleaner air?
President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job ... unless it's tax breaks for corporations that move jobs overseas.
Tie bush to rock near the ocean. Let ocean take care of the problem. Granted, probably is a good idea to tie him so his head is down and feet in the air for two reasons. First, he'd probably float like a bobber "head up", and secondly, it will take a little while for the oceans to rise - best to solve the problem sooner.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Clinton didn't sign it either, for the same reason.
Al Gore signed it, so technically, the US is a signatory to the treaty. It was wisely never sent to the Senate for ratification; it wouldn't have possibly passed.
The purpose of Kyoto to create a new market in pollution. This new market using the means of capitalism to make it competitive to run a clean business (clean in the sense of lack of emissions). Obviously government regulation can only go so far but as we have seen with other markets, once something becomes profitable then others will take part. If not polluting is profitable others will take part and it will create more jobs simply requiring people to provide solutions.
I find it very sad that USA still refuses to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Even Russia managed to ratify it recently. I think it's time for USA to take responsibility for all the global pollution it causes and admit the long term consequences. But I guess it's too much to ask of the "land of the free" to try to deal with the problem in a sensible way instead of ignoring it.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Sorry, clown. You lose.
They why the TAR does he support outsourcing!?
What a fucking guy, this president...
The Kyoto protocol is something that any right-thinking sovereign nation would and should avoid like the plague.
I'm all for being clean and being worthy stewards of the Earth and all, but the US can come up with their own plans for doing so (and do by the way). It makes no sense at all to proffer up even the smallest amount of our sovereignty to a global treaty such as this one.
Thank all that is good our elections worked out the way they did or the US would be signing this document of idiocy.
Let me just understand...
We're okay exporting jobs in the name of "global competitiveness", but we're not okay getting rid of jobs in the name of protecting the environment?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I hope that you guys all go down in the sinking ship with GWB, if the sea levels rise there will be plenty more jobs in construction...
Job growth/loss graph under different presidents
Missing jobs under Bush administration
So
- job loss=OK
- alienating the world=OK
- job loss to undo some alienation of the world=not OK
Lovely logic.
Seattle Eastside Math and Science Tutoring
I realize that kyoto is practically worthless without india or china jumping on board but the US needs to be responsible in developing next gen power sources.
:P Everyone knows that next-gen fuel sources will create jobs and patented technology as well as lessen the dependance on foreign oil. I'm not a tree hugger but i really think that the world needs to start smartening up when it comes to the environment.
It should be blatantly obvious that when bush says it'll cost a job, it will cost his friends/family
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
By that he means his.
Chaos will always win out over order because chaos is more organized
It's an excuse to sit back and do nothing. So what if all countries aren't held to the same levels? Surely doing *something* is better than doing nothing at all.
So developed nations have to cut back more than developing nations? Well guess what - we pollute more than they do.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
doh! too slow..... :(
Stupid me is comparing the public transportation here in Sweden with the public transportation in the US, especially railway commuting, where I have seen that the railways in the US in general aren't used much, and are often single-track rails and are often in need of improvment.
(Flamebait :-> )
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
he opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job... yet his corporate backers are busy offshoring as much as they can
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Why sign something you know won't be ratified?
Because it's the right thing to do and so it at least has a chance of getting ratified.
-Colin
Since when did slashdot begin using Flash in their ads?
*sigh* Time to instal prefbar again.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Why sign something you know won't be ratified?
To publicly lend it your support. To persuade people and businesses to take steps on their own, even if it won't be legislated for. To show everyone that no matter what the rest of the government thinks, *you* consider it important.
I could go on, but you get the idea; doomed to failure or not, sometimes it's worth standing up to be counted. That's if you believe in it, of course. If not, then no, of course you wouldn't sign.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I agree that the "against pollution or against jobs" dichotomy is screwed up.
But then, so is the "for Kyoto or for pollution" dichotomy.
The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions. Kyoto is a payoff to third-world dictators disguised as "environmental policy".
What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want, if you're an industrialized nation you have to pay third world countries for the right to produce green house gasses."
What would the net result be? Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle. Better yet, let's take money out of the US economy where people work hard to create value for the world and give it to some third-world dictator. Good idea.
Now, I realize that you'll tear apart my argument because "George Bush is evil" and "the US economy doesn't create any value to the world." Obviously those aren't valid arguments any way you slice it. First, George Bush has nothing to do with Kyoto being a bad idea. He's also hardly the only person in the US that opposes it. Also, if you don't think the US economy does anything good for the world, you have a very limited viewpoint. We aren't saints, but we're hardly devils.
Doesn't the Kyoto Treaty have a clear bias for third world countries with growing industrialization and economies, ie China?
If I remember right, I thought that under the treaty, we (US) would be restricted to all hell, and China would be able to double or triple it's greenhouse gas emissions output.
Is this right?
This entire US/Kyoto debacle started in 1998 when Al Gore decided to sign the treaty even after the entire US Senate voted in 1997 (well, okay, it passed 95 to 0) to say they wouldn't sign any climate protocol without certain details changed. Knowing this, the Clinton administration didn't even submit the treaty for ratification.
Knowing all this, it is unreasonable to expect any administration to again resubmit the treaty for ratification, especially when US green gas emissions have gone up a bit since 1998. For what it's worth, John Kerry not only voted in favor of the 1997 resolution, but also made it clear he would not push for Kyoto ratification were he to be elected. (His campaign did criticize the Bush administration's decision to not resubmit the treaty for ratification in 2001-2004, however)
You guys are nuts, we jump through hoops so developing countries burn it instead? this is the most brain-dead idea i have ever heard.
love is just extroverted narcissism
How does Kyoto would make the US lose 5 millions jobs ? I would tend to believe the opposite : increased energy efficiency would make American industries more competitive and help fix the trade deficit.
But who am I to oppose the American people God-given right to burn fossile fuel like there is no tomorrow ?
:wq
You would think that signing up for cutting green house gasses could push towards a less oil-oriented economy; surely in these days of rising oil prices and the dodgy areas of the world involved in supplying some of it that being less dependent on oil might produce a more stable economy.
Nice to see that Bush is off to such a good start making friends in the international community in his second term : \
-Colin
1. seed the middle of nowhere in the south pacific with iron
;-(
2. phytoplankton boom
3. phytoplankton die and sink to ocean floor
repeat and rinse
presto: millions of tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestered to the deep
but no, some think it's better to talk intractable complicated pointless blame game politics when there is a quick and easy technological fix
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is weird... we had an election but we still seem to have an idiot president... what gives? Was this supposed to be fixed on Bov. 2nd?
Oh yes, I forgot, he got re-elected... well, why is this news then? If he was a dumb, incompetent president before the election, and if he was re-elected only because people were more afraid of an Evil they do not know rather than of one they know, why should be surprised by the fact that the US President is still the same dumbass, no-othing, un-educated, manipulated President that we have had for the last 4 years? It is not like he was able to take a smart pill and suddently become smater...(and I do write this with all due respect for the Office of the Presidency and what its stands for... for not for the man who is not deserving of the job)
Repeat after me: Four more years! Four more years! For more years! How much worst can it get? Find Out! Four More Years! Four More Years!
Yah! I would like to get that explained as well. And isn't there anyone thinking about the jobs that would get created if US signed the Kyoto treaty? New filters, new production methods, new energy scources are among the things I can come up with in a few seconds, that would need alot of R&D and hence create new jobs...
With his track record, maybe he thinks god will save us.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
If the President really wants to avoid treaties that are costing jobs, I want to know why he's not wanting to pull us out of NAFTA and WTO, a.k.a. the only real public mistakes Clinton made. All the rampant offshoring and outsourcing have cost us more jobs than Kyoto would.
There is nothing preventing the US from reducing pollutants on its own without signing the treaty.
Energy would be better spent worrying about pollutants themselves rather than the treaty.
Does slashdot have nothing better to report on? Are you guys trying to be all things to all people? Stick to tech or I might as well read WSJ
He opposes this on the grounds of protecting jobs, but he is all for allowing companies to export our most important jobs overseas which is costing thousands of jobs every month.
What a great leader. The SOB.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Admiring the syphilitic visage, Of the pustule ridden genitals that I adore,
Oozing sebum and pus dribbling on the labia, Leaves me panting for more...
Vaginal excrements fume and funk, The stench of festering menstrual discharge,
The wafting odor tortues my nasal passage, The glistening cunt wet with blood...
A crust ridden musty flap of lust suffering, From severe dermatological disorder,
The sanguined slit lined with papules
And genital warts along its fleshy borders... Licking the sickening twat,
The foul stench of the blistering crotch
Drinking the menstruated slop, Delight in each pustular drop... Passing blood clots, Eating crotch rot, Septic blood and pus,
Consume the runny crust, Urine flows out of the slit, Piss washes over the clit,
Taste the blood and piss, Nothing compares to this...
My face fully buried within, The pubic mound of grime and warts, Voraciously lapping up excrements of, Every sordid type and nauseating sort...
The atrocious nauseating odour, Proves too strong to resist in the end, The nauseating fumes overwhelm me, As I vomit into the moist pungent gash...
Regurgitate onto the cunt, Puke on the gore ridden slut, Drunk off the urine flow, I bathe in the afterglow...
President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost
what about the ~7 billion lives it will eventually cost to ignore this?
I'm shocked and awed that, immediately after re-election, not helping the environment is used to garner support. I'm going to go kick someone.
Seriously, as an Amerikan citizen who voted to get W out, I hereby apologize to the rest of the world. We WILL do better next time, I promise.
You are not the customer.
[Warning - this post assumes that Global Warming is indeed a problem. It also presupposes we might be able to do something about it]
A picture comes to mind. A birthday party, where one child has already eaten a large quantity of cake, but wants all the rest subdivided equally. Not getting this result from the adults present, she throws a tantrum....
The US (and all the developed world) have exploited the natural resources of the world during the creation of their relatively-advanced technological society. Why should those who have been gentler towards the planet suffer the same consequences ? The US is not held to any harder regulations than any of the other developed countries, but it refuses to turn from its' self-indulgent and destructive path.
There will be more hurricanes next year; each will be stronger. There will be more of an 'El Nino' effect. The great farm areas of the American interior will suffer the consequences of this misguided 'screw-tomorrow' policy, and starving US children will curse their grandfathers stupidity and arrogance.
Or maybe not. The thing is that the risk-assessment of any course of action is the probability of the consequences multiplied by the effect of the consequences - and the potential downside here is enormous. Irrespective of the probability of the risk, it makes sense to limit the risk further, and that is what is not happening.
What US-observers see is a blind lemming-like tendency to rush towards oblivion with no provision for being wrong. Kyoto is not enough. Kyoto is a damage-limitation exercise - triage, if you like - that will need to be reviewed and tightened in various areas before it will be effective.
Global Warming does not require everywhere to heat up, it simply states that the average temperature will increase, thereby releasing more phase-space for the atmosphere to explore, and exposes us all to more-extreme weather - weather that was unavailable before the average temperature rose. Those extremes will kill people.
It never ceases to amaze me that people can dismiss a rise in temperature of (say) 1 degree C as nothing worth bothering about. I can barely conceive of the energy required to raise the average temperature of a *planet* by a degree C.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Another typical article approved by michael. One sided and biased.
One important part he left out was the Senate vote against the Kyoto treaty, which was 95-0. That's right, not a single Senator, no matter how liberal, voted for it. I think that says something about structure of the treaty rather than the concept of the treaty.
Have you ever been to China?? Take a trip down to Shanghai and you'll find dirty beaches dangerous to swim in, factories indiscrimately polluting, cars using leaded fuel, etc... Would the Kyoto treaty force China to reform? No, since they are a "developing country" they can basically pollute as much as they want.
The US on the other hand has the highest environmental standards in the world. You want to build a factory somewhere? You have to get about a million environmental permits, and heaven forbid there's some endangered rat that lives on your proposed factory site, because then it's getting rejected. Look at all the restrictions on auto makers, their median car MUST reach a certain fuel economy, and their exhaust MUST meet a standard that's by far the highest in the world. Of course Kyoto would strap the US, forcing us to close down factories and destroy businesses, because we're a "first world nation". We'd be forced to buy "pollution credits" from barren third world countries with no industrial output like Mongolia just to maintain our economy!!
Here's the bottom line: This treaty is bad for America. We're already the best in the world in reducing pollution, and we're getting better every year. The only reason we have a semi-serious smog problem is because of our reliance on cars for everyone rather than public transportation. We are resolving this though -- see more efficiant, cleaner cars like the Prius.
So, bush want developing countries would first sign Kyoto contract. In other words, Bush want's US to be behind developing countries in development. How sad is that...
Even if we sign it, we wouldn't be able to uphold it. The same is true of most European countries. There were only two that managed to reduce their emissions to be in line with Kyoto, the United Kingdom being one of them.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
It is NOT off-topic!
Yes, the bill would cost millions of jobs, because it would DRAMATICALY increase the cost of energy, and there for production. That meens MORE over seas jobs, especialy in the blue colar work force. But we all know how much the Slashdot crowd cried when "labor" workers lost there jobs. So quit with the crocodile tears on the tech outsourceing. Bush has been extreamly conisistant on this issue, and outsourcing. His solution to outsourcing is to make America a better place to produce, and the Kyoto Acords will make it worse.
BTW: Can we stop atributing G_d like powers to the president. His actuall ability to stop intelectual outsourcing is extreamly limited. And you don't need tax breaks to justify buying a programer in India that costs 1/10 as much. NO amount of tax reliefe can drasticaly change those figures.
Lastly, while the science of the Kyoto is debatable it's policies are absured. It sets unreasonable time limits for technologicaly and industrialy advanced countries to convert over their power sources, while allowing developing nations to develop the same unhealthy and destructive energy dependency levels while developing. No number of windmills or magic solar panels will solve our energy requirements as they stand.
The Kyoto fails entirly at reducing our energy demand (wich already reaches 10% of the daily bruto solar energy added to our system every day), while focusing entirly on restricting our means of production. It stinks of kneejerk statesmenship, and fanaticle chicken litteling. It treats smaller issues like CO2 cycles as the core issue, instead of dealing with systemic solutions.
Not even Clinton would sign this rag, and infact I remember the media blaming him too for not even bothering to negotiate. And given the attitude twoards the USA of the authors of this accord, I don't blame him.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
The Kyoto Protocol is nothing but a giant scheme for the reallocation of wealth under the guise of environmental protection, and I for one support Bush in rejecting it outright.
Russia supports it because, due to its post communist industrial collapse, the treaty essentially requires nothing of them. In fact, it gives them excess CO2 production credits that they can trade on the international market.
The main failing of the treaty is that it was drafted in a completely different geopolitical climate, one in which China had yet to start its rapid growth toward a major industrial power. It treats China as a developing country, requiring absolutely no CO2 output reduction on its part.
This has the side effect of giving them an enormous advantage: Kyoto would have us willingly cripple our own industrial output to allow China more advantage than its lax environmental laws and cheap labour already allow.
And really, for what? CO2 output reduction is an inevitability anyway. Within the next decade or so, we will have heavy hybrids that are able to charge themselves using household AC. Half of the people in major cities will be able to have zero-emission morning commutes. That alone will go a large way toward significantly reducing CO2 output. It's ridiculous to force a political solution to a technical problem.
US has about 4% of the world population, yet consumes more than 25% of world energy production according to this statistics http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1. html
(1998).
Just to compare, EU represents about 6% of the world population, and consumes 16% of the worlds energy, hence the average european consumes only 40% of the energy resources of the average american. China, about 25% of the world population consumes 10% of the energy. (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/euro.html)
Comparing the EU and US economies, they are about equal size. This means european energy to money conversion is about 40% more effective than US. Taking into account the larger population of Europe the production per capita is about 65% of US, but the average efficiency per capita (that is the conversion of energy to money per capita) is some 60% better (consuming 40 units of the energy to produce 65 units of value).
In other words, US can do a lot to improve efficiency! If US were as efficient as EU, US would maintain BNP and comply with Kyoto.
So what's the problem? Who has the interest of keeping US production inefficient?
Lets face it, the only reason Dubya is taking this stance is because his family and all his friends stand to lose out BIG TIME if the substances which create green house gasses are curbed. The only reason he doesnt ratify it is because the Saudis and all the rest of his "texas gold" friends are in it to shaft the rest of us for every penny they can get. This is what you voted for America and this is why the rest of the world is pissed off with you.
Americans should stop defending people who don't want to be defended by Americans. We don't want your help. Get out of our country.
Style over substance?
There's a reason it wouldn't pass and that has to do with the fact that even many Democrats oppose it. If we want to talk about style over substance we can talk about the fact that Democrats are pinning this on Bush when Clinton wouldn't even put it up because he knew what the ramifications were. Gore signed it but both Democrats and Republicans in Congress told Clinton that if he tried to put it in front of them they would kill it before it even hit the floor.
. . . the man is a politician first, good christian second, and citizen of the world fiftieth or sixtieth (somewhere below mexican jew lizard) to paraphrase from Penny Arcade.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Would that not create good free market, not government subsidized, farming jobs. This seems like a winning situation to me. Eventually it is my instinct that the scientists and genetic engineers will eventually improve the current process and it gets even better. We really only need to lessen our dependence on middle eastern oil, and then get the hell out of there think about the savings on military costs. Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada become the petrol suppliers for the US. Mexico and Canada are not a big problem, Venezuela will be fine when BUSH is gone because clearly Chavez will be there long after BUSH.
This also would help with cleaner air, biodiesel has a higher cetane rating, burns cleaner, and gets more mpg. Carbon emissions are greatly improved because we essentially are building a system that removes as much carbon as it creates.
Given that it costs $2/gallon to make, bring in economies of scale, then start counting that cars using gasoline do not get the kind of mileage a diesel gets. It becomes clear that Fuel Cells are a farce, while I believe in the research if you really care about today you are doing diesel and biodiesel especially since regular diesel is not so clean.
In addition to this I think the answer to the environment in the developing countries is not in the kyoto treaty because as far as I am concerned it does no do enough. We need strong international laws regarding trade, it is simple free trade to all who follow these rules.
1. Workers need to work in safe environments
2. The environment must be respected, strict rules
3. Human rights must be respected
If you do not follow these rules no trade. It is not just about free trade but rather fair free trade. I am a firm believer in free trade but because first world nations will not allow the abuse of workers, the environment and society we cannot compete. Regardless of wage differences, first world nations have an inherent disadvantage. We also should not let a few assholes ruin the world for billions of people so they can make lots of money.
This is just my take on the issue.
Not to argue, but it doesn't count unless it's ratified by the Senate - so the US isn't a signatory.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
I'm sorry; this is a quote from the Kyoto Treaty? Funny that a google search doesn't bring up the text of the treaty. Sure, you're thinking, that's because google censored them under pressure from the John Kerry campaign, but try this search and plenty comes up. Nothing about paying third world countries for the right to pollute though. Funny, the phrase "third world" doesn't even appear in the treaty.
Now can someone please explain what is insightful about the above?
Lets see, we are mad at the President because of outsourcing, however we want him enter into an international pact which that will further continue the move of manufacturing jobs to overseas.
./'s
Too bad you just can't seem to have it both ways, huh
If you are ever able to assemble a consistent and sustainable set of political policies, please tell the Dems, I've heard they are looking for one.
Bush said in one of the debates he would oppose it. There is nothing new here. Whats next, "Linus Torvalds writes some more C code"?
Sounds like a job for Team Kyoto: Environmental Police.. F*ck Yeah!
Quite seriously though, the statement was made that "Bush must think we're stupid". I didn't believe so before the election.. but apparently slightly over 50% of Americans are.
There are millions of americans that fully support the Kyoto treaty. But we can't do anything because, unfortunately, we are a minority.
Kyoto was DOA when it was written and it will never, ever pass in the United States under any circumstances. Let's get back to a serious discussion ... like the social value of GTA.
Kyoto is hardly 'worthless' without India and China. They aren't required to make cuts because their emissions are far lower per capita than the nations required to cut back.
It was hard enough work getting some developed nations to agree making small cuts and it's a hugely worthwhile start to the process. To really make a difference, a new treaty will be needed in 2010 looking for further cuts and including further countries being required to cut back. We can hardly hope the Indians and Chinese will be willing to cut back in the future unless the worst polluters have already started cutting back now.
If your argument for Kyoto is the reduction of GLOBAL warming via a reduction in greenhouse gases, then you should care about pollution in China and India. If you don't care, then why are you caring about US pollution? It is a global phenomenon isn't it?
As an example of how bad pollution is in China, the Chinese just put out an open coal pit fire that has been burning 1.8 million tons of coal a year.
But guess when that fire started? 1896. I'd like to see how much polution that caused all by itself. Its probably one of the largest single-point polution sources in the world.
Who knows what other stuff is going on that they won't tell us about.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
but can we get the government to go dutch on paying for them?
this is the typical arguement pro outsourcers make. It's the sister arguement to the pro work-visa crowd (i.e., Americans don't want these jobs, lets give 'em to foreigners). It's bullshit either way. The work still needs to be done, no matter whose doing it. If company A goes out of business, that doesn't mean what company A was doing for society is no longer necessary. So along comes company B. Same for the work visa arguement: These jobs need to be done, and you can _always_ find an American willing to do it, for the right price. It's just that the rich fucks of the world don't want to pay that price. They want to shift societies efforts to grant them their every little desire.
Make no mistake, 1% of our population makes all the food we need and a small percent more is needed to make our housing. Everything else is just gravy. There's plenty of wealth to go around, and it's not even that rich bastards want it all to themselves. It's more complex than that. It's about power. It's about playing the rest of the poor dumb saps off each other so the Bushs and the Haliburtons of the world can continue to trick the people at large into giving them everything they want. They're the new monarchy, they just don't rely on God or Tradition as excuses any more. Now it's property rights and freedom.
Outsoucing is all about playing one group off the other to keep the masses in check. And I've said it before and I'll say it again: This isn't a consipracy, it's just good business.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For a group of people that claims such intellegent superiority over all the "hicks" in the midwest that voted for Bush, you sure to buy wholeheartedly into the media BS. That and Democratic press releases! As someone on Fark said the other day, if the Dems ever hope to get elected again they need to quit believing their own rhetoric!
Case in point: Outsouring. TWO PERCENT of the jobs lost this year were due to outsourcing. That's a bit more than 4,000 people. (sources: Here and here). Tragic? Sure, sucks to lose your job but 4,000 people does not translate into "everyone is outsourcing its the end of the world!". Nor does it translate into "President Bush supports outsourcing". No, President Bush supports tax cuts to encourage growth and it appears to be working (and no I'm not a wealthy person but I still got a tax break). The tax cuts are about the only thing he has done right. If he hadn't have started a useless war and pooped all over the Constitution I might have voted for him.
The Anti-Blog
Read the full article at http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040319014625.tbceu
There is no quick and easy technological fix. Time for the US, and the world, to take responsibility. The Kyoto-agreement is just the start, MUCH more is required for CO2 levels to stabilize.
And the top polluter in the world doesn't even want to take that first, symbolic step...
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
he will continue to allow jobs to be offshored.
What's the point in discussing any of the sides of this question?
I mean, the man has been elected to keep doing what he was doing before.
Whatever progress is made in this environmental question, will be done by the rest of the world. The rest of the world has a duty and "jobs to lose"; the USA, it seems, won't be involved.
One minor point... remember the huge forest fires in indonesia that polluted the entire region a while back? I read recently that they have caused indonesia to become a *significant* producer of CO2, since the peat has gone from being a carbon sink to being a carbon source, possibly responsible for the huge blip that just got measured. If that is true then it is worth doing something about, even if it is a developing country.
Ok, simple math problem for you to solve. Let's think about evil pollution coulds. Which is better for us. 100 evil pollution clouds or 98 evil pollution clounds?
I'm saying that 2 is more than 0 and it is a start. Without trying the number would be still 0. with trying, it might be 100 at some day. Hopefully not too late.
Apparently we are.
The answer, of course, is that many of the politicians who have signed on to Kyoto have done so for short term political gain. It makes everyone feel good that something is being done, while they don't actually have to do anything painful.
If push comes to shove and people are actually forced to curtail their lifestyle in 2012 in order to comply with the protocol, then you will see those people dropping out of it. After all, there are no penalties for dropping out. So, if you have to choose between spending billions of dollars to reduce C02 production, or buy CO2 credits from Russia for billions of dollars, or drop out and keep your money, which one will the voters choose?
The only way that Kyoto will be complied with is if technology improves (e.g. more fuel efficient vehicles and energy production) to the point where painful choices are not required. And that improvement will happen regardless of Kyoto.
It's cheaper and simpler not to generate the CO2 in the first place.
One thing that hasn't been pointed out much is that it will cost Russia virtually nothing to enforce Kyoto.
Basically, the treaty stipulates that pollution levels cannot rise above their level about fifteen years ago.
Fifteen years ago, Russia was still Soviet and had a lot more heavy industry. They were a massive polluter. These days, they don't have as much industry anyway, so they won't have to institute controls to meet targets.
For the same reason you should vote if you strongly support a third-party candidate.
I am trolling
"Now, I realize that you'll tear apart my argument because 'George Bush is evil' and 'the US economy doesn't create any value to the world.'"
One has to love arguments where the only logical opposition must be "evil." We are not saints, nor the sinners in your dichotomy, simply biological beings, which will need to survive in the exact same ecosystem as other biological beings. As somebody stated in a previous comment, we simply need fewer people. We're liable to get it at this rate, as we are much more dependent upon environmental influences than say lizards. We're not evil if there is such a thing. We just don't want to work with anybody else, and can do everything by ourselves for ourselves. The fictitous dictator simply adds color! What a load of black and white crap.
We basically have to accept that most of the fossil fuels reserves that exist are going to be burnt before a major shift in energy production happens.
Whether or not we try and be more efficient about it is a bit irrelevant because at the end of the day (or rather, at the end of the century) most of the fossil fuels will have been burnt, and the CO2 released. Only when fossil fuel supply becomes limited and the cost is pushed up will any major shift in eneryg production occur. All we can do is hope that the planet isn't permanently fubar'd by then...
It is pretty much impossible to regulate pollution, or almost anything else on a large scale, without costing jobs in the short run. Unemployment is not permanent though. It'll all balance out to a slight reduction in the quality of living, maybe or maybe not to the benefit of future generations.
With this sort of treaty, if not everyone agrees to it, then it allows whoever doesn't agree to unfairly compete with the others. So if we don't agree to it, the other countries will likely want to withdraw, and we'll be back where we started.
While I can't prove it made a difference in his decision I think it's important to point out that the Kyoto treaty is bad for the coal and oil businesses.
-2 from the US, +50 from China?
I don't see your point.
We'd only have net reduction if everyone is equally screwed by the treaty. That's why the United States won't ratify Kyoto. It doesn't hinder "developing countries" like China and India.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
There are several good reasons to sign a treaty even if it won't be ratified. For one thing, the senators become accountable for every treaty they vote against. So, for instance, when Senator Martinez comes up for re-election, his opposition to Kyoto can be made into a campaign issue.
It also clarifies the administrations position on the treaty, and can turn it into a national issue. If there is a large public outcry in favor of the treaty due to a ratification controversy, it might compel some senators to change their votes.
It can also buy "political capital" in the international community. If other countries see that the president supports a treaty, even if it doesn't get ratified, fewer doors will close to the president.
With this president, too, the story is a bit different. Bill Frist doesn't have enough political strength to run the senate as a force separate from the president (unlike, say, LBJ). Bush's policy pretty much sets the agenda for this Senate nowadays.
It must be sad to be so desperate that you have to resort to stealing signs, hate speech and telling everyone that your opponent is purely evil.
Agile Artisans
see http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/cu rrent/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle_new .html
"If you add Fe you stimulate growth and the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere by algae. In a careful biogeochemical analysis, however, this idea proved to be untenable because the algae would eventual run out of other limiting nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. The Geritol Fix could at most reduce our atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 10%."
You used "responsibility" and "USA" in the same sentence; you are obviously naïve.
The USA takes responsibility for nothing, including:
Yeah, right.
Well, I live in The Netherlands, and half my country is below sealevel. Actually, I live exactly at sealevel. In other words-- I'll be the first to drown as soon as global warming really kicks in.
Bush simply refuses to look at things from a different viewpoint. for him, it's black, or white, grey does not exist. The US are the biggest poluters in the world; them NOT signing the Kyoto treaty is simply unacceptable. You Bush-loving people probably all live high and dry near the Great Divide. That's all fine and such, but lemme tell you, the world doesn't end at the Mexican and Canadian borders.
If Bush just had slightly more intelligence, he'd sign the damn treaty. He hides behind comments like "We will loose jobs if we sign etc."-- perfectly knowing that nonsense statements like that bribe the American audience.
I'll seriosuly be pissed off as soon as I start to get wet feet around here.
That during the Clinton Administration the Senate voted 99-0 that Kyoto was untenable for the United States in a resolution.
It's been dead in the United States since the late 90s.
Of course this theory doesn't explain florida, but if it gets flooded/blown away at least the spam output should be reduced.
Just curious, but how would conforming to the Kyoto treaty cost the United States jobs? I would think it would create jobs (people manufacturing filters / monitoring emissions / fixing plants emitting too much). Just because emission restrictions are imposed doesn't mean corporations are going to stop producing. (It may encourage them to move overseas though, in which case the US needs heavy restrictions on outsourcing.)
Bush just doesn't want to do anything that would cost large corporations a cent.
Less profits for bush, cheny, and the oil hording neocons in power. Seems fairly simple to see that. Additionally, we need oil to make energy to power crap, so using less means increasing energy prices, which means a depressed instead of regressive economy, which means massive depression since people won't be able to even service their debt or produce goods.
Now, if Bush really wants to make some friends, he'd make [insert really large number here] of dollars available for research into alternative energy sources and storage, and begin selling the public on nuclear power for the meantime as it's the only safe alternative to, say, burning coal or natural gas like mofo's. Then again, the man is turning our social security over to a private corp, among other things.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
10 days ago when I read about this kind of crap from the US government I blamed Bush and thought he was a wanker. However I gave the American population the benefit of the doubt. I felt sorry for Americans who I presumed had a president who didn't represent their wishes.
The American people have now spoken and put their support strongly behind the wanker of a "Commander and Chief". Now when I see Bush behaving immorally I can think only one thing about
FUCK THE AMERICANS !!!
They are a bunch of wankers and I hope Bush continues to run your economy into the ground. I hope all your jobs get off shored. I hope the remaider of your constitutional right are removed. You voted for this. Now live with it!!
Please mod "Insightfull", Flaimbait is for when someone posts something purely to incite a reaction, not stating a view held by a significant proportion of the world population.
PS: I not a Muslim, nor do I live in the "axis of evil". I'm white Cristian, middle class, and Western population. I'm one of the people who used to be considered an ally of the USA.
Well shit, why should I have to work when there are people out there who have millions of dollars and bigger advantages than I do. Don't fuck my life up saying I have to have a job.
It is our responsibility to do anything in our power to limit our pollution. It *does* effect other people. What, you think the ozone hole was a result of all the industrial waste the aussies are dumping into the atmosphere? I think not.
Why do you worry about china and india. Take care of our own business, then we'll deal with them.
You sound like a child, 'HE DIDN"T CLEAN HIS ROOM WHY DO I HAVE TO CLEAN MINE WHINE WHINE WHINE'.
"It is perhaps worth mentioning that the word 'profits' has largely disapeared from respectable discourse. In contemporary Newspeak, the proper word is to be pronounced 'jobs'."
-Noam Chomsky: Perspectives on Power
Don't know if quoting Chomsky means I'll get modded down or what, but I think President Bush's decision makes sense after we do the translation suggested by Chomsky. Otherwise we are tangled in a morass of contradiction, as other posters have pointed out. Everything falls into place if we think about profits instead.
However, in 1997, 94 U.S. senators voted for and signed Senate Resolution 98 which says that the U.S. should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol if: 1) it did not impose restrictions on developing countries, and 2) it would "would result in serious harm to the economy.
John Freakin Kerry was also one of the senators to also sign this resolution.
Kyoto isn't nearly comprehensive enough to make an impact on global warming. Who's arguing? The point is that we look like assholes for not signing the treaty. If America wants to do something about climate "change", we should sign the fucking papers and get on with our multilateral lives. If nobody can meet the standards it sets out, we're off the hook. If everyone ELSE can, and we can't, we're obviously doing something wrong.
By the way, as a blue collar worker, I'm all for a big move away from fossil fuels. The US is supposedly a "service" economy anyways. The construction contract for a new windfarm isn't going to get outsourced to Bangladesh. Refit the entire energy infrastructure of the US? Yeah, I think I'll take a piece of that.
You mean like these guys?
http://www.sorryeverybody.com
How dare you propose a solution. That goes against everything that environmental activism stands for.
Now get back out there and spread unfounded emotional FUD like the rest of them.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Next you know we're gonna start seeing "DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR KERRY" bumper stickers.
Bush is pro-war and anti-enviroment, he'd rather hide behind excuses than do what is right.
How about the jobs lost due to multi-limbed, multi-brained super humans?!
;)
Ah, I get it now; Bush either wants pollution to cause mutation by which he can gain super intelligence (his IQ rising from 1 to 2, maybe even 3!). Or everyone to die so he can play president forever.
Damn, I love living in the UK
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
the site is already slow might take 3+ trys
"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job"
Yet he's happy to send troops to get themselves killed in Iraq.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Because part of the growth in places like China is from people being able to afford to heat their homes? Drive a car? Ride a bike? Eat a full meal? Of course the other growth is from all of the jobs and industries we've outsourced to them. Pretty soon we'll be able to meet Kyoto because we're industry less!
It's quite clear what he's trying to do --- when the sea levels rise, the first US folks to drown will be those pinkos that voted against him, most of which live on the coasts. True, God-fearing, Republican-voting Americans live in the interior, and will be safe. They'll even be well armed to prevent a huge influx of Aetheist Commies from Massachusetts!
(It's a joke, darnit.)
Actually it only has to be ratified by the Senate. The House doesn't get a say in it, so only half of Congress weighs in.
/.'ers knee-jerk reactions are from a lack of understanding concerning Kyoto. This treaty isn't about cleaning up the environment, it's about holding back America so the rest of the world can catch up economically. The environment is the reason used for this.
I say bravo to Bush on this one though. All the liberal
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
And then when found guilty, punish him as traitors should be punished.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Figures that someone with the last name "hicks" would post crap like this.
Seeing as though you obviously don't care about what sort of a dump you live in and regard jobs as more important then the environment, I presume you will be happy to take the rest of the worlds toxic waste for disposal? Maybe we can even put a tent around the US and pump our emissions in to your environment aswell? We'll give you a few euro to take it so you can employ lots of US citizens to do the real work of dealing with the materials (and dealing with the sick people). You can even charge extra to have particularly noxious shipments escorted to help pay for that penis extension^W^Wmilitary budget you love so much.
As you can see the real plan is obviously to create jobs, bring in cash and give the health care system some real work to do!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Yes folks, right here on slashdot. Michael knows damn well the previous slashdot he references [also posted by him] does not come close to constituting evidence. Michael, you misrepresent to further your cause. That's fucking evil. I'd tell you to your face if you were here. Why should we believe anything you say? I'm calling you out. You are a fucking liar!
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
The Kyoto Accord is nothing but a clever plan to redistribute funds from the industrialised nations to the developing nations under cover of alleged CO2 "pollution". This happens by assigning artifically low CO2 quotas to the western (industrailised) nations, which as essentially unrealistic and unreachable. LUCKILY, Kyoto contains provisions so that our evil, filthy rich nations can buy extra CO2 quotas from the poor, abused developing nations. (aha!) Can you see where this is going ?
The problem with the premise of Kyoto is that Co2 is not pollution in any sense of the word, but a natural part of organic life and human economic activity, at that. Dumping uranium in the artic sea, that is pollution. Oil spills in the coastal areas, that is pollution. Heavy metal emmissions from coal power plants, thats pollution. But dang, dont ever come and tell me that it's pollution when i take a breath of air. And keep your mitts out of my wallet while you're at it, thank you so much.
This article from The Economist suggests that Kyoto-land companies may not lose out compared to American companies if an efficient emissions trading system is set up. This means that businesses will make emissions cuts where it makes most economic sense to do so. Also many multinationals that do business in Kyoto-land may choose to implement new Kyoto-related measures across the corporation. For example DuPont has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 65% compared with 1990.
But we'll all be equally screwed by not paying the environmental problem any attention.
So what's it to be?
This so reminds me of the fuzz about the introduction of catalytic converters in Germany. "It will be way more expensive. It will cost jobs!", was the car industry's mantra.
And what happened? Instead of killing jobs, jobs were actually created. Someone had to design and build those converters.
Same goes with all other eco stuff, e.g. recycling instead of just dumping. Created plenty of new jobs instead of killing others.
Of course, those jobs are (at first) not within the big industries. Yes, those need to spend money to modify their "cost/win optimized" fabrication processes. Unfortunately, those are also the ones with deep pockets to buy politicians and laws.
If you're living in the US think about the following: why is pure drinking water more expensive than gasoline? And no, I'm not talking about that chlorified crap which runs out of your kitchen faucet and needs to be filtered to be useful for anything but cleaning.
Oh yes.... lets endanger our lives and the lives of future generations so that people can keep their jobs. Sign the fucking treaty and impose major import TAXES on people who out-source jobs.
Support our troops; bring them home. By fighting this war we are letting the terrorist win.
They want us to attack. They need us to attack.
The more we attack; the stronger they grow.
The stronger they grow the weaker we are.
The weaker we are; the poorer we are.
Meanwhile, we have 39.5 million people living in poverty (same url). Since it is "easy" to get over $200,000 with two wage earners, why do we have so many people in poverty? Can't they accomplish this "easy" task?"some workers"? Who gets to decide who doesn't have to pay into Social Security? What is the criteria?
And who is going to pay MORE Social Security tax to make up for the lost revenue?Who needs "greater incentive to work"? Practically everyone I know works 40+ hours a week with the current incentives of food, shelter and clothing.
Now I may not have a Nobel prize, but I can understand the numbers.
You see the same shocking attitude in a recent survey of computer companies . The Chinese companies (e.g. Acer) received failing grades on supporting the environment. Sun Microsystems, which is dominated by former and current Chinese H-1B workers, also received a failing grade.
Nonetheless, China is about to experience a dramatic decline in its population -- due to AIDS. The single strongest catalyst for the spread of AIDS is an inferior culture, characterized by lying, arrogance, and bigotry. After the number of Chinese declines to barely 100 million, there will be too few Chinese to damage the environment. So, the American government should ratify the Kyoto treaty
Better that than be both economically and environmentally screwed while countries like China both prosper and pollute like crazy.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
I was going to argue with your points, but then I realised that you didn't have any. Then I realised that your post didn't actually make any sense. For example, what the hell does this mean?
The Kyoto fails entirly at reducing our energy demand (wich already reaches 10% of the daily bruto solar energy added to our system every day)
Anyone?
'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,'
Hey DuMbya, what about all the jobs you've offshored the past 4 years.
I can't imagine how this country will survive 4 more years of what we've had.
At the rate bu$h ships jobs away, there won't be anything left to do except work at Wally World selling imported Chinese crap or flipping burgers, either way, it's a minimum wage world we are moving towards, where the ultra-elites at the top are serviced by the little people at the bottom who live off the scraps they throw down..
There's no room in the middle for anyone, it's either you are at the top or you are at the bottom of the food chain..
Friggin hypocrite....
By simply not buying American made... infact its becoming quite the fashion these days.
-Anonymous.. well, you'd like to think that.
Y'know, the idea of reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions and cooling our overheated world is kinda cool, but not only is it wrong-headed, but also short-sighted.
First off, there's no real proof that our CO2 is heating up the climate. There's some correlation, but it's not strong. There's more evidence that solar radiation has been increasing and causing the warm-up. It's actually a bit grandiose thinking our little civilization could affect the climate of the Earth significantly, and it may simply be untrue. If this is so, then reducing CO2 emissions won't help much.
There are also other ways to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere instead of reducing emissions; for instance, increasing both land- and sea-based plant load. The greatest limitation to land-based farming seems to be fresh water supply, and we've made several advances in water purification technology. We've found some interesting ways of increasing plant growth in salt and marshy water as well. Plant matter from both can be converted via destructive distillation into fuels compatible with our current systems.
Frankly, I'd be very happy if we switched to fission reactors and used the electricity to split water for Hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Thing is, we simply aren't ready for it yet; we need more work on portable Hydrogen storage, and reactor technology hasn't progressed as quickly as it ought to have, thanks to the paranoia over nuclear energy. But trying to kill off our current economy before a new infrastructure were ready to go would be a big mistake.
This enviromentalism is one area where the conservative idea just can't work. If you're wrong about it and say, the icecaps melt, or there are 20 hurricanes a year, it's already too late to fix things. The truth is that these enviromental disasters are a natural part of the system, but with carbon emissions, we're changing the system in one way or the other without complete understanding. I'd rather pay a little more on gas and have a lesser economic growth than even risk such things.
-- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
Also worrying even now about people that could lose his job and vote is better than worry about dead people (by hurricanes and similars enhanced by climate changes) that dont matter because they dont vote anymore.
Hopely Bush is still alive (and whoever he cares about) the day of the end of the world as we know it, would hate that he fuck the world and don't lives to suffer for what he helped to cause.
How did this post get tagged insightful? /2c
As long as the USA is the #1 polluter in the world, I think they have spent their rights to argue what should or shold not be done about the environment issue. If everyone was living they do we'd all be dead by now.
The Kyoto treaty is lame becuase everyone knows the countries that matter won't sign a really good one. And now you're using the fact that it's not strict enough as a reason not to sign it!
You're asking for a solution cannot exist in order to avoid facing the problem. If the USA wants to be viewed as a credible leader of the world community, it has to supply a _sustainable_ plan for it's continued existence, or commit to the attempts of the rest of the world (Kyoto treaty).
While I second your apology, I wouldn't be so quick to make promises. After all, many Americans were already promising the same thing not too long after the last time he was elected. (or not elected, if you're one of the many still beating that dead horse)
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
stay the same... Thats exactly how people see treaties like these. They're based off of cornucopian ideals that if we put stock in innovation and education our future engineers and think-tanks can create new technology that is aimed to eliminate our dependence on the lesser evil. Maybe if we stopped looking at the jobs immediately as "lost" and put more focus on alternate energy we could someday accept a treaty like this, but with the oil industry running our country this isn't happening anytime soon. Someday someone is going to have to break our comfy little shell.
And the US has only 4.6% of the world's population.
Kyoto or not, its time to buy smaller cars less often, take public transit, and carefully consider the effects of overconsumption. In the past three years, I've traded my SUV in on a Toyota Echo, taken the bus/train to work nearly every day, and started to buy gently used stuff on eBay.
It was actually pretty easy - And I was able to pack an extra $18,000 into the bank. I suppose I'm my own little "Mini Kyoto."
Of course, my behaviour is bad news for corporations like GM and many manufacturers - but its better for me.
since Bush has probably patented "causing the loss of American jobs" and doesn't want anyone to infringe on his patent.
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
WTF if you disagree with the post then POST A REPLY WITH YOUR REASONING. The parent is not flamebait retarded mods!!!!!!!!!!!
MODERATORS CAN SUCK MY DICK. Now THAT'S FLAMEBAIT!!
...Chinese farting CERTAINLY does contribute to global warming. So you are wong!
We allready doom since the first monkey pick
a rock to kill a other monkey.
omg, truth hurt
everyone on the planet will die? dude, get a sense of perspective. how many people are dying right now due to air pollution compared to how many people are dying right now from heart attacks?
It's very informative (I have no mod points now...)
Accept it. The United States is not going to sign a CO2 reducing treaty anything like Kyoto. Why?
The Kyoto treaty requires that all developed nations reduce their CO2 emissions to 92% of their 1990 levels. That's an odd algorithm to use to select the safe level. Why was it used?
Europe and the American Europhiles who negotiated this treaty chose that date deliberately. By 1990, the United States had done a *lot* of pollution-mitigating things (Keep in mind that that year the US celebrated *20 years* of Earth Day). However, by 1990, Europe was an environmental mess. Horrible emissions around the continent, most of them in the former Communist half, meant that Europe still had lots of 'easy' things to do to clean up its CO2 picture. Combine that with a Russia whose population has been in steady decline ever since then, and meeting the 92%-of-1990 becomes relatively trivial for Europe.
Also, at the rates things are going, it won't take long until the 'developing' world is putting out as much CO2 as anywhere else in the world.
Here's an alternative: No nation is allowed to release any carbon dioxide.
This could be implemented with a series of sensors around the world, measuring local CO2 patterns and wind patterns. These sensors, controlled by the UN would constantly measure the flow of CO2 around the world. If, for example, the air flowing into Portugal averages 207 ppm CO2 and the air flowing out of Portgual averages 230 ppm CO2, some sort of combined UN military force would implement an oil blockade, bomb factories, or do whatever else was necessary to get Portugal into compliance. (No offense to the Portuguese -- I'm just using them as an example, and I have no idea what their CO2 emissions are like.)
+1 informative
The main thing to understand behind the Kyoto agreement is the fact that it institutes a system of Tradeable Emissions Rights (TERs). TERs are already being used in the U.S. among coal-fired power plants with great success in curbing emissions. Basically, a TER is a publicly traded permit that allows 1 ton of pollution emission per permit purchased. Each power plant is granted a certain number of emissions permits up to the amount that needs to be abated (by statute), and the company must then purchase additional rights to pollute above that amount.
;)
This is a great market because it makes the industry self-policing. Those powerplants that can economically abate emissions are free to sell excess TERs to companies that are unable to do so, making it a win-win situation for all parties. Every year the amount of pollution abated increases, which encourages companies to invest in cleanup technology, or decommission powerplants that simply can't meet the requirements economically (which are replaced with new plants with better technology).
Now apply this on a global scale, and you have Kyoto. The reason Russia is so gung-ho about signing onto this treaty is because they stand to make billions of dollars on the deal. "Why" may you ask? Because the baseline was set at 10% below 1990 pollution levels (IIRC). Anybody that knows anything about Russia's economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union knows that they're running at about 30-40% of their industrial output as they were during the Communist heyday... in other words, they have a shitload of permits to sell... and guess who their #1 customer will be? The U.S., of course.
This is why the U.S. is so apprehensive about the treaty... we're already doing what we can within our country's own TER system to combat pollution, so there's not much room left for maneuvering on a global scale (we've already hit the point of economical abatement). So, that's the primary reason why the U.S. won't sign on, and why it's been a bipartisan issue.
We stand to lose quite a bit of GDP if we have to implement the Kyoto agreement, though with the price of oil forever-escalating this could finally spur development in the Hydrogen/Solar area.
Also, to those protesting the unfairness of Kyoto, keep in mind that in every country's industrial development, there's a point in time where they emit huge amounts of pollution... attempting to deny those developing countries economical fossil-fuel sources is a bit hypocritical, even though on a global scale it make sense. That is why Kyoto makes exception for these countries... they're allowed to pollute at their current levels for 10-20 years, upon which time they will also be subject to the provisions outlined in the Kyoto treaty. The hope is that by that time technology will have evolved enough that it will be economically feasible for these developing countries to afford, which will lead to implementation.
Any questions?
It's better to let Americans die in Iraq for no good reason, than let them lose thier jobs to save the environment. What an Asshole.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
[Stupid submit button next to the preview button...]
This proposal would allow countries to emit as much CO2 as they wanted, as long as it was reabsorbed by forests or whatever before it left their borders. There would be some practical considerations -- would we really need to ring, say, Greenland or the Northern 90% of Canada with sensors?
I couldn't find a list of countries and their border lengths, but I did find a list of areas. If you assume that each country is a square, and thus that it's border is sqrt(area) * 4, and you put a sensor every 10km, the total number of sensors becomes 50,000 -- and they're much simpler than, say, cell phone towers.
On a side note, the US already easily meets this standard of emitting no net CO2, so this proposal would never pass.
People have a short term memory. I don't see anyone blaming their grandparents because we now pay $10 for products that used to cost $2.
There are people who still believe that Vietnam was a good idea.
We're trying to win a debate with a group that dismisses science because they believe a diety that created the Earth 4000 years ago is on their side.
If you think slashdot is "radical left" you need to spend some quality time in Cambridge or Berkeley. I'd say ranging through moderate left, substantially libertarian, and occasionally (IP and corporate issues) touching on anarchist. Multilateral, in this case, I'll grant you; global warming is obviously a global problem, and addressing it will require cooperation among nations.
(as evidenced by the anti-Bush rhetoric and pro-Kerry numbers in the polls recently)
Sucks to be in the minority, doesn't it? Life isn't fair! Nobody's making you stay here; you can avoid political threads or articles, or just leave /. entirely and hang out at freerepublic. On the other hand, it's substantially more difficult for me to avoid the impact of laws and policies I find abhorrent. It's all but impossible for me, or anyone else, to avoid the impact of global warming, without the imposition of constraints on CO2 emissions. Somehow, I'm feeling less than sympathetic for your situation.
isn't going to let you live it down though.
If you take any position here you can expect a rebuttal from someone. That's kinda the point.
I'm burning karma right now, but who gives a shit
If that's a ploy to avoid being modded down for a reply that isn't relevant to the topic, I don't think it's going to work.
as if caring what this crew thought is somehow important.
which you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't waste your time replying.
When the US won't defend your ass
If by "your" you mean other countries, it seems to me, based on conversations with many people around the world, quite a few see our "protection" as being at best misguided, and at worst in the finest tradition of the Mafia. I'm all for our allies picking up more of the tab for their own protection if they find it necessary.
If by "your" you mean those of us in the US who disagree with you, I'm quite capable of defending myself (nice thing about being a left-libertarian is you can support all the amendments). But when did agreement with a particular side become a litmus test for patriotism, anyway? I'm pretty convinced you're misguided about environmental policy, but I don't think the US should sell you down the river because of it.
Look, this may be difficult to believe, but most of us are in favor of Kyoto and other measures to address global warming because we believe it is in our long-term best interest, not because we want to hand the keys to the country over to the UN or foreign nations. We're racking up environmental debt. Sooner or later we're going to have to pay up, and there won't be a mommy and daddy to bail us out.
This lies at the core of the problem with Kyoto: it attempts to create a socialist "one person, one unit" system regardless of comparative advantage. The other problem is the international trading scheme for emissions; dictators in impovershed nations (with little carbon emission) would have one more way to collect fees from rest of the world and continue oppressing their people. The appropriate fix would be a mandated world-wide carbon emissions tax which is collected by each government, the level to be set by treaty. Anything else leaves perverse incentives which will be abused, no matter how much the socialists (aka "progressives") believe otherwise ("reality-based", my ass).
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
On Global warming being manmade, on this treaty having any effect on it, and on the simple fact this treaty was made to PUNISH America.
As usual, junk science rules the day here at Slashdot. For a techie website you're all such ignorant idiots.
Unfortunately, the radical greens have shot down the only really viable means for radically reducing CO2 output, nuclear power.
Actually there are (at least) two others. But I'm sure the eco-fascists (not to be confused with actual environmental scientists) would be opposed to them as well.
One is space solar power: Orbital solar collectors and milimeter-wave downlink to rectennas. It's actually price-competitive with fossil fuel plants (despite a flawed NASA study) and will get moreso with the development of private orbital capacity. (Bullshit about birds cooked in flight has already been issued.)
The other is to seed the South Pacific with a bit of iron compounds so the algae bloom will suck down megatons of CO2 and sequester it in the deep ocean for time measured in kiloyears, and continue with fossil fuel until, say, the necessary fusion breakthroughs occur or the eventual price rises make other alternatives attractive.
It seems odd to see them whine on one hand about too much CO2, and then whine on the other hand that people would *gasp* actually consider using a CO2 free source of electricity.
Hear hear!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Blame G.W. Bush all you want. Kyoto is just a bunch of leftist drivel that lets the EU and China off the hook while punishing the U.S. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/10311159 75127.html
All men aren't pigs... we just smell that way.
From what I read the treaty now goes into place regardless of what the USA does now. Somehow that means Bush is at fault?
The Yahoo story also points out that Russia agreed to the treaty because they hope to sell their pollution quota to other countries and attract jobs.
I'm at a loss to see how that helps the environment.
Instead this treaty seems to make pollution a commodity that can be bought and sold.
Can someone please explain to me just how the fuck that's gonna help?
.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
.. than the health of the entire planet and every creature living on it.
Sigh.
I'm a perfectionist but I'm trying to cut back.
For anyone Bush Bashing, remember that clinton had several years to sign the treaty and never would either.
...have a lot more to do with any perceived "global warming" that might be occurring than greenhouse gases.
The recent 60 years of increased sun activity are the greatest period of such activity in the last 8,000 years.
Furthermore, the data upon which Kyoto is based has been proven to be statistically fraudulent.
The fact that Kyoto is based upon fraudulent data should be troubling to anyone without some unspoken agenda.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Very clever, Mr. Coward.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
If you ban mugging, you'll have a whole bunch of unemployed muggers. They might turn to crime.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the story where we were told Bush wasn't President any more.
Troll:
Giving Bush four more years isn't the end of the world. Oh, wait, IT IS!! Thanks for voting for Bush! THANKS A LOT, SUCKERS*!
Ok, I know most slashdotters didn't, but some of you...
Maybe a strategy for fairly sharing the rights to emit carbon dioxide worldwide has a chance? The Contraction and Convergence plan developed by Aubrey Meyer at GCI seems reasonable...
That's not correct. The US is a signatory, but it is not a party. There are two steps for most treaties - signing and ratification. You can be a signatory without having ratified, but you are not bound by the treaty until you do ratify.
Likewise, Australia has signed Kyoto, but has not ratified. There are a lot of confused people going around saying that Australia should sign Kyoto, but that part's already done.
The United States and Australia (led by the Bush-sycophant John Howard), are the only developed nations not to have ratified, but they have both signed.
The Kyoto treaty is just another attempt by the 3rd world countries to extract wealth from the world's most successful economy.
There is no 'proof' that global warming is happening or that we are causing it. We just don't have enough data! 50 or 100 years are a drop in the bucket as far as the environment is concerned, we still have no way to examine long term trends with any objectivity.
ed.
Remember Lexington Green!
Let's say Johnny's parents are very strict about making him clean his room. Jimmy, on the other hand, lives with foster parents and they don't make him clean up at all. Then, Jimmy & Johnny's parents decide that their neighborhood is looking kinda dumpy, so they agree to make Johnny paint his house and mow the lawn. Johnny is so pisssed at this that he murders his parents and goes to live in foster care with Jimmy. (*I told you, it's REALLY shitty)
There are two more issues here. THe first is international political capital (of which the Bush Administration is rapidly running up a horrendous deficit), in that if we do our best to help all other countries with global problems then it will be easier to get their help later.
The second is this.... The dangers of doing nothing about greenhouse gasses is really greater than people want to think. Arctic warming poses some serious dangers to our costal areas, and if you think that September 11th hurt our economy, imagine what a rise in ocean levels will.
Or if you are worried about losing manufacturing jobs, what about the tourism industries such as snow sports which are likely to be endangered. What about climate changes? How will those impact our agriculture?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
GWB is an enemy of life on earth whatsoever. You had the chance to free us from him...
Actually, Clinton did sign the treaty despite the fact he knew it would be a battle to get through congress. Bush then *unsigned* it after coming into office.
NSFW
Japanese chicks are cool
I hadn't intended to make a comprehensive argument for one side or the other. I'm simply giving reasons why it would still make sense to send the treaty to the Senate even if it has no chance for ratification. But, since you bring it up...
I'm going to vote for the candidate who best supports American interests, not Russian interests, not Chinese interests, not Indian interests, or any other national interest.Fair enough. And while retaining American jobs at the expense of global climate change is certainly in our short term interests, a good case could be made that averting global climate change is in our overall best interests (as in, for instance, not losing California to the Atlantic Ocean.
There's a direct analogy to be made with outsourcing (although it may not make me any friends on /.). Although outsourcing American jobs is certainly not within our short term interests, the consensus among economists is that it is within the medium/long-term interests of both America and its trading partners.
We can argue 'til the cows come home about whether we should prioritize short or long term interests. The consensus view among environmental scientists is similarly that emissions can bring about global climate change, and global climate change can bring about some very, very bad things.
This globalization stuff is something non-U.S. nationals have come up with as an excuse to damage the U.S. economically and politically because they can't do so militarily.The primary accomplishment of globalization has been the expansion of US commercial power around the globe. That's not something non-US nationals came up with. Incidentally, I think that expansion of US commercial power is primarily a good thing, even if it does cause widespread short-term problems.
The overproducer doesn't actually have to reduce.
Gotcha. But the Al Gore signing the treaty for US has no more weight than it would if I, TykeClone, signed the treaty. It doesn't matter until it's ratified.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
... is the most selfish nation on earth lead by one of the most childish selfish persons on the planet.
What goes around comes around.
Jobs are irrelevant when an economy collapses and economys are dependant on the earth's resources.
The US hasn't even signed Kyoto and it's loosing IT jobs anyway.
All the best.
We've already lost many jobs under your adminstration. It's not the jobs you're worried about, it's the money your big company friends are going to lose to comply with the Kyoto protocol. Then again, companies cut jobs to keep their massive profits massive.
As you could probably tell, I'm not happy with another 4 years of Bush.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
That's what the electorate said (well, 20% of them anyway). So they voted for the guy that bears false witness pretty much everytime he opens his mouth, at least, on those occasions when he says anything intelligable at all. Bush is opposed to Kyoto because it will reduce the profits of his oil patch, neo-feudalist contributors. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the jobs of ordinary workers and never has. But he will write religous bigotry and homophobia into the U.S. Constitution, and really, isn't that all that matters?
nuclear power is not the only way to help reduce green house gasses.
To reduce green hours gasses and keep to the protocol, there are several things that you can do.
1. put converter in chimneys
2. plant trees
3. use renewable (wind etc)
4. More public transport
5. Making people switch tv off at wall (I'm not joking, that little red light uses loads)
without the east coast?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
So if every person on the planet starts burning it at the rate of a US citizen we'll rapidly be burning oil at almost 7 times current annual consumption.
Greedy, selfish, bazzads.
See the electoral college map. See how many blue states are along the coasts. Melting the polar ice caps will put those states under water. The Bush Administration favors policies that will cause global warming which in turn melts the ice caps. Coincidence, ... ;)
.... wants global domination and starts moaning about being "punished" with Kyoto ?
Ohh purrrleeeessseee.
What will get through to Bush ?
A email from God perhaps ?
---
Dear Dubious,
this is your leader calling. Stop dicking around and start saving the world before I have to come down there and do it for you. Ohh I forgot, that's what you want me to do isn't it ?
And what are these jobs you keep on talking about? I thought you were busy moving them abroad, removing health care provisions, reducing veterans pensions etc so the only jobs left are in the military? Ohh, it's a joke. I get it now. Especially when you start the draft and all those jobless IT people will make good cannon fodder. LOL.
Looks like I'll have to come down then... see you shortly.
Yours sincerely,
DOG.
PS Have you organised that "welcome party" for me in the Middle East when I return ?
So THAT'S why the americans are so BIG AND FAT. They consume all the ENERGY!
Bill Gates is obviously behind the US not accepting the Kyoto Treaty. With melting ice caps, penguins eventually won't have a place to live, and will become extinct. It will be a happy day in Redmond.
Again, not true. Al Gore was an official in the US government (not to be confused with Congress, which is a different thing). As long as he had authority from Clinton to sign it at the time (and there is no doubt that he would have had such authority at the time), it is signed by the United States.
This is fairly basic international law, although being international law, it's something a person is unlikely to be familiar with unless they are a diplomat or a lawyer trained in international law.
The real sad thing here are people turning this into a political issue when it is a scientific issue first and foremost. Notice that the majority of those against the Kyoto treaty argue on political grounds. And don't hand me the BS kool-aid malarky about regulations causing job loss. You don't know what you're talking about. You can probably create more jobs enacting efforts to clean up the environment than you can destroying it.
This isn't a political issue. It's a health/science issue.
Those of you who think that there is no consequence to dumping pollutants into the air should re-route the exhaust from your car back into the cab and then wait a half hour. After that I'll concede, and there will be one less bonehead to argue with.
Well then, given your anal personality that has never accidentally clicked the "change all" button of a spell checker, I take it you can spell J A C K A S S, too.
Sad. A typical american approach: threaten those who disagree, with your large army.
Stop it. You are better than that!
I read a great deal of the Department of Energy report on Kyoto. Something in particular that jumped out at me is the sheer cost of our implementing technology to comply with Kyoto. First to note is the best-case, most-compliant price tag; it's around 1.8 trillion dollars over the next 7-8 years. That doesn't take into account job losses/creations/displacements or other economic factors surrounding the implementation - like the upward change in oil and coal prices for the consumer market; DoE was unable to quantify these changes other than to say that they would trend upward.
Something else that is very important is that our energy will have to shift to a more nuclear approach, which is great and all, but we are a nation full of NIMBYs; the pro-Kyoto Americans need to realize that in accepting Kyoto, they are tacitly approving 60 or more nuclear power plants to be built and online in the next 8 years. Since the support for Kyoto is (at least on /.) a very environmentalist stance, I find this to be a little bit in conflict.
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
"We don't have to protect the environment - the Second Coming is at hand."
- James Watt, Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan administration
I hope Jesus gets here quick because my feet are getting soggy.
Let's get one thing straight: The U.S. does not oppose the Kyoto Environmental Treaty. Bush and and HALF the U.S. population (at most) opposes the Kyoto Environmental Treaty. Don't put the other half of us in that boat...
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
We have essentially bulletproof evidence that accumulating CO2 is caused by human activity. We understand the thermodynamic of atmospheres well enough to know that this is a significant perturbation. Paleonotological evidence indicates that this perturbation is occurring much more rapidly than any comparably large climate forcing event has occurred over at least the last fifty million years.
The first order prediction is that this will cause significant warming. Significant warming has been the consensus expectation of the scientific community starting in the early 80's, after a few years of debate as to whether human activity would cause cooling (through dust) or warming (through greenhouse gases). This prediction predates the observation of warming.
Since about 1990, computational models of sufficient fidelity to capture contemporary climate variations have been run with extrapolated greenhouse forcing.
Earliest and subsequent model results consistently predicted patterns of warming concentrated in the northern reaches of the continents. This is exactly the warming pattern that has emerged since then. These predictions show that the disruptions are expected to accelerate based on plausible emissions scenarios in the absence of policy constraints.
I encourage you to study the matter seriously rather than assert your hunches. The best place to start is the IPCC scientific working group report.
Michael Tobis
mt
Defend from what, sadam's mass destruction weapons?
Hmmm... he allowed the loss of the software jobs. Oh, but that's right... we're supposed to go back to community college to bone up. At least the community college jobs will be safe. Are they affected by Kyoto?
Oh, wait... perhaps he meant the the loss of a single American CEO job. I get it now.
I'm feeling like I've been boned.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
The less investment a company has it in, the less of a chance it has to grow and HIRE people. So yes, I'm all for making it more profitable to invest in a company. If you had half a brain, you would invest in stock and funds yourself. I sware, you make it sound like only the "Rich" can invest.
Life is not for the lazy.
Yeah, that's why Denmark has committed itself to cut CO2-emissions to 18% below the 1990 level, which was only half the US emission level per capita. It's a really subtle ploy, and I haven't figured out how it will do its dirty deed and ruin US economy, but I'm sure I'll work it out soon.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
It's an urban legend.
I don't claim to be an expert on the internal politics and laws in every E.U. country, but here in the U.S. the Treaty has little to do with this president per. se. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted by the U.N. in 1992, in the early part of the first Clinton administration. In order to become a Treaty under U.S. law the president must receive support via a 2/3 majority vote of the senate. The senate (controlled by the Dems in 1992 (IIRC) voted something like 98 to 2 against in a straw vote. President Clinton did not submit the protocol, and it basically died. SO, why is it somehow President G.W. Bush who takes the heat. I heard none of this outcry during the bulk of the Clinton administration. Come on everyone, fair is fair.
US policy on this subject was irresponsible and it still is. With or without mandate.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/09/w e_531_01.html
Enough said.
The main counter-point here, though, is the question of "but how do europeans do it". Otherwise it might be a reasonable stand... but really, what with Bad Socialism, strong labor unions and high taxes, somehow (western) Europe still has similar standards of living to that of US, and they seem to be able to afford to comply with Kyoto protocol.
Same also applies to, say, China and Japan, both of which seem serious enough about compliance.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Step 1. Have economy collapse.
Step 2. Sign Kyoto.
Step 3. Profit
What I think is a big deal here is not that Bush is doing what we all knew was he going to do (whether you think it be good or bad) It's that the news is reporting to the world decisions as made by the "U.S" When in fact these decisions are made by only 50% of the population. That means that approximately 50% of we Americans are misrepresented as individuals to the rest of the world.
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
... he's just following in his fathers' footsteps:
"The [unsustainable] American way of life is not negotiable" - George Bush on Kyoto, 1993
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Interesting isn't it. When it came to terrorism, the US government more more than happy to take the lead and do (what it thought) would fix the problem. However on an issue that could cause far greater long term suffering and conflict, it refuses to do so.
I wish I could speak from higher moral ground here, but my own country just re-elected John Howard. Still, from over here it looks like you guys have a democracy in name only, and the big interests (corporate america) are the only ones with any real say anymore.
I know most US Slahdoter's are good people who recycle, plant trees and drive efficient cars (maybe even walk, cycle or ride a mototbike). I feel somewhat sorry for you. We seem to be in the similar boat over here.
This is my only joy at a Bush victory - or rather, a bittersweet sort of feeling. The poor rural Christian fundamentalists who supported Bush en masse are going to get shafted in the next 4 years when massive outsourcing/a flatter tax/non-taxation of investments (Check this weekend's New York Times and the Washington Post online). There are basically two camps in the Bush administration - Cheney & co. want a flat tax, some other Cabinet members want to maintain but heavily reduce the progressive tax brackets and also allow for tax-free investments/capital gains.
To all the poor people who voted for Bush because he supports a "moral America" and "shares your values," just watch as you get poorer and I, the already rich liberal, get wealthier under Bush. Thank god for my massive stock options; at least I'll be rich while my country goes to hell.
God Bless America.
I don't care about global warming. It is global cooling that would be a problem.
Anyhoo, before people worry about manmade greenhouse gases maybe they should first try to cap all the volcanoes...
Oh well, what the hell...
I was listening to JJJ (Australia) the other day about the US elections. They were interviewing an American who had voted. She said, "I am apposed to the war in Iraq, but I voted for Bush because I am better off financially".
The same attitude is in Australia as well. People will vote for what will benefit themselves, not what benefits everyone.
Civilization is uncivilized.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
it doesn't count unless it's ratified by the Senate - so the US isn't a signatory.
Your proof isn't towards your conclusion. No, it doesn't count at all unless it's ratified by the Senate, but yes, the US is technically a signatory since it signed.
The main problem is that the main source of electrical generation in the U.S. is from coal-fired power plants. Out west here we have some hydropower as well, but we burn more coal than any country (even China).
Economically speaking, coal is the cheapest natural resource we have in the U.S. We have over 400 years of reserves by most estimates, but the drawback is that it's the dirtier, low-grade coal that's found in the Eastern U.S., not the cleaner Bituminous coal that's found here out west.
This is what GWB is talking about when he's talking about jobs... in order to clean up our sulfur dioxide emissions, it means moving away from coal as a fuel source, which would send the coal industry reeling. (Just so I don't seem sympathetic to him I'll divulge that I voted for Kerry).
To make the comparison fair, you need to compare U.S. emissions to 'all' of Europe and half of Asia... it's rather unfair to compare them on a country-by-country basis.
Like you mention, China is one of the success stories of the developing nations... even though the Three Gorges Dam is going to create the world's largest cesspool out of the Yangtze river, it will also take the place of them having to build several coal-fired powerplants. They've actually been reducing their pollution output as well from their current plants, even though they are one of the excepted countries in the Kyoto agreement.
You also are kinda forgetting that European countries have had a hundred more years or so to get their emissions in order... remember that at one time London's air quality was so bad that people were literally dying from breathing. Germany's Black Forest has also been almost completely decimated by acid rain... so they also had incentive to reduce their emissions, without needing the Kyoto agreement.
I don't want to appear like I'm making excuses, but sometimes you have to look past ideals and see how it's going to effect us economically... there will be a point in the future that we will be able to participate, but with the economy already in shambles, now is not the time.
I'm a senior in Environmental Economics, and the Kyoto agreement is one subject we've spent a lot of time analyzing. The economic repercussions of signing onto this agreement are pretty large, so we'll need to make sure the economy is growing pretty well before we take the plunge. Right now it's just suicide...
War in Iraq drives up the price of oil and makes Bush money.
Gas guzzling SUVs are exempt from many emmission control legislation. Expect no changes there.
Kyoto would impact on oil consumption, directly as well as indirectly through raising environmental awareness.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
... that we will have 4 more years of the same sht...
So, only the rich can afford to invest.
Meh.
So, to sum, None of the Above is Our Fault.
No go on back to the internets, fox, or wherever you get your "news."
I know you're---sorry, "your"---probably going to want to throw a nice party with some bud and hamburgers and freedom fires to celebrate your overwhelming mandate of 3%, so y'all best get to it. (You probably had a tough time with learning maths and stuff, so understand that squiggly thing at the end of the number three means 'out of 100').
Yeah, right.
I have already considered and rejected (as less important than our economy) what you think, but I do have some empathy/sympathy for someone who expressed his view and gets heaped on by slavering masses of people who don't understand basic economics and the impact to America. More portentiously, many here WANT us to go to hell by having to pay Russia and various Third World countries 'national welfare' for the 'privelege' of having a functioning economy.
In terms of defense, I refer to the foreigners here. If they consider the US an unfortunate partner, let it be known that many of us will shed no tears if they abandon any pretense of alliance with the US. George Washington had much good to say about avoiding permanent alliances and it turns out he was right. Without being artificially being joined at the hip from such countries as France and Germany by the Atlantic Treaty, the United States would be able to take a far more honest appraisal of the actual nature of our relationship with so-called 'allies' who seem to work with every ounce of their being to weaken the United States worldwide. I don't blame them - it's in their geopolitical interest. I do blame people in the US for being unpatriotic for supporting the undermining of their own nation.
In terms of being in the minority - this web site is just a pimple on the ass of society. We won the election. I am in the majority.
In terms of avoiding negative moderation, I couldn't care less, i'll just whore it back and get back to work puncturing the disingenuous nature of the Left. The blather on this place is entertaining as all hell, and the freepers aren't anywhere near as wacko as the shit that gets spewed here.
As if Kyoto would ever get approved - in case you didn't notice, Clinton never sent it to the Senate because he knew it would be shot down. It will be shot down if Bush ever decided to, also. It's bad for America, and that's all we need to know.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Yes, those. Perhaps they will be mounted on missiles like the French or Chinese ones (very modern) found in Iraq after the invasion.
Best to worry, the portion of chemical weapons in Syria and Lebanon is getting very close to Europe.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Here's a Liberal Democrat who opposed the Kyoto Treaty: WASHINGTON, DC - The Clinton Administration's attempt to promote the Kyoto treaty on global climate change suffered another blow this week as Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a liberal Democrat from California, offered an amendment to H.R. 1743, the EPA Office of Air and Radiation Authorization Act, that prohibits the EPA from issuing rules or regulations to implement the agreement until it has been ratified by the Senate. Lofgren's amendment was approved during the House Science Committee's consideration of this important bill. U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), a staunch opponent of the Kyoto treaty, applauded this development. "I am pleased that Congresswoman Lofgren has joined my effort to prevent the Clinton Administration from implementing the Kyoto treaty through backdoor regulatory actions. "This fatally-flawed agreement would cripple our economy, send American jobs overseas, and erode the standard of living in our nation. Given the stakes involved, Congress must remain vigilant in protecting America's economic interests by opposing the Kyoto treaty." Knollenberg, who serves on the House Appropriations Subcommittee that is responsible for funding the EPA, included a provision in last year's budget that prevents the agency from moving forward with the Kyoto treaty prior to Senate ratification. Lofgren's amendment is almost identical to Knollenberg's language. "There is strong bipartisan opposition to the Kyoto treaty because it's a bad deal for the American people. With liberal Democrats like Zoe Lofgren coming out in opposition to this agreement, it's clear that the Clinton Administration's agenda is in deep trouble," Knollenberg concluded. -- It's not a Bush thing. Basically, the treaty put controls not on all goverments, but developed governments. Hence, putting more costs into goverments and developed economies yet not developing areas. I don't believe there's any such thing as global warming, the way it's being described around here. I believe, just my hypothesis, that the earth moves between cooler and warmer periods. It's just an evoluationary thing. If it we just global warming, this would be a trend that could be felt for centuries. However, it's a proven fact that the earth has been both cooler and warmer than it is now. In fact, Harvard recently released a study on this: A team of Harvard University scientists examined 1,000 years of global temperatures and reviewed more than 240 scientific journals from the past 40 years and concluded that despite man's influence on our environment, current temperatures are not as warm as during the Middle Ages. So, to say that we have the ability to destroy the earth is just a large amount of hubris, self elevation and chicken little. If SUVs are so vile and evil, why aren't busses, boats, trucks and cars? They all suck down gas at varying rates? Go into any american store and buy something not wrapped in a petroleum product outside of the produce area. Hell, in the produce section, what do you do? Grab a plastic bag and shove your items in it. It's simply a hypocrosy people have right now. Much less everything else that uses petroleum products within your house. Anything plastic? Carpet? What about the wood? Everyone clamores for cutting down trees, but I don't see people saying they don't want wood in their houses. It's not a Republican or Democrat thing. It's not a liberal or conservative thing. It's not a Bush or Kerry thing. It's a matter of opnions and theories. Each may be valid in certain areas, but they may all be wrong in others. Kyoto... I could care less.
How many scientists will it take before we can tear the blinders from your damn eyes!
You anti-environmentalists have been defeated with science, now go away and stop pulling crap out of your ass.
Meh.
We need less people in the world.
Hmm... the birthrate is falling and population declining in western nations like the US, Canada and Western Europe. It's still exploding in India and China.
What to do? Starve large segments of the population and conduct infantacide? Oh wait, China does that. Let AIDS run rampant and kill off the undesirables, while depriving them of health care? Oh wait, India and most African nations do that.
And curiously, the population explosion continues predominantly in command economies. Go figure! Free market economies (aka evil capitalism) have declining populations. How is this possible?
So, the deal actually is:
You want to save the environment
or
You believe the conservative BS about Kyoto and job losses.
Meh.
Best King Canute No Ocean's Gonna Stop Me Now Head In The Sand performance goes to.....(drum roll)
The United States of America!!! Woohoo!!
HA HA look they're still in character! No wait don't point that ICBM at me! Here, have some more oil! Nice superpower....
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
"American economic dominance"?
In case you missed it, the EU's GDP now outstrips the US's. Of the 140 largest corporations on the Fortune 500, 61 are European, only 50 are US companies.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-08.htm
While you're at columbia.edu, you might want to try getting an education.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
This suggestion is already part of the Kyoto protocol.
Note that equilibrium forests do not absorb atmospheric CO2 in the net, only growing forests do, while retreating forests emit CO2.
I have never before seen a claim that the US has zero net emissions after accounting for biomass sinks. Do you have any evidence for this or is it just a hunch?
mt
Greenland?
o ri olis.html
c J: www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2004/2004-02-13g.asp+g reenland+chemical+plants&hl=en
Do you have actual documentation that pollution source is US-based, or is this just a Dane venting?
While the prevailing winds do seem to flow towards Greenland:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/c
Pollution comes from everywhere, like Asia:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:aSDhgSpkSH
According to the above article, Greenland seems to be a depository of pollution for Europe, North America, and Asia due to its location. Oh well.
It's fashionable to blame the US, but you should read the facts too.
So, no, this does not show too much. It does show that some nasties have gone down (but hey, 15 millions of tons of CO is still prety bad) but shows nothign about green gas nr1 CO^2.
Damn right. Just because Bush got elected doesn't mean all we can do is sit back and blow hot air.
I had to get a car this year, so I chose a Toyota Prius. I'm buying a house, and I'm making sure it's entirely built with high efficiency thermal insulation, zoned HVAC, and energy-reflective 'low e' windows. I work from home office rather than commuting every day.
If enough people vote with their wallets, corporations will start to notice. Notice that already Toyota can't build hybrid cars fast enough, while SUVs are cluttering dealer lots by the thousand.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
You conservatives are such god-damned stupid pricks!
Meh.
Just the truth. Read. Learn. Evolve.
Meh.
Mod this guy up.
He's simply calling it as it is... another Bush Bashing
See the red pollution blob on the right side of these images:4 /10/04101 2082648.htm_ Denmark_0.htm l
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMIQJZ990E
Kyoto does nothing for this.
Bush opposes the Kyoto protocol because it'll "cost jobs."
Yet, Bush doesn't even notice the job losses due to outsourcing.
Let's think about this a bit - does Bush really care about jobs?
No - he just doesn't want his big business friends to pay for decent pollution prevention standards.
*This* is why I'm trying to move to Canada.
Thanks for your misinformational post. Read. Learn. Evolve. Then post.
Meh.
I admit to being quite a high mileage motorist (for a Brit). About 22,000 mles a year. But I use a very small car which gets around 45 miles per UK gallon or motorbike, around 57 mpg. Regretably even in England there is a trend to ever bigger gas guzzlers often only used for shopping and clogging up the rush hour traffic doing the couple of mile school run in a huge 4x4 or MPV ( commonly refered to as a Chelsea Taxi). When you consider the impact of moving 2 to 3 tons around with a barely warm engine doing about 10 mpg under those conditions then you know it can't go on like this much longer. What are legs for? Or can they barely support the increasingly clinically obese lumps of lard atop them. To quote the infamous UK politician, Norman Tebbit ":On yer bike!"
Tone
what we need is not more jobs, what we need is a society that regulates it's birth rate. With less than 5% of our populace engaged in critical stuff (food, shelter, maintence for the latter), we're still all struggling to get by. And why? Because those 'rich fucks' are busy making sure we fight and struggle amonst ourselves for their benefit. Here's a fun statistic (I'm too lazy to look through rotten.com's archives to look it up): out of 18 Billion in money earmarked to rebuild Iraq, 29 million has actually made it into the hands to Iraqis. Better question: Why the hell are we importing foreign labor into a country we're trying to rebuild? This is just an example of larger problems/issues.
Oh, and you fail consider why those goods and services are so much cheaper. Again, a question: How the fuck can steel shipped from South Korea be cheaper than steel made in the USA? Are the South Koreans that much better at making Steel? Or could it be the low pay, complete lack of safty, ignoring environmental concerns, no health benefits... Heck no, it's all that thar competition making their steel so cheap!
Finnally, outsourcing Dooms labor unions. You'll notice there are no big strikes to speak of in developing countires. All it takes is a simple threat to move the plant (which can easily be backed up) to get your workers back in line. No Strikes, no protests, no corrupt gov'ts getting international attention. Just a lot of poor, starving people.
If you outlaw or at least curtail outsorcing to poor, abusive countries, those countries can be force to improve their lot. Things are never going to get better in Mexico so long as the people can come here and get by on what they earn. Before people will act, the shit has to really hit the fan. But the way things are going, our planet is headding for some sort of perverted equilibrium with just enough people struggling to stay/become middle class that there'll never be a real impetus for positive change.
There is no defense for the world's current system and state. I'm sick of hearing people say it'll get better. It's not folks, it's getting worse.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I forgot, global warming will only flood the coastal cities because of the above-land ice that melts and also cause massive weather disruptions around the world. No biggie. Oh, and don't forget about the slew of new diseases and plagues because of higher temps.. and desertification... and, well, still no biggie. We'll just all move to greenland!
Meh.
Factoids:
Not a single senator 99-0 signed up for Kyoto as it stands. Bush and Kerry both have said they would not sign it as it stood, both said they would sign it if changes were made.
The US is decreasing it's per-capita emissions at a faster rate than Canada has since signing the treaty.
So if the entire government refused to move forward with it and the US is reducing it faster than nations who signed up for it... what good would it be?
So president Bush prefers to fight a war against terrorism to the war against global warming. The former has cost 'only' a few thousand lives, the latter endangers millions of people. But maybe it is just more convenient to manipulate citizens with fear of terrorism than to save a few drops of oil.
problem here is that he, nor any us company can make any money....
I wonder, if God created the world, like Bush thinks, then isn't destroying the world, essentially destroying Gods work? Isn't that sending a message to God that he does not value his creation?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/277.html
6
One of the sticking points in the negotiations at the Kyoto meetings was whether developing nations would be brought under the emissions limits imposed upon the richer nations. China, the most populous country in the world, was officially treated as a developing nation and was not brought under the Kyoto limits.
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=56
Developing countries have been eager to see the Kyoto Protocol put into effect, especially since all of the required emission reductions would occur in the developed countries.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
But at least we'll have jobs until we fall down choking from fumes and heat.
Part of the problem with the treaty (at least as it was originally suggested, I am unsure about now) was that it was not a balanced regulation across the board, instead giving certain countries more leeway under the treaty than others. To a degree I can understand this as more technologically savvy nations can focus more on cleaner emisions than third world nations, but a certain measure of fairness to all must be achieved before I would support it.
Anyone care to add?
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Everybody is looking at this the wrong way, it's not the jobs that would be lost, but where the jobs will be lost. Right where the Bush family has most of their money invested and where President Bush get his campaign money - oil.
If greenhouse gas emissions are really causing global warming, the obvious solution is nuclear power. It has other massive environmental and health benefits to boot. Read why Ignorance About Nuclear Power is Killing Us (literally).
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
The earth is plentiful - there is enough to go around. All of us could have every need fulfilled. There is no need to tread on others to get what you or your family needs. Only out of greed would you fight your fellows for more.
Your lack of empathy both saddens and frightens me.
Jag pratar lite svenska.
That's a very short-sighted and narrow-minded view of things. It's the kind of attitude that gets everyone in trouble eventually. Thanks, asshole.
Me and my wife are both university graduates. I work as a programmer (although currently self-employed) and my wife is a highschool teacher. We are in our thirties. We have a family. We should be really well off... but we are not. We are examples of the gradual elimination of the middle-class.
Meh.
Bush is a cunt - I can't believe you robots voted him back in. Twats. I'd like to think you'll all die soon but i know it will be the rest of us that suffer.
It hasn't screwed the UK over, I am not sure it will cost 5 million US jobs at all.
And it would definitely help long-term with the environment regardless of what China did.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, if a developing nation can manage to keep its emissions under their limit, they can "sell" the extra amounts on the global market to nations that are having trouble meeting their limit. The Kyoto Protocol creates a capitalistic incentive for the reduction of pollution where there were none. With this capitalistic incentive, developing nations will be as encouraged as first world nations to force pollution restrictions on factories, even those owned by global companies.
Seriously...
He wants to have a monopoly on losing American jobs.
Hell, you think that's fucked up, chew on this: it is illegal for me to pay you to have sex w/ me. It is perfectly legal for me to pay you to have sex w/ someone else, as long as I tape it and sell the movie!
-2 from the US, +50 from China?
I don't see your point.
The point is that, if you accept the view that +anything is a bad thing (most scientists do), it follows that +48 is better than +50.
Also, the USA ratifying Kyoto would be significant. The USA is the country the rest of the world looks to. While the USA doesn't ratify, everyone else says "no point doing much, the US hasn't so we shouldn't". If the US did ratify it, and started working to reduce emissions, that would convince a lot of people to follow suit. Remember, we have some VERY powerful bargaining chips.
China? No problem. Just tell them we'll stop protecting Taiwan if they cut their emissions...
From the protocol
Article 3 Paragraph 2
2. Each Party included in Annex I shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol.
I didn't say it was though. It is, as I said in North America.
It's amazing how many people correct me saying it isn't though (which I find very weird).
Okay, that does it! Now, listen! Why is it that everything today has involved things either going in or coming out of my ass?!
-Eric Cartman, South Park, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Bush seems to think that a) there are no global-scale problems, b) even if there were, they should not be solved through collective action and c) the U.S. has a divine right to screw the rest of the world, take their resources, install oppressive regimes, etc etc.
The rest of the world doesn't like getting screwed. And half of the U.S. voters are smart enough and civilised enough to realize that sometimes co-operation is the better way. But it doesn't matter - the world isn't a democracy, and as we know, a few idiots in the "heartland" have taken all the world along for a demonstration of what happens when you let Enron-style capitalism and religious fundamentalism run things.
The good news is that now we'll all find out who is right. Are those who warn of the dire consequences of unilateralism, pre-emptive war, environmental destruction etc etc. just being whiny, or not? Maybe global warming really is just a conspiracy among scientists who want attention and funding. Maybe freedom and U.S.-style free markets will bloom in Iraq, and be so wonderful that the Palestinians will realize that they should strop trying to get back their land and go get a job for McDonalds. Maybe the "expert" opinions of the NAS, or the U.N., or our oldest allies, are just plain wrong, and reality will yield to faith.
I'm rather curious, actually. It's not every day that you get a chance to see your beliefs put to the test. Besides, it'll be fun - kinda like watching NASCAR; it's more fun when you think there will be a wreck.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Hiring in October at a seven-month peak
;-)
Good news: 337,000 new jobs, and numbers from past months adjusted up.
But: Some of it is from post-hurricane reconstruction.
(So if you believe that the man-made component of global warming is significant, you could say that polluting more creates more jobs. Ha!
Bad news: Unemployment rates went up.
But: That was because people who had not been registered as unemployed heard about more jobs being available, and started actively looking for one.
Worrying to me: Loss in manufacturing. The industrialized countries are losing manufacturing jobs to low-cost countries. In my country this is because we have ridiculously high wages and prices. You can't survive on just cutting each other's hair, you know.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Yay! More "do you want fries with that jobs!" I'm so happy!
Fair enough. And while retaining American jobs at the expense of global climate change is certainly in our short term interests, a good case could be made that averting global climate change is in our overall best interests (as in, for instance, not losing California to the Atlantic Ocean.
/.). Although outsourcing American jobs is certainly not within our short term interests, the consensus among economists is that it is within the medium/long-term interests of both America and its trading partners.
/. and that it's entirely correct. If America tried to fight outsourcing with protectionist laws, domestic companies would eventually find themselves unable to compete with foreign firms operating without such restrictions. Those companies would fail, workers would be laid off, and our economy would suffer for it. Although some are being laid off now and some are suffering, overall the impact is negligible. During the Clinton years, an unemployment rate of 5% was considered stellar. We're at that now. The only reason people aren't rejoicing is because we got spoiled by the sub-2% unemployment of the 1999-2001 technology boom.
And if there were convincing, unequivocal, non-debatable, overwhelming evidence supporting the idea that climate change is being done by humans, I'd be more than happy to use my Power of the Polls to put a politician in office that put strict measures in place. Thus far, no such evidence has come to light. There are as many studies for "climate change" as there are against it. And while there are a few obvious partisans in both camps (the anti-capitalists generally push their agenda's through environmental legislation, the corporate types fund their own studies saying it's all hogwash), there are several non-partisan, respected, credentialed scientists on both sides of this fence that no one can say climate change is our fault or not. In absence of definitive evidence, taking measures that are clearly punitive are uncalled for, which I why I do not support the Kyoto protocols.
There's a direct analogy to be made with outsourcing (although it may not make me any friends on
I agree entirely, both that it won't win you any friends on
We can argue 'til the cows come home about whether we should prioritize short or long term interests. The consensus view among environmental scientists is similarly that emissions can bring about global climate change, and global climate change can bring about some very, very bad things.
Undoubtedly. However, these bad things may come to pass with or without human interference if we assume the global warming is a natural trend. Personally, I do believe it, because solar output is trending higher. A warmer Sun gives a warmer Earth, no? Is such a warming unprecedented? Well, that depends on who you ask. We know very, very little about our Sun and the Earth's climate in general, so little that we can't even predict the weather accurately for more than a few days. To say that we can accurately predict what the weather will be like in 50 years is, in my mind, ludicrous given the paucity of data currently on hand.
The primary accomplishment of globalization has been the expansion of US commercial power around the globe. That's not something non-US nationals came up with. Incidentally, I think that expansion of US commercial power is primarily a good thing, even if it does cause widespread short-term problems.
Forgive me, I was arguing "globalization" from the perspective of politics, not economics. Clearly the rest of the world would benefit from an economically-weaked U.S. in the sense that the playing field would be "more level." I, as an American, do not want to see that happen. Call me selfish, call me arrogant, call me whatever you want, but I'm an American first and everything else second. If push comes to shove, I want American ideals and American principles at the top, not muddled down somewhere between Syria and Belgium. The re
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
If industries are already moving towards more efficient processing technology, and people are already moving towards more efficient cars, why even sign the treaty? It should be obvious that the free market is already taking care of the problem.
The thing is that as power becomes more expensive, not only does industry move to more energy efficient technology, but renewable energy sources become more cost effective. Consumers do their part by selecting the lower cost, less energy intensive products made from plastics or fibers over more energy intensive products made form glass and metal.
Everyone needs to look at this with Republican rose colored glassed and view this as an investment opportunity. Start buying up costal real estate in Alaska, Northern Canada and Siberia.
Lex Luthor, is that you? Quick, somebody trace his IP and wire it to Superman!
Hm. A shrewd businessman should know that you shouldn't hype the things that you are looking to buy yourself.
Ah, I've got it now: It's just Darl McBride trying to liquidate those assets that he put into empty oilfields in Siberia and Canada, so he can pay for whatever he's smoking.
natural cycle
Yes, the planet goes through natural temperature cycles. It's still a debate about how much of it is actually man made. But I recommend cation in favour of the theory until we know more.
species
Not only do new species get discovered by humans all the time, but evolution/God/Great maker makes us new forms of life too.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Are you suggesting that "Super-size me!" has created a new fast food sport? Quick! Register a domain and make a site about it. Design and sell elastic T-shirts and apparrel for it.
My comment that you can't survive cutting each other's hair, goes for serving each other burgers too.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
google news this
...twice...and still didn't see the part where they showed "a direct link" between the warming and greenhouse gasses. Yeah, I saw the same old "we think man's activities might...blahblah" and some more of the usueal "scientists believe there is a link....blahblah" but not once did have I EVER heard or read that the link had been proven. Also, the author mentions land in the arctic. Uh, thats news to me.
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
Not if "something" hurts our economy
On the face of it, worshipping the economy is not entirely stupid... money drives everything... and that good old invisible hand will just make everything turn out dandy.
But you must look at the reality of it. Corporations are more powerful than governments; corruption is rife; the environment get screwed along with everything else that has an orifice that's not surgically closed.
But the "right-wing" feels that the invisible hand meant to take care of the environment as well. It doesn't, and they are fooling themselves. In the effort to make more money for shareholders, who bare no responsiblity, corporations cut costs by pushing them onto what are euphemistically called "externalities". They are real world costs that never hit the books, usually for the simple reason that people don't measure them.
There is a good reason why people in high places don't want damage to the environment measured in $$$ terms... it cut's into their millions... despite the fact that they already control an enormous amount of wealth.
For example, take fishing in the North Atlantic. Marine biologists were warning about fishing trawlers since the 70s, but the "damage to economy" argument stopped any regulation of the trawlers until the 90s. The reality was that only a few people made a lot of money (the fishermen made the same as always). The amount of waste was amazing, the warning and studies were always there, and people ignored the scientists (and still do) as they scream devastation. Finally, when one of the most abundant species on Earth was near extinction, a moratorium was put on fishing. Now people still fish, and the North Atlantic Cod isn't making any miraculous rebound, and in some places are still depleting further.
The damage to the economy was severe and chronic. Millions of livelihoods were affected by the moratorium. The investors from the 70s walked away with their millions, and left the rest in poverty. That is an externality. That is what worship of the economy leads to.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
There's nothing like a Slashdot story on climate change to produce hot air.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/
We americans are the chosen of God - and Bush speaks for him and us! If we want to pollute the world, that's our damn devine right - and you don't like it? You can get off the planet! Nobody wants ya anyway!
I love the logic of these guys. You're all going to lose your jobs because the world is going down the pan. However, I'm not going to risk a single job in order to stop you all losing your jobs.
I realise the second sentence (you can count, right?) is an exageration but it doesn't change my point.
The alternative explanation is: 'I don't believe in climate change, la la la' *buries head in nearest sand dune*
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
So, for instance, when Senator Martinez comes up for re-election, his opposition to Kyoto can be made into a campaign issue.
Turn that around and you can also say "Senator Martinez's support for American interests and jobs can be made into a campaign issue."
You really haven't examined this from more than one angle, have you? I'm going to vote for the candidate who best supports American interests, not Russian interests, not Chinese interests, not Indian interests, or any other national interest. And, as an American senator, that's what I'd expect any American governing official to do. This globalization stuff is something non-U.S. nationals have come up with as an excuse to damage the U.S. economically and politically because they can't do so militarily.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
What do you propose we do with the nuclear waste left behind?
Bury it?
Fire it off into the sun?
Keep it in barrels around the facility to be later transported by train? And do you want those trains driving through your town?
I agree to an extent that we should be using more nuclear power instead of coal/oil/gas, but I feel this should be a short-run solution. Focus should be put onto solar, wind, and hydro while funding fusion research.
I also dislike your lack of addressing the problem of nuclear waste.
IT could also be good for Africa too. A few million years ago, before the last ice age, Africa was a much lusher place than it is today, as was parts of the USA. If we free up all that water in the ice caps, it's going to rain more often, and suddenly deserts in the western USA and Africa might be more hospitable places.
This is my sig.
U.S., with only 5% of world'd population, consumes 40% of the world's resources.
If you want to help the world, stop yourself from overeating. And cut up on buying ridiculous shit like PDA's and cell phones with cameras which are good for nothing. Don't be a 200-250 pound uneducated asshole with no brains.
And, get real, the U.S. is the leading terrorist state, what did you expect? With the U.S. government fucking Iraq and other countries (it's a long list, but I only will mention Vietnam) - "just frgedd baodit" dude.
The blue states rest within drowning distance of oceans and great lakes.
Coincidence?
READ THE BOOK!
It's been about 25 years since I looked at it, but at the time the mechanism for global warming went something like this:
:)
Sunlight comes through the atmosphere as visible radiation which is transparent to the CO2 molecule. It strikes the earth and is re-radiated as infared radiation. This is opaque to CO2 and as a result, CO2 absorbs this radiation and holds onto it -- the Green House Effect. So, how do we control the Green House Effect? There are two, separate distinct ways:
a) Control the amount of Greenhouse gas emissions - the Kyoto protocol (boring)
or
b) Control the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere, striking the earth and re-radiating as infared radiation (interesting possibilities)
I personally like b) because we can shift the blame for global warming:
1) We can blame the environmentalists for Global Warming. Those pesky clean air laws eventually allowed more sunlight to strike the earth. Allowing factories to continue billowing thick clouds of black soot would OBVIOUSLY lead to a reduction in the amount of sunlight striking the earth's surface - PROBLEM SOLVED.
2) We can blame the anti-nuke crowd for Global Warming. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty essentially outlawed atmospheric, underwater, and outer space testing of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons, among their many other wonderful attributes, kick up large amount of dust and debris into the atmosphere which PREVENTS sunlight from reaching the earth's surface. Remember Carl Sagan and his "Nuclear Winter" scenario? Regular distribution of nuclear explosions and carefully placed nuclear charges down volcanoes would keep Global Warming in check - PROBLEM SOLVED
Another avenue to solve Global Warming is to change the albedo or reflectance of earth's surface. The more sunlight is reflected harmlessly back into space rather than absorbed by the earth and re-radiated as infared radiation, the better control we will have over Global Warming. Two Words: Large mirrors. Remember the Bond flicks, "Diamonds are Forever", "The Man With The Golden Gun", and "Die Another Day"? Those films made use of the ol concentrated-sunlight-leads-to-world-domination ploy. Same idea here but in reverse.
Feel free to add any suggestions
It always amazes me to see people jump on the Kyoto bandwagon.
The US SHOULD NOT sign the Kyoto protocol. Not only does it not hold most of the worst pollution producing countries in the world to ANY standard what-so-ever, but it also puts the US at a significant disadvantage compared to not only China but the EU.
To top it off, the Kyoto protocol is estimated to have negligable impact on global warming, even with Perfect compliance by all nations ratifying it.
Why the flame? The GP was not arguing one way or the other (although their inclination is probably clear), but rather was answering the question "why sign a treaty if it isn't going to be ratified?" Answer: one reason might be to turn the heat up on senators who oppose the treaty. Whether or not you oppose the treaty, it's still a perfectly valid answer to the question being asked.
Oh, and you need to retake your civics class: senators are not "governing official[s]", they're legislators. Btw, I hope that one day, your senators will take a broader view of the national interest than you do. Global warming does not respect national borders.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Since volcanos emit massive quantities of greenhouse gases, shouldn't we make the volcanos sign the kyoto treaty too? All of the supposed benefits of the kyoto treaty could be wiped out in a single volcanic eruption.
It seems a bit arrogant to think that we can understand all of the variables involved in "global warming". So Florida had some hurricanes.. they had bad years in the 19th century too.
The Earth is a constantly changing system and trying to control it is an exercise in futility... or worse. If you want climate control, adjust your air conditioner thermostat or build space habitats and remove Earth from the equation.
+1 Insightful!!!111!!
Thankyou America for digging our graves once again.
By the way, don't tell me it's Bush deciding this, it's America, America chose Bush to represent them. That's how it it.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Volcanos have always been around. The earth is a self-contain system and when we mess up that system, bad things happen.
synaptic, you have been dumbed down by conservative-think
Meh.
There's bad news and some good news.
/.'ers are familiar enough with basic math to figure that one out... another bit of useful information is that in many markets, wind and solar are already cost-competitive with other mainstream energy sources.
Let's start with the bad: the Kyoto protocol is woefully inadequate.
The good news is it doesn't matter. Not that climate change isn't real (it's scarier than most realize).
The energy situation has changed in dramatic ways. Never mind the Hubbert peak hala-baloo of the fear mongers or the nuclear wet dreams of mad scientists. Our future sanity rests on two reinforcing ideas: energy efficiency and renewable generation.
Efficiency
I remember being a kid and seeing cars that would go 100 kilometers with 10 liters of gas. Some mainstream cars now double that efficiency. Doubling the fuel efficiency of every vehicle in use today would more than meet Kyoto goals.
While that may seem like wishful thinking in light of the SUV craze, the last oil shock did nudge people to choose more fuel-efficient cars. There's no reason not to expect a similar outcome with continuing high oil prices (and they will stay high).
Renewable generation
Custom-built cars were expensive, but the assembly line brought prices down. Economies of scale are also kicking in for wind and solar- prices go down anywhere from 10-25% with each doubling of production. Production has been growing some 30-40% per year for over a decade. I trust
Naturally, some countries are subsidizing their industries so that they'll be the first to benefit from large economies of scale and eclipse foreign competitors. Japan has been doing it with solar, Germany with wind. We're dealing with a technological arms race, and the US is losing badly.
Conclusion
Ignore the fear mongers. The problem is real, and the solution is growing exponentially. If you want to help, there's two things you can do:
1- learn about conservation. Read up on rmi.org, natcap.org, or ask your local environmental organizations for more info.
2- Intensify the race for clean energy. If your country isn't levelling the playing field for clean energy (subsidizing them to compensate for hidden subsidies to fossil fuels), consider lobbying. If you have money to invest, look for utities that are figuring out how to make money off the new technologies and companies making them.
#!--djh
you are either for or against simplistic false dichotomies. I am against them.
HA HA HA
The following is a bit from a real scientist:
Richard Alley discovered something 10 years ago that made him worry the Earth's climate could suddenly shift, and it changed his life. It was a two-mile long ice core, pulled up from the center of Greenland. It contained bubbles of air that reveal what the Earth's atmosphere was like over a period of 100,000 years. The ice core showed that at one point, in as little as 10 years, the global climate had drastically changed. Soon after that discovery, climate change became a personal crusade for Alley.
-Richard Alley, Penn State University Glaciologist
(teehee, i forgot you don't believe in real science)
Meh.
I am now really for global warming.
"we're already doing what we can within our country's own TER system to combat pollution"
umm...while the US is doing a lot within a few spheres (aforementioned TERs), aren't "out of the box" ideas (at least w.r.t. the US) worth thinking over? Public transportation in many places isn't good enough to justify not using a car.
When I went to school in Pittsburgh, the transit was in perrenial danger of folding up because of funding constraints. In fact, they just introduced a proposal reducing services, and increasing fares.
After starting work in New Jersey, I was forced to buy a car though I did not want one, simply because of lack of public transportation in my area.
Mass transit has been consistently shown to provide more efficiency in fuel usage per person (and in reducing pollution, of course). Creating economic disincentives for car users (like $8 tolls at the entrances to NYC) work wonders.
Also, the US consistently refuses to pass gas-guzzler laws to make gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks less attractive to users.
I'd say the US can do more. The government doesn't seem to be trying hard enough to break the resistance of the few parties who have the most to lose from this (the power co.s , the detroit lobby, and the oil lobby).
do a google search on it. no one in the senate wanted this. it isnt just bush.
always mosh clockwise
Why the flame?
No flame intended, it was an honest question. What a liberal sees as a possible weakness is almost certainly what a conservative would see as a strength. A simple acknowledgement that there are two sides to every issue is all I was getting at.
Oh, and you need to retake your civics class: senators are not "governing official[s]", they're legislators.
Picky, picky, picky...yes, technically they are legislators, but in the heat of the moment the best descriptor I could come up with was "governing official." I'm well aware of what a legislator is, it's just my skull-bound dictionary couldn't find it at that particular second.
Btw, I hope that one day, your senators will take a broader view of the national interest than you do. Global warming does not respect national borders.
What, pray tell, is "the national interest"? Interpreted literally, I see that as "whatever is in the best interests of the nation in question," which seems to be at odds with your follow-up "Global warming does not respect national borders." What I think you're trying to say here is that you hope a future U.S. legislator takes other nations into account for future policy. Sorry, I don't see it that way. Briton's want the U.K. to be on top. The French want France on top. The Russians want Russia on top. Ditto Chinese. Ditto ditto Japanese. It goes on and on. Wherever I'm at, that's who I want to be on top. It's human nature, and I'm not afraid or ashamed to admit it. It does not discount altruism on my part, but it by no mean obligates me to it.
If you had a solid foundation backing up the current global warming claims, I'd agree with you. No such foundation exists because the scientific community is fractured on this subject. As I stated in several earlier and related posts, for every unbiased, non-partisan expert study found backing global warming (or "climate change" as it's become trendily named), there is a corresponding counter-study with opposite results. Discounting the bitter partisans on both extreme sides (the ultra-environmentalists, which are really closet anti-capitalists, and the ultra-capitalists which are for total environmental exploitation at any cost), there are a lot of credible, informed, educated, non-biased people in the scientific community that simply cannot agree as to why the Earth is getting warmer. To take steps, any steps, to combat something you don't even understand, especially when said steps carry significant economic penalties, is unwarranted and uncalled for. What is called for is more studies, more data, and more time. The Earth won't burn to a fiery cinder if we wait five or ten years to figure out what's really going on, and we might just save everyone a lot of hardship if we do so. To claim otherwise is not only silly, it's unscientific.
Look, don't paint this as some sort of attack on the environment. Anyone with half a brain knows that if we manage to wreck this planet it could potentially destroy humanity. However, you wouldn't submit to chemotherapy unless (a) you were sure you had cancer and (b) you were sure the cancer was a type that would respond to chemotherapy. To do otherwise would (a) make you spend money on treatments that had no effect, potentially preventing you from spending money on more effective medicine, (b) make you very ill, which would negatively affect your lifestyle and perhaps even your lifespan, and (c) potentially deprive someone else in real need of chemotherapy from obtaining treatment due to finite availability of resources. All analogies are imperfect, but the arguments and their subsequent points outlined above should be obvious.
For something this big, we need more than a simple "second opinion" from the doctor, we need overwhelming evidence. A stab in the dark, hoping we're fixing the right variable, can do a lot more harm than good.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The treaty only addresses CO2 output not the Earth's ability to absorb CO2. It punishes countries like the US for producing CO2 but does not give the US credits for her forests and plains that absorb CO2. The US tried to get the treaty to cover those countries that are deforesting and give credits for countries with large forest. But the tree huggers put their anticapitalism in front of their environmentalism and refused to amend the treaty and so it was never ratified under Clinton or Bush.
- Sell credits that their people need, for the benefit of the elite (think Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il).
- Fail to account for emissions, selling something they don't have anymore (and who's to know?).
Graft and corruption are the poisons of the third world, and you want to make MORE opportunities for them? You're either hopelessly naive, insane or part of the corrupt class yourself.Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
filler.
If you break it down by counties, you can see blue enclaves along rivers and lakes too, not just the coast.
I'll further point out that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo put (according to USGS estimates) nearly 30 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. By comparison, humanity injects 7.7 billion tons per year. Global climatic effects of the eruption were net reductions in global temperatures, although arguably these were the result of airborne ash and not anything to do with CO2. Still, the point is clear: the global temp depends on a lot of things other than CO2. I'll also point out this study paper concludes that a 1% fluctuation in solar output can be equal to all CO2 emissions worldwide -- manmade or otherwise! In the grand scheme of things, C02 is actually a relatively small player when it comes to global weather, at least as far as we understand it now.
NASA research indicates that if all countries implemented all facets of the Kyoto accords, global temps would be affected by about 0.7C by the year 2050 -- almost too small to measure! I can provide source links if you like, but if you google for it, you'll find it. I didn't even have to look hard.
The point of all this is simple: we don't know enough to make any decisions at this point, certianly not ones that have deleterious effects to large numbers of people (be they Americans, Ukranians, or Belgians, it doesn't matter -- nobody likes losing their job). The U.S. is not being selfish by refusing to sign the treaty, it is being sensible. Other countries signing it have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. Politically, it's great for them, and I doubt the environmental side of it comes into play very much. After all, some of the dirtiest, unhealthiest air on the planet can be found in India, China, and Russia. Do they care about the environment? I doubt it. Do they care about damaging the U.S. economically? Absolutely.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Damn, forgot the link. Here it is:
m at eChange.htm
http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/atm5/L17-18-Cli
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Some people seem to forget that the US government signed the treaty and is now backing off. In recent years, the world has learned that the US is making and braking promises to the international community whatever suits their own internal politics best.
How about the International Criminal Court ? The U.S. didn't sign on for that either claiming fears that U.S. servicemen and citizens might be unfairly targeted for prosecution. There was a special time bound exemption from prosecution for U.S. citizens granted to try and assuage U.S. concerns while negotiations continued.
So does the U.S. really want a "level playing field" across the board or just where it suits U.S. interests ?
It used to be the case that the air quality on the west coast, the air that comes off the pacific ocean, was clean, fresh air - the standard for clean air. (Heard this on Nova - Earth in the balance, or something like that.) That's no longer the case. We're already receiving polluted air off the pacific from China. Um, that sucks ...
Somehow losing control like this, being susceptible to the pollution of another country, pisses me off. Even if we do clean up our act we'll be starting with dirty air from China.
So is this is what it feels like to be the victim of another country's behavior ...
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
Keep saying this until it finally dawns on you that you can create the same economic incentive (even in dictatorships!) without adding incentives for corruption, rent-seeking and other dysfunctional behaviors.What you want to do for the benefit of the world is to drive production to those producers who create the least damage in the process; that's what comparative advantage is all about. International cross-subsidies are irrelevant to this and only add opportunities for fraud and corruption, undermining the legitimacy of the system; they should be avoided like the plague.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Voter participation rises dramatically with income, from around 25-30% in the lowest income brackets, to aroudn 70% in the highest income brackets (see, e.g., government survey data on the 2000 election).
The problem with this is that incomes are skewed the other way: most individuals make less money rather than more money.
And who voted for Bush? Those in upper income brackets (see, e.g., CNN polling data). As income decreased, support for Bush declined. In fact, it's only in upper-mid-to-upper class individuals that votes for Bush were in the majority (if I recall correctly).
Other data suggests that the largest increases in voter participation, furthermore, were from unpopulated south-west-central states (see, e.g., New York times stories on the matter).
So it's not just that a slight majority of voters preferred Bush, it's that that the voter characteristics as a whole don't reflect the U.S. population.
Please, please, please, I beg people in other countries who are reading Slashdot to keep this in mind--there are a lot of people who don't want Bush in office. Nearly half of voters don't want him, and probably a larger percentage of non-voters don't want him.
The problem, as I see it, is one of education and getting out the vote among the less privledged, who historically don't vote as much--sometimes because they can't as easily.
Your analogy with WWII is pitifully narrow, and undermines your point in any case. Let me play your game of reductio ad absurdum.
If America had taken the attitude you espouse durning WWII, they would have bombed Japan to hell to retaliate for Pearl Harbour and left Europe to the Russians/Nazis, only to find themselves in a much more uncomfortable world afterwards. Instead they admirably stepped in and sacrificed many of their citizens to defend the values (and at that point in time the word had meaning) they held dear.
Fast-forward to 2004; congratulations on uniting the world against your country. Perhaps that won't seem such a smart move in 10 years. America will be paying for voting Bush for a long time.
Short term self-interest is not an intelligent survival strategy.
The comment by the Canadian is something that we Americans might as well get used to. While Canadians produce about the same amount of carbon dioxide per capita as Americans do, the Canadians weren't stupid enough to strongly identify their country with environmental destruction worldwide.
Thanks to the the Bush administration's self-indulgent high-profile nose-thumbing (and all those chromed up Escalades in the music videos we keep sending out), the United States is now firmly established in everyone else's consciousness as that country where "they just don't give a damn". If global climate change does turn out to have serious consequences in the next couple of decades, who do you think is going to be chosen as the fall guy?
Yep. That's going to be US.
The qoute is accurate:
"Republicans are concerned that any global regulatory program to verify and enforce carbon sinks and sources will require the U.S. to lose sovereignty over its domestic economy to a United Nations tribunal." taken from this article linked in the GP post.
The commentary is somewhat flamebaitish, but certainly on-topic. Personally I find the trustworthyness of the article has dropped to about 0% after reading that quote.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
...while definitely an anti-fan of GWB, I'm getting tired of most of the international stuff that seems to be more about fucking the US over (WTO Doha stuff and agriculture comes to mind). As long as the stuff called for in the Kyoto treaty are not applicable to all industrialized or industrializing nations (i.e., China, India), then what is the bother, or is it a tacit acknowledgement by the other industrialized countries (i.e., Europe) that their days of any industrialization are over, and that China is the new industrial wasteland for the next 50 years, as long as they still get cheap TVs and consumer electronics?
I completely agree with you - currently fission power is the way to go, along with funding of fusion research.
But this has nothing to do with the US negligence towards current environment protocols - having a bunch of tree hugging hippies oppose nuclear power is *not* an excuse for ignoring the Kyoto protocol.
It's supposed to be AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
Please to write properly in future.
(or risk liberation)
kthxbye
And you should read the article, dumbass. The US is refusing to sign the kyoto treaty.. that means the US is the country in the wrong here.
According to US, developing countries like India should not develop nuclear power as they might use it for weapons, whereas GM wants to sell as many cars in China and India to make these crowded countries even more polluted. The EU is a lame duck which is trying a put up a brave face to the US while the individual govts surrender behind the scenes to the US. I think the day ozone layer depletes above the White house the US will start: War on Pollution .
It's not Bush's will, it's the will of "the people".
The world will just have to get used to bending over and being fucked sideways in the name of the lord and um freedom...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
This environment thing sounds dangerous.
Can we invade it?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
"The good news is that now we'll all find out who is right. Are those who warn of the dire consequences of unilateralism, pre-emptive war, environmental destruction etc etc. just being whiny, or not?"
That's reasonable thinking, therefor not applicable to the situation. Take for instance Iraq. Right, Iraq.
The consequences of an invasion had been foretold many times before. By players from all colours and religions, so this is not some "Liberal whining".
We are there now, a region that's less stable, and less viable, more fundamentalist, and strangely with less liberty for its inhabitants. Yes, a puzzler, but suddenly women and girls who like to live are finding they will have to wear shrowds and hide everything.
Also, a region that introduces more weapons to the general population and its neighbours, most of US manufacture, but also lots of old stockpiles.
Also between here and twenty years a region that most likely will go through a very violent reshuffeling of its borders.
All in all, a risky business, the right spot for diplomacy, the wrong spot for war, especially pre-emtive, illegal war, especially when it also redraws former alliances and puts a divide in "the west".
Any mention of this by US citizens are suspect. They must be unpatriotic or not realistic.
Any mention of this by non US citizens are also suspect, and slightly vulgar. We must have no backbone, no gratitude, we must love Saddam (remember? the CIA's pet for many years) and worse, we must be French (remember? the first and for a long time only nation that helped the US to its independence and even gave it the fucking statue of liberty?)
And of course, very much underestimated by us non US citizens: there's not a thing Americans won't do in the name of God (like training murderers to put machine-guns through hospitals and pregnant women and calling it "Foreign Aid") TO SUPPORT A WAR-TIME PRESIDENT.
So to come back to your point: no, at least we won't find out who's right. Most people in the know already know, but nobody at the rudder now will ever acknowledge anything, and the general population will keep fighting for its right to be ignorant, god bless.
Everybody knows Kyoto is too little too late, slightly unfair and open to debate. That's not the point. The US is not open to debate, end of story. Every scientist on the subject also knows that human influence now puts the earth through something that could "possibly" have dire consequences. This is not really contested anymore, the fight goes on in the fringes and the political arena, but the last five years things have changed, most "unbelievers" have come around. That doesn't mean dick to a crowd that thinks it's not accountable. People will never find out, imo that's a very naive way of looking at things. We already know more than enough to draw some conclusions, and scientists will undoubtably keep score. But "the people"?
I think, therefore I am...I think.
according to this article on how the arctic is already warming at 2x the rate of the rest of the world
The "Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected," according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), which was commissioned by the Arctic Council and funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.
The report projects that temperatures in the Arctic will rise by 8 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. If temperatures then stayed stable, the Greenland icecap would melt altogether in 1,000 years and raise global sea levels by about 23 feet.
Possible benefits like more productive fisheries, easier access to oil and gas deposits or trans-Arctic shipping routes would be outweighed by threats to indigenous peoples and the habitats of animals and plants.
No ice, no bears... just oil.
The actual story is that Canute knew full well that he couldn't stop the tide, he did it as an example to all his sycophantic advisors to show them that he wasn't the great all-powerful king.
Greenland?
Do you have actual documentation that pollution source is US-based, or is this just a Dane venting?
The articles you linked actually support the parent. You searched google, looking for greenland chemical plants (likely trying to blame the parent for the ecological problems) and then, evidently you didn't find much other than an article that mentions Europe and Asia as well. So, when asking the parent if they have evidence to support their theories, rather than venting, you actually provided the information yourself.
I think you found that the facts did support your parents argument, then you went off on a tangent regarding Asia and Europe in order to redirect attention away.
If you weren't aware, the Kyoto Agreement is supported by most countries, since you mentioned Asia, China and Japan in particular. Additionally since Asia seems geographically unlikely to effect Greenland specifically with regards carbon emissions, by concentrating on the additional heavy metals issue the introduction Cleaner Product Promotion Law shows a certain commitment (particularly with an international commitment shown with Kyoto) to reducing these too.
According to the above article, Greenland seems to be a depository of pollution for Europe, North America, and Asia due to its location. Oh well.
You comments don't really make much of a point other than to suggest, 'hey the US is not the only that does it'. I'm sorry, but that really doesn't make the US any better or less a legitimate target for criticism, especially when other countries show a commitment to change. You start of by discrediting what the parent says, then you go on to later suggest that well, everyone does it and then its fashionable to criticise the US.
It's fashionable to blame the US, but you should read the facts too.
It might be less fashionable to criticise the US, than it is fashionable to ignore valid criticism. You might want to try reading those facts you do find that don't support you, instead of searching for ones that do, but then its far easier to just think its fashion going against you.
What would you sooner have, a world were we actually think about and tackle issues that are crucial to our survival or a world where we simply shut our eyes and drive ourselves off a cliff?
It's not about jobs, so much as sacrificing a way of life. If you move from a large 8 cylinder SUV to a 1.6 litre 4 cylinder car you aren't losing anyone a job as such.
Pollution link to heart disease
Did he inhale?
Adapting to the markets is how countries survive. Engineering and manufacturing are in decline in the west, many jobs have moved to the east.
Technology will aid the reduction of pollution, the US can take a lead in this by developing the technology. But Bush isn't interested, so the US will end up having to buy the technology from the EU simply because we have signed up and have a head start.
So in the end the EU countries will create jobs in areas to do with research and installation of anti-pollution systems and the US won't.
What kind of insurance do you have?
Do you have any reason to feel safe?
Do they have any reason to feel safe?
Back shortly - I'm sneaking off next door to get dinner from my neighbour's fridge.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
GNP
for those confused
...so we can outsource them.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
95-0 was the vote against any framework.
source
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Cash. Pure and simple.
Because of the decline in Russia's economy they are already below their levels and thus can sell credits for other countries that won't meet their treaty levels.
Of course, in a few years when Russia's economy picks back up it'll be interesting to see if they re-ratify the treaty.
Right now it's pure gain for Russia to ratify this treaty (along with some other "incentives" the EU threw in) with absolutely no consequence.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The alarm bells may be turned off if the global temperature measurements of the satellites continue to tell a different story. Since they were launched in 1979, satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere show little or no warming, contradicting the surface measurements that might be biased from the heat island (urbanization) effect and other factors. Balloon temperature measurements are also more supportive of the satellites than surface thermometers regarding the warming residual. Even if both temperature records turn out to be right, the alarmists will be on the defensive. Greenhouse physics dictate that the warming should be greater in the lower troposphere than at the surface. If it is not, the surface warming must be more related to increased solar brightness and natural variability than a human-induced "greenhouse signal."
m l
Read more about it here:
http://www.austinreview.com/articles/58.ht
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
There is a balance that the environmentalists don't seem to understand. Unless you kill 75% of the people on the planet, there will have to be concessions. What can we live with. The Kyoto protocol is lame because it supposes that GW is caused by Greenhouse gases. There is NO scientific proof of that, only conjecture and anecdotal evidence. It is true that we have GW, or it sure seems like it, however it could be a natural phenominon. Looking at historical temperature records we know that in the middle ages things were much warmer as well. We should be concerned with CO2 however. There is also evidence that CO2 is turning the oceans acidic and a lot of ocean life depends on Calcium Carbonate (reacts with dissolved CO2 in water).
So before bashing the United States and accusing us of sending metals into your area, consider other sources. Maybe Russia or Europe is polluting your area if you are in Canada. After all, the wind goes from up there down to the US. We know as the artic winds freezes our butts off during the winter. You guys must not have any butts up there.... frozen off long ago (-:
...Australia? They're not signing onto it, either.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
This one has been tough. Next one can have 2 class-5 hurricanes hit at the heart of Florida.
I guess that a job policy doesn't work by having workplaces available because of dead people, neither because large areas are devastated.
US are powerful, nature is more. You can't stand against that.
Got Pike?
So to sum up, Americans are evil and stupid, right? By the way, all of you worried about global warming should read the opinion of this Harvard scientist: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/defau lt.htm
Science doesn't work by consensus. It only took one Einstein to introduce relativity; once he proved his thesis, you either disproved it or accepted it. This talk of "scientific consensus" is basically a smokescreen for the fact that there is no proof for the assertions made by the climate change advocates. There are simply too many variables, too much bad data and bad science, to take on something as potentially damaging as Kyoto. If the computer models are so great, why can't they predict the weather for more than a few days out? Yet you want us to believe they can predict what the temperature will be in a few decades? Come on!
Global warming is the new religion.
The Bush administration pretty much spit on Kyoto in its first term. I would expect no less from the Texas oil crowd, and I only expect more of everything in the coming four years.
Excuse me while I start packing to move to Lincoln, Montana.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
how would agreeing to Kyoto treaty cost jobs? It would seem to me to do the opposite for at least a short while anyway. I know one way we can conserve energy and thereby cut some pollution -- shut off at least half the damn city lights at night. Seriously ever notice the light pollution? It's horrible, even my small town of 20,000 I have to drive 20 miles or further into the country to get a dark enough spot for night sky observing.
Well, it seems I do. I was born and live in Santiago, Chile, so I think I'm from what "developed people" calls the Third World. And from down here, it's sadly funny watching the White House, the UN, and all those we-got-the-power Clubs pretend it's legitimate doing something good for their countries and bad for the far far away Third World. In fact, even "good" means "good for the pockets of our wealthy ones". Third World is not a geographic issue: we have our own few First World people, and you have plenty of Third World americans and europeans. Back on topic, for the White House and their supporters is pretty comfortable messing up the environment and let all those funny-little-countries-that-surround-us pay the bill. Take the Ozone layer, by example. This is a Salon article from 2000 if you want to know some of the mess: http://dir.salon.com/health/feature/2000/11/03/ozo ne/index.html?sid=992601
The Kyoto Treaty would cause heavy pollutant manufacturing to occur in nations that have less rigid standards. This means a redistribution, not necessary less polution. Of course, it could mean less polution, but companies are going to find ways around that.
Further, why should the U.S. agree to do this? A great majority of countries have decided to not do this. Out of all of the industrialized countries, the U.S. produces the least amount of polution, and that is a fact. Why should we struggle to squeeze water from a rock?
If we would like to actually lower greenhouse causing emissions, a plan should be generated, country-by-country.
What could we do in the U.S.? Use less petroleum. That would help us in many areas and it is something we could begin today. It is realistic, as long as we can get the oil companies to embrace it, everyone will benefit.
Do not come to me with this silly Kyoto crap, it doesn't make any sense for the U.S. to agree. It is an aggregate of other nations that believe they can assert some control over the U.S., and as far as I care... they can shove it. Europe uses diesel fuel almost exclusively, they create a lot more green house gases with it than we do with our unleaded fuel. China burns more than half of the world's coal. Natural gas is becoming one of the predominant energy sources in the U.S. and it is by far the cleanest of the fossil fuels. We have done our share. Is it enough? I doubt it, but there is much more that other countries can do that will make a greater impact. It is analogous to this idea I had:
If someone is covered in mud, and you put more mud on them, you will not notice a difference. But, if you take someone who is clean and put a little mud on them, you would notice immediately.
With that being said, I am not against the U.S. making efforts, but I think it would be in the world's best interest for everyone to work on the biggest problems first: systematize, prioritize, and perform. Most people here are tech savvy (I guess) and should be able to understand that.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
>President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job...
Bush is a dumbass of the worst order. No environment = no economy at all.
How important is the notion of being employed when there's a planet-wide ice-age and no food to eat because selfish Americans collapsed the environment? (yes I said Americans: you produce on average 10x more pollution per capita than anyone else in the world).
By not taking action NOW Bush is just pushing his responsibilities onto our kids. Because of his selfishness and stupidity the environmental legacy that our kids will have to deal with will be FAR worse than just dealing with it now.
You know what? Just drive less! Can you do that? Can you put a sticker on your car stating you do not drive on certain day in the week and really let your car stand on that day?
The oil companies will loose plenty of money from such an act, and the atmosphere will gain from it.
ANything anti-business in this conservative envrionment always tries to confuse the electorate into thinking its about jobs. Whether its environmental regulations or unions, or minimal wage laws.
Just like saying minimal wage increases cost jobs and outsource McDonalds jobs oversea's. Yes, I heard this on Florida radio.
The numbers are artificially created by special interest groups so they dont have to pay to be responsible.
By reclaiming it and making it a debate about jobs you are giving the lobbiests a win. This will make Americans think its somehow a sacrifice and bad things will happen when we dont poison our own water, etc.
There is no proof that it costs jobs at all. All it will do is force businesses to raise the prices a few percentage points to pay for the cleaning. Thats it.
Clinton did well with cleaning our environment and we all did not see a recession did we? Under the clean skies act we have seen mercury and heavy metal buildup to toxic levels in most states. Hell in New York state alone every single river and stream is considered unsafe to drink. Why? Because of only 2 power plants in Ohio who were gave the green light to pollute.
http://saveie6.com/
You left out commie pinkos and 4th columnists Sen McCarthy.
Only a die-hard Star Trek junkie would propose space collectors as a "price-competitive" alternative to any ground based system. The obstacle isn't "eco-fascists" but physics and current (or any foreseeable) technology.
Your comment on seeding the ocean is so fraught with major problems that it isn't considered a reasonable choice by any organization, except for you of course.
If you vote for "what benefits everyone," how is that different from saying, "I know what's best for you?"
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
We signed the Kyoto Protocol but we increase our emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere... We are planning to increase our wind power but it's not sufficient to answer to the needs.
Once again, it seems that the /. editors listed a mostly political story under "science". Just the volume of responses alone should indicate that this is really a political issue (I think the only topic that gets as much response would be an apple story).
You mean Leah LIED to me?!?!?
;)
^-- NSFW
+++ATH0
And big time.
The claim to have perfected a reactor that is cleaner and safer to operate than any of the current ones.
Check Wired Magazine one or two months ago.
Tha would deal with their CO2 emissions. As in regards to other envrionmental hazards I would say better dealing with the most immediate problem and we will figure out something else later.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I don't see why Bush doesn't sign the treaty. He can just ignore it like he does all our other treaties.
Huh. Funny how he's concerned now about jobs. Where has he been while our jobs have been exported to India?
Why was this article not classified as politics?
I think it is safe to say that California is pretty much safe from risk of being inundated by the Atlantic Ocean. What with 45 other states in the way.
The Pacific Ocean, on the other hand....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Has the UK actually done anything other than sign/ratify the Treaty?
Seems to me that Kyoto hasn't even gone into effect yet (takes 90 days after the requisite nations have ratified it, which condition had not been achieved as of October 2004)
Yah, the Renewables Obligation (4.9% now, unless you just pay the bribe, er - Buyout Option, so it doesn't apply) might have some effect, but it isn't really Kyoto, since Kyoto isn't yet in effect.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"global cooling"? At least that's the scare I remember when I was a kid. Chicken little science sure produces a lot of research grants and fame, and the people who get in the way get smeared.
Personally I don't think it was a big surprise GWB is not planning to care about Kyoto protocol. He's pretty averse to participating in any multi-lateral treaty, unless it's proposed by US (kind of NIH syndrome at governmental level). But I hope there could be some public plan to aim at similar goals; for US to commit to some improvements, even if that was separate from Kyoto protocol. Even something as modest as trying to freeze current Co2 output as of 2004 level... Kyoto protocol itself is meant more as proof-of-concept (prototype) than anything else; if US would produce something similar, at least it would indicate americans aren't ignoring the potential problem.
I think it really is interesting that at state-level there are much more ambitious plans; like the Colorado's brand new "10% from renewable sources" amendment. And that from a generally conservative mid-western state.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Thank you for your excellent post! Proponents of Kyoto mistake coersion for comprimise, consumption guilt for science. Russia signed on for improved trade status in the EU. That should hardly motivate the U.S. which runs a large trade deficit with Europe. The idea that you can manipulate climate to some undefined favorable outcome by reducing CO2 emissions to an arbitrary level is absurd. I believe that elevated global temperature will lead to increase rainfall here in the midwest, and increased crop yields.
On election day "Redneck Nation" roared. Mr. Bush's mandate largely draws from people who have contempt for Kyoto. Get used to it.
an ill wind that blows no good
Even if global warming doesn't exist, wouldn't you rather have some clean air and water left for your kids? or your grand-kids? Why submit them to a life of air masks and bottled water when all you need to do is pay closer attention to what you're contributing to the trash of the world. I'm not a tree hugger, i work for an oil company.
But, then again, i live in Alberta. If you don't work for an oil company, you're either working for someone that supports an oil company, or you're in the service industry catering to oilfield employees.
IANALOOA
"Kerry: I'm going to create 50,000 jobs.
Bush: I'm going to create 1 job. For your mom."
-- Jay Mohr, Last Comic Standing
To be fair, you did mention fingerprinting and iris scanning when coming to North America. That doesn't happen in Canada, and that's why it looked like you were the ignorant one. All you have to do to avoid it while on a trip to Canada is fly to Toronto, Montreal, or some other big international airport in Canada.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
You are wrong about Kyoto. You do not realize the fact that it asks for "developing" countries like China to increase their CO2 output, while the US must decrease it. It is all about politics: all about damaging the US economy. If it was about the environment, it would have had ALL countries reduce emissions. Not require that some big countries pollute a lot more.
So are you suggesting we all just look out for number 1 and screw the rest of the world?
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
I think you all should take a look at the facts before chastizing president bush. On the outside, it seem that he is making a bad decision. I thought at first that he was an idiot, but then when I looked at the facts, I realized that he may be making the right decision.
You may think that the Kyoto treaty is reducing the overall worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is the Kyoto Treaty only shifts the opportunity for pollution from the current Industrialized countries to the non-industrialized countries. There are no output limitations put on Countries that currently do not have a problem with high volumes of pollution output. And that is exactly why we have not ratified the treaty. For ratification would means that we are setting ourselves up for having to pay large penalties for non-compliances, while other countries are being given the opportunity to attract "our" industries. For imposing the regulations on the Industry in the industrialized world simply means that the industry will find another place where they will be allowed to pollute... leaving us with high levels of unemployment. All other countries, including Europe are all after weakening our economic position. Just ask your self the question: Which other countries have a self imposed Vehicle Emission testing system in place. For we all know that vehicle emissions are actually the main culprit in this Pollution problem.
So... there's every chance that following Kyoto would initially increase our foreign energy dependence. It might even be inevitable, hard to say.
On the two sides thing, OK, fair enough, but I still think this is -1, Redundant. The discussion was about why a liberal president (well, vice-president in this case) might sign a bill knowing that it would not be ratified. That conservatives would have different views is taken for granted.
On the national interest, basically, you put your finger on it when you said "If you had a solid foundation backing up the current global warming claims, I'd agree with you." I don't think we are a million miles apart then. I agree there are big uncertainties, it's just that I think that we are close enough for a consensus to act. But I can understand why others don't think so, and hopefully it won't make too much difference either way in the end.
I retract my implication that you have a narrow view of the national interest. Basically, I read into your OP that you were the sort of person who would look at the jobs lost and industries damaged and think that was the end of the matter, that under no circumstances could these risks be taken. I see now that this is not fair, sorry.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Good thing you posted AC, otherwise the world would know who the idiot was.
Japanese firm's profit goes to -1$/product, and goes out of business.
American firm picks up the Japanese firm's market share, making $7/product over greater volume. Total economic output increases by $8 times the Japanese firm's former market size.
It is the elimination of the least-efficient producers (creative destruction) which is the beauty of the tax scheme. Subsidies are crippling.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
But you frnakly know nothing about what you are saying.
If the arctic become warm enough to grow tropical plants then the water there, currently in the form of ice, will have to go somewhere else.
This would mean increased sea levels.
Since a big amount of economical activity in the world takes place in coastal towns the effect of sea levels raising as little as 2 or 3 meters could have devastating effects in our economies.
The problem is not changing weather and sea levels, the problem is that we may be accelarating the change beyond what is manageable.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
So lets throw some facts in there to complement the picture:
-Bush is not the US. The current US goverment believes (and here I use the verb in its most damning meaning) Kyoto will accomplish nothing. Well, it is like sombebody in the Titanic believing he is safe staying in the sinking ship because he does not trust the lifeboats. The lifeboats may not be enough, but if that is all what you have got. And actually Bush has not stated scientific reasoning. He has cited economic "reasons" (an US job is more valuable than you children breathing and eating polutants).
-The US did not jump into the treaty in a "knee jerk reaction" fashion. There is enough scientific evidence collected and debated for the best part of 40 years that convinced a reasonable goverment (Clinton) that something like Kyoto was the best shot at addressing the problem. If there ever was a knee jerk reaction was that of Mr Bush withdrawing the US from the treaty. A failed former oil baron, whose VP is a former successful oil baron, whitdrawing without even trying to negotiate alluding to "science" that by know is spoused only by a shrinking voviferous, normally paid for, minority (not even the author of "The scheptic enironmetalist disputes anymore the *fact* of global warming happening).
The Bush administration's handling of Kyoto my friend is the definition of a knee jerk reaction.
-You pretend the US public cares about green house emissions. You are the number 1 polutant in the world (far outwheing your population size and econimc output. You simply do not care about green house gasses). THe testament to this is the popularity of polutant vehicles in the US.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well, I made it thru several pages of comments and all I saw was the anti-Bush and anti-American crowd spouting off and attacking the person. Just because you don't like the man doesn't mean you should blame him for all the Earth's ills or all those of our country. Is it even within the realm of possibility that there is something wrong with the treaty? I think so and that is the issue at hand. If everyone else has signed the treaty and you think it's so great then just move along without the US. Or maybe concentrate on fixing that part of the treaty that the US finds objectionable.
Make the emmission rates for all countries equal per square mile or kilometer. Or make the numbers based on population. That should be fair no matter if you are a 3rd world country or not. If they are just now getting industrialized, then they don't have old tech infrastructure to worry about or upgrade, right? Are there other countries that refuse to sign? Look at their objections. Usually you negotiate the rules and requirements of a treaty before you start making people sign it. Why didn't this all come up before? Maybe it did and the tree-huggers just ignored all objections.
Don't label me as a Right-wing wank or whatever from my comments. I'm an independent and I do believe in recycling and environmental issues. My point is that treaties like this should really go in small or medium steps. You don't really want something that reaches real far in the future unless it ramps up over time to reasonable levels.
How about a treaty between countries to share development costs of so called green technology? Share in the dev. of better solar power products, wind power and nuclear power. I should be able to build a house that is not much more expensive than a normal construction method house that includes all current energy saving tech. and have the extra tech pay for itself over a 5-10 year period. Why don't we have durable solar panels for the sun-facing side of the house and the roof that can stand up to any weather? How about a small, efficient windmill that will go on my roof and is no bigger than a TV antenna or a satellite dish? How about a cheap Geo-thermal heating and cooling solution for the house? I talked to a guy last week that said the one he put in his house cost $14,000. That's a bit steep. How about building a power center distrobution device for the home that you can easily wire in the solar, wind and other equipment, that handles the extra power coming in the home and putting the extra into a battery backup or back on the line for sale to the power company. That would be truely useful, especially if a gov't lab designed it and gave the design away, royalty free to several companies to build and sell at a small percent profit. They would sell a ton of those if the other tech. came about.
Just some thoughts.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
I'm playing devil's advocate but I would like to know what the balance is.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
So, after a few more years of Bush I guess we'll be signing Kyoto after all... ;)
Japanese firm A gets $2 profit while emitting 1 CO2 unit per widget.
Japanese startup B has a new process which would get the same $2 profit while emitting 0.75 CO2 units per widget.
Situation under Kyoto: Firm A has an allocation of CO2 units. Startup B has no allocation, so has to buy them from firm A. Startup B cannot beat firm A's margins because it has to subsidize its competition, and the potential reductions in pollution are not realized.
Situation under a carbon tax: Firm A has to pay tax on 1 CO2 unit per widget; call it $1 per CO2 unit. Startup B only has to pay tax on 0.75 CO2 units per widget, yielding a $.25/widget cost advantage. Startup B can take over market share from inefficient firm A and reduce overall pollution; alternatively, firm A is forced to adopt the improvements rather than resting on its laurels.
You have shown no such thing. You have not even made a hand-waving argument for that assertion. Why should any country be given anything? The only way you can say that is if you abandon the concept of externalities.The problem with allocation of CO2 units is that the allocation itself entrenches the current scheme of doing things. Why should cement makers get a gift of CO2-emissions credits, when the makers of other building materials do not? If rammed earth makes a more ecologically-sound wall than concrete, why should the concrete user get an allocation of CO2 emissions to use or sell while the rammed-earth contractor gets none? Why shouldn't the price of aluminum (made with electricity which increases demand for gas and coal) go up relative to wood?
Allocations appeal to bureaucrats, who get power from their ability pick favorites. This influence is deeply corrupting, and it should be eschewed. A uniform tax requires no bureaucracy, chooses no a priori favorites, and lets the people in the economy find better solutions than any bureaucrat could ever come up with.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
We are both under the assumption that some firm is given co2-units. I havn't read the kyoto closely, so I don't know if thats really the case or if it's an auction to begin with. Anyway:
Your example:
Lets assume co2-units = 100 (owned by A).
For A: 1 co2-unit is worth $2.
For B: 1 co2-unit is worth £2,66 (2/0,75)
NO trade:
A produces 100 and has profit = 200.
B = 0 profit.
Trade: 1 co2-unit is worth 2 to a and 2,66 for B. They agree to split the "profit" and a sells 100 units for 2,33.
A produces 0. Profit $233.
B produces 100. Profit $33.
Overall profit is 266 which is $66 more than in the no trade scenario.
Also, the trade-scenario creates just as big incentives as yours when it comes to reducing the co2 with innovative technology. That's because both firms will profit more from doing so.
Try changing my example, but use gold as resource and rings as the product. The result will be the same. It will also work with cross-country trading, between industries and examples with many competitors.
It's not like that I'm saying that a co2-tax won't work, I'm saying that the overall created value is lower.
You have a point when it comes to the initial distribution of the co2-units, but hey: You can't give every industry excately the same industri-terms anyway. It's not like that now, it won't be in the future. The most important is to negotiate with all parts, and secure an agreement that everybody can accept. That would be a good start for kyoto.
Perhaps the most fair way would be:
1. Countries agree on some distribution of co2-units.
2. Authorities in each country auction away the co2-units granted at 1.
If we choose tax as the tool: How are you going to tax all producers in all countries just the same? That can't be fair, because it's going to for example bankrupt all the cement-producers in bangladesh. That's not politically acceptable either.
PS: What I meant about more pollution is this:
Since not competitors = no market share takeover. And since profit > cost then probably production will be higher than 100 units. But that depends on the overall cost structure of firm, which is not defined (too complex).
If B can make more value out of a unit of CO2 than A, there is no reason for A to be involved in any way, let alone be paid for getting the hell out of there. Consider CO2 emissions as a scarce good. Each unit is worth some price to someone. If the price is set at N, the users to whom it is worth N or more will buy it and the rest will go empty-handed. The cost of their products will reflect the CO2 contribution, and affect people's buying decisions to make them more ecologically sound. None of this can happen if credits are handed out on the basis of what companies used to emit.
If that's true, you've done a very poor job of explaining it. Based on what I've seen so far I cannot agree; your examples still involve payments to entities for no reason other than they exist, which is the definition of rent. Creating opportunities for rents will create rent-seeking behavior as opposed to creative behavior, which is bad. Tax level set by international treaty, as I said. It's as fair as trade in any good that travels internationally. It will only bankrupt the cement producers in Bangladesh if they are much less efficient than their counterparts in Korea (CO2 output from Bengali > CO2 output of Korean + transport), and if they are it is BETTER for the world that they stop making cement, is it not?I do not understand your final example. I get the feeling that English is not your first language, so maybe we just won't be able to understand each other unless we write things as very simple mathematical statements.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You want to argue over semantics and say it's not pollution, fine, keep your head in the sand. What DO you propose to call it?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer