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."
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!
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.
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...
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
At least they are getting more tornadoes this year, apparently due to climatic changes.
If true, it would be flagged as celestial justice.
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.
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
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.
Duhbya does not need any help destroying American jobs.
- Have a picture
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.
Intelligence failures leading up to the attack on 9/11
Since the French, Germans, Russians, and Brit intelligence agencies were all saying the same thing, I think you ought to include them just to be fair. But you're not interested in being fair, are you?
Abu Ghraib atrocities
What happened to Daniel Pearl was an attrocity. The killing of hundreds of innocent schoolchildren in Beslan by Muslim terrorists is an attrocity. Wearing panties on your head and being forced to pose nude for photographs is not an attrocity -- except in your morally twisted mind.
Leaking Valerie Plame's name
If she had actually been an undercover agent at the time, this might've had legs. As it was, she was not, and her identity as a CIA worker was well known. Her name was not "leaked" by any stretch of the imagination -- except yours.
Failing to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq
I'm sure the soldiers who got doused with Sarin gas shells will be pleased to know they weren't really hit with Sarin.
Failing to provide crucial evidence to a German court, allowing Abdelghani Mzoudi (one of the masterminds behind 9/11) to go free
When such evidence may expose U.S. intelligence gathering efforts, we have more than enough right to not divulge it to anyone. Besides, it's not like the E.U. has a sterling record in actually prosecuting and holding onto these animals. You don't even have a death penalty over there.
Compromising the cover of Al Qaeda cover Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan for no reason other than to brag how he was supplying the US with intelligence.
Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages. Your description of his activities as an "Al Queda cover" is not only wrong, it's stupid. Not that it surprises me in the slightest.
Now go on back to moveon.org, democraticunderground.com, michaelmoore.com, or wherever it is you get your jollies from these days. Kerry lost, Bush won -- deal with it and get over your sour grapes.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Hey Coward! Care to post using your handle so you can get your "-1 Idiot Anarchist" moderation point for the day?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky