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 all real estate he onws is more than 60 meters above sea level - so he just doesnt care
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)
China has ratified it, and *will* be held to the same standards (Annex 1 country) within the decade - probably sooner.
India has also ratified it, but is not yet an annex 1 country. As more countries join in, more countries will commit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Nope. The sole purpose of Kyoto is to attempt to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. These gasses are are likely to cause the type of severe environmental degradation which will cause real problems for your children and my children.
The problem is where to set the 'proper per-capita' output for carbon dioxide. As you may know, the U.S produces by far the most CO2 per citizen.
Some background from the UK environmental agency may help illustrate some of the curbs that Europe put in place, at the same time that the U.S kept belching the stuff out. It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out how much C02 China and India put out per capita.
"By 1992, the world's governments had signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the treaty, industrialised nations aspired to stabilising their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.
Most failed. By 2000, US emissions were 13 percent higher, though the European Union had made a small reduction, mainly through cuts in Britain and Germany.
In 1997, in a bid to strengthen their commitments, most nations signed the Kyoto Protocol. This time industrialised nations agreed to an average cut in emissions of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But, individual targets ranged from an 8 percent cut in the EU, a 7 percent reduction in the US and an 8 percent increase allowed in Australia.
After the deal was signed, the EU agreed to reallocate its entitlements so countries like Ireland and Spain could increase their emissions, while Britain and Germany compensated by making higher cuts. The UK has promised to reduce emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012."
The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions.
...
Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle.
Funny that you said this. Check your facts -- Brazil has REDUCED green house gas emissions BECAUSE of the Kyoto protocol.
China isn't developed enough to produce? Yeah, that's why they've got a huge smog cloud that can be seen from space...
Actually, much much less. More water from melting ice caps will dilute the total oceanic salinity. Some species will tolerate this change to brackish, but most will die. The entire food chain can be disrupted vitally by the absence of only one or two key species.
Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
About 10 years ago, China was the 5th largest consumer of oil. Today they are #2. China is burting at the seams with economic growth and they're pollution control standards are weaker than they are in both the US and the EU. That is but one of the many reasons that many US companies are moving factories over there.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
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.
> The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions
Sorry, yes it does. It deeply encourages countries to commit to reducing their outputs - and it has already worked. In the UK, in Brazil, and in other countries, since signing on, they've made substantial reductions specifically to increase their position with the treaty.
> What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want
Actually, no it doesnt. It sets levels for all countries at the time the treaty was written. The lower-tier countries still have a limit on their production - its just not as tight as the largest producers.
The net result is that if those third-world countries sell their credits, they too will quickly become annex 1 countries - putting them under the same rules we would be under. The net result? They get money to modernize, we get to slow our reduction rates, and eventually everyone is under the same rules! A net win for all sides.
>Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle
Brazil has reduced their emissions - not increased them.
It has nothing to do with Bush - and everything to do with bad assumptions due to a short-sighted focus on "jobs".
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Of course they signed on - they are EXEMPT from the treaty's limitations. Getting the treaty passed means a huge boost to their economies since many - if not most - green house gas producers can move from countries like the US to India and China to get out form under the provisions of Kyoto.
There are millions of americans that fully support the Kyoto treaty. But we can't do anything because, unfortunately, we are a minority.
I'm sorry; this is a quote from the Kyoto Treaty?
...".
I don't think so. I live in Brazil, and although I do not know much about the Kyoto Protocol, I do know taht my country had quite some work to do in order to comply. We are "polluting less", but I can't give you more details on this (I'd have to research). However, I do remember clearly that I read in a newspaper something to the effect of "we have managed to comply with the protocol so far by reducing
>We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately
Not true at all - it gives us over a decade to reach our goal, and gives us the ability to buy credits to ease the transition. Thats called "reasonable compromise", not "a gun to your head".
>The best way to cut oil consumption is through market forces
And thats why it has worked so well for the last 3 decades? Oh wait, right - our use has only continually increased that entire period, never once slowing due to "market forces".
>A few years from now there will be hybrids all over the road.
Multiple manufacturers just halted production of hybrid vehicles this year. Why? Low profit, high cost. Market forces hard at work against your theory.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
They are on the list. They have restrictions. Balls in your court. Again.
First and foremost, it will reduce our dependence on oil - a huge win for America, considering that 12 presidents havent managed to do so.
Second, it puts the biggest producers first, and the "little guys" who will be hit the hardest financially a close second - the little guys still get moved up to Annex 1 in time, resulting in everyone having the same rules.
Third, it gives us an easy transition method - we can buy credits from other countries, allowing us to reduce the impact of transition, and ALSO increasing the speed of those smaller countries reaching annex I status.
All in all, its a team-work oriented approach to getting everyone on the same rules, as fast as posisble, while still being reasonable.
All in all, very good for America - less reliance on oil, less pollution, less health problems, new jobs (green technologies), and a better standing in the international community.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
I'm sure many people may know the US produces by far the most CO2 per capita, because Australia isn't real. But I must admit that I do find it amazing that so many people can know things that aren't actually true.
Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol.
China and India?
If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it.
What the hell are you talking about?
India has ratified Kyoto.
China has ratified Kyoto
Are you going to say now that you think the US should too? Or was all that talk about India and China a smokescreen?
Kyoto isn't about energy efficiency, it's about pollution. We'd reduce our pollution, with probably no gains in energy efficiency. In fact, our energy efficiency would probably drop due to having to use less than optimal (but clean) technologies.
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%."
US has about 4% of the world population, yet consumes more than 25% of world energy production according to this statistics
You left out the fact that the U.S. produces roughly 21-31 % of global goods and services (I've seen figures vary within this range). Do you propose that the U.S. scale back its industrial energy consumption so as to produce only 4% of global GDP? You think they hate us now, just wait until that happens...
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.
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.
Unfortunately, the radical greens have shot down the only really viable means for radically reducing CO2 output, nuclear power. 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.
If you want to reduce CO2, ban coal. Simple as that. Coal is responsible for more than half of our CO2 (correct me if my numbers are wrong), and banning it would do more than anything else. Just get rid of coal and leave people with the choice of either paying ludicrous prices for gas power, or using nuclear. The NIMBYism would end real quick as soon as people couldn't choose to just pollute the whole world evenly and cheaply with coal burning.
Nothing else would matter much other than that. Natural Gas and Oil produce far less CO2 per unit of energy than coal, and they'll run out anyway within a couple of decades, so it's a really bounded problem. Coal however has sufficient supply, and produces so much CO2 per unit of energy, that it's the only one that could truly decimate the planet. It's also responsible for all the fish you eat being loaded with mercury and lead, and it releases more radioactive gunk into the atmosphere than all the world's nuclear powerplants (including cherenoble) ever did.
The text protocol can be found here
And you're right, the quote is nonsense.
This Bush is sending jobs elsewhere is TOTAL BS. Look at your *LOCAL* politicians. They are the ones that provide the most tax benifit to a company.
For example in my state NAFTA (thank you pres clinton!) 'allowed' jobs to go to Mexico then India. Yet my local group decided to raise taxes on ALL the groups here. Of COURSE they are leaving by the truckload full. In order to compete on a level playing field they have to move to where the tax's are once again let them make money.
If you think for ONE second a company hires you because they are 'nice' THINK AGAIN BUDDY. They hire you because MR=MC (that is the marginal revenue that you provide equals the marginal cost of which *YOU* cost). While your uncle may hire you because your family. That does not happen most of the time.
For example DELL wants to open a plant here in NC. They will be putting one in. It is now up to the *LOCAL* boards to make sure it is worth DELLs time and money to even be here. In fact two counties are fighting over who can get it...
Now lets say for a second 'SCREW the corps'. They should pay the same tax's as everyone else. Guess what? They will goto india, china, brazil, etc... Not because they have better emisions standards. But because they can get the SAME thing at a lower rate. And maybe just maybe they have to do it just to stay in busness. Smaller compaines worry about that quite a bit you know.
Have you never BOUGHT anything? Then kicked yourself for finding it somewhere cheaper? Companies do what you didn't they SHOP AROUND and get the BEST DEAL.
You may be sitting in front of your computer saying 'bush sent my job elsewhere' But think again. Your dreams of a being a dot com millionare were quite delusional. Do not base your life on maybe, shouda, coulda, wouldas. I personaly turned down 3 dot com jobs because the places had NO real plans to make money. They gave everything away! I shopped around for a job that I knew I could have 10 years later. I planned ahead a BIT.
Kerry lied to you when he was saying unemployment is at an all time high. It is not. It is at the all time AVERAGE. Guess what? You have to PROVE again that your worth a companies time... The 1990's are over pal...
Or let me put it to you in a way you will understand. Let us say I need to get a plumber. But last time Plumber X took 3 weeks to fix a leaky faucet. Am I going to go back to Plumber X? Hell no, I am going to find someone else who can do the job faster, maybe even cheaper! Now I am taking a risk. But I am probably no worse off than I was with Plumber X.
That is the way the REAL world works. Not the Dot Com world. That was a house of cards that clinton built. When he was gone, guess what, it IMPLODED on itself...
Also traditionaly computer jobs are usually LOW paying jobs. That there was a point where it was a hard thing to find. We are now a dime a dozen. Prove yourself and compaines will hire you. Think you are entitled to a job? Think again. The only place where your are entitled to a job is in a monarchy.
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?
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.
Source: World Resources Institute. 2003. Carbon Emissions from Energy Use and Cement Manufacturing, 1850 to 2000. Available on-line through the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) at http://cait.wri.org/. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Top10
more sources: http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/104.htm
Where are you getting these "facts". Its a fact that China is buring more coal per day then the US has ever done. Its a fact that China is quickly becoming one of the largest importers of oil, rivaled only by the U.S. Its a fact the 3rd wrold accounts for almost 75% of green house gas emmisions even though the our county uses almost 75% of the fule. The reality is China and India simply would never submit to a fair shake, its contrary to their cultures of nationalism. China would have to do a great deal of modernization of equipment and tightening of pollution controls and that would slow their extreemy rapid expansion, their policy is one of extreemly rapid industrial development they would not accept Kyoto if it stifled that in any way. They would love us to do it though because dispite the fact we are doing LESS damage then they are we do it more as individuals with cars and boats and law mowers, the rules wich make unfairly higher demands of us would leave nothing left for manufacturers and guess who gets to the manufacturing then THEY DO***. It aint Bush that sending the manufaturing to China, its the green party.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
NASA's website fucker!
8 .html
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/Countries/China/133_
The fact is, if Bush wanted the treaty, I think he could get it through the Senate. He has the political capital, and says he wants to reach out to Democrats. But the fact is, he doesn't want it, but it sounds like you're blaming Congress for the treaty's lack of viability.
Again, according to Wikipedia, George Bush is said to have said:
So which is it? Is this a critical issue where America needs to take responsibility? Or something about which we can be petty? If the environment is going to suffer irreparable harm because of our inaction, then we should stop griping about fairness and dig in, doing whatever needs to be done to avert that damage.
Since Bush says he wants the U.S. to be a leader on this issue, tell us what he's done to reduce the CO2 emissions of the U.S.?
One final point: On a per-capita basis, the U.S. puts out ten times the greenhouse gas that China does, and China has reduced its emissions by 17% over the last five years (same Wikipedia article). Now, I think it's perfectly fair to allow looser standards for a developing country that is trying to build up an economy that can provide a decent standard of living for a billion people. China is doing more than the Kyoto Protocol demands, while the U.S. claims to want to be a global leader on this issue yet does nothing.
If Bush said, "I won't sign the treaty because I have a plan for reducing emissions that will be less harmful to my country," and then vigorously pursued that strategy, I would fully respect his effort. As it is, it sounds like he's just using China as an excuse to avoid our very real obligation to do more about global warming.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
FUD. How do you think they manage(d) to do this in Europe, where the target is even stricter than that of USA?
The target for USA was measly 7%; there's nothing absurd or unreasonable about that goal (if anything it's rather low...). That much you'd save by rather simple measures; combining small increases in use of non-fossil energy sources (nuclear, wind, solar) with increases in energy efficiency (hybrid cars, reasonable insulation of houses).
For crying out loud: even conservative Colorado voted for an amendment that requires energy producers to produce 10% of all energy from renewable sources by 2015. How hard could it be to get the whole country to do the tiny little step, without whining and bitching about "undue burden".
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
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
... 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
So, only the rich can afford to invest.
Meh.
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.
Now can someone please explain what is insightful about the above?
This is Slashdot. Smartass comments are frequently rated insightful. Why, just look at YOUR comment. It was nothing BUT smartass and you got rated "interesting"!
The quote isn't an actual quote from the treaty, it's clearly an exaggerated paraphrasing of the effective meaning of Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol-- but you knew that, despite your elaborate straight-man act complete with links to searches for a phrase worded like no treaty is ever worded. What he's alluding to is this:
What the treaty does is set impossible goals for rich industrial countries, while giving undeveloped countries goals that result in them accruing "emissions credit", which they can then trade to the rich countries for cash. In the end, the emissions aren't actually reduced-- it becomes just another redistributionist scheme.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Oh, are you talking about China, the country that reduced its CO2 output by 17% since 1997? The country that produces a tenth of the amount of pollution per capita compared to the US? We have more modern tech and capital to throw at this problem, surely it we won't lose if we competed under this protocol.
Sorry that isn't correct. Recent research has suggested that after iron, growth of the bloom is limited by silicates. For evey ton of iron added you need to add 5000 tons of silicate if you want the bloom to have any effect on CO2 levels.
See here:e ss_release.html for more details.
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2004/19-03-04_pr
"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
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.
No need, the US is doing a good enough job as it is. Who needs climate regulating ice when you have jobs?
Oh, and here's an interesting piece of information, people do live near the North pole, or rather, in the arctic circle.You may know them as Inuits, or Eskimos, and they're very pissed off with the industrialised world's disregard towards their very existence.
This article describes some of the hardships currently being indured by these people, and the Bush administration "acknowledging for the first time that climate change is real and unavoidable". Here's another story from Boing Boing.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
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.
Jesus...
Kyoto doesn't apply to developing nations like India and China.
Maybe you could start learning about the subject before you form an opinion?
All's true that is mistrusted
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
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.
...there are gonna be growing pains...
So why should the US pay for those growing pains? Many enviro nuts are big hypocrites. They, just like all the rest of us expect the lights to come on when they flick the switch on the wall, fill up their one of three or four cars per family with fuel and commute for 2 hours with one person in the car.
Besides, everybody is assuming that global warming is bad. The earth was once warm enough to grow tropical plants in the arctic and at the same time the oceans were lower. A warmer Earth is very different from today, but not necessarily bad. Where do you think all the carbon was originally, that living things converted into fossil fuels?
All theory is gray
>It might be bad business for America, but every year,
>every GOD DAMNED YEAR, a new member of my family is
>stricken with cancer because of American pollution that
>wanders north.
>Heavy metals are found everywhere in Greenland now,
>and there's no way of avoiding ingestion of it.
Canadian, are you? Rest assured you are getting your revenge from the Cominco smelter in Trail, BC that has been dumping lead waste into the Columbia River 5 miles north of the border, and has by now laid down a layer of said toxic sludge all the way down to Grand Coulee Dam.
And if you check the wind patterns, you will see much of that Greenland metal dust comes from Sudbury, Ontario.
You talk a good line, but Canada has no "holier than thou" buttons to push.
And you're not at all concerned that algal blooms destroy the marine ecosystem? Great idea - destroy the food chain so we can drive SUV's for longer. Only an American would think like that.
Kyoto is a sham. China's economy right now is only 1/2 that of the USA but is growing at 10% a year. By the end of the decade, China will probably surpass the US economy, but will still be considered a developing nation under Kyoto. So under Kyoto the USA could conceivably wind up paying billions of dollars in emissions credits to China, but China would actually be emitting more CO2. It's a bogus treaty.
The way to get rid of greenhouse gasses is to build many nuclear power plants, which the left opposses. To that end, the Bush Administration has opened up the NRC to license new reactor designs for a tentative construction around 20/20. If the USA retires all of its coal, natural gas, and oil electric plants, and replace them with nuclear plants, then we would effectively meet Kyoto targets.
This is my sig.
Consider where they'll be in the next 50 years, not where they are now. According the the CIA World Factbook, China's current electricity consumption is 1.3 trillion kWh, oil consumption is 4.57 million bbl/day, and natural gas consumption is a paltry 27.4 billion m^3. By comparison, the US is consuming 3.6 trillion kWh of electricity, 19.65 million bbl/day of oil, and a whopping 640.9 billion m^3 of natural gas (although I will guess that this figure is necessitated due to the majority of the US population living the northeast to upper midwestern parts of the country, thus increasing the need for gas heat in the winter, while China's population base is mainly coastal and temperate and therefore winter heat needs are much less).
The difference is the growth rate of the industrial sectors of the two countries. The US is just barely expanding at a 0.3% growth rate, while China is massively expanding at a 30.4% yearly clip. IOW, China's energy needs for just the industrial sector are doubling just over every 3 years. Now couple this growth in industry with the subsequent growth in quality of life, and you'll have a similar growth in energy demands for the residential sector as well, meaning that there will be a massively increasing need for energy in China over the next 10-20 years.
Now unless they plan to tap some huge clean power source in the very near future, the Chinese are going to have to start doing the same things that the US currently must do in order to feed the energy needs of the country, and probably moreso in their case. But given the Kyoto accords, they will not be held accountable for the ensuing black cloud that will result from this huge and necessary increase of energy production if the industrial machine they are creating is to continue to progress.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
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.
Wrong. If actually read the article you posted, it states that American produces more CO2 per Capita than Canada. Canada does produce significantly more than most other countries, however it still is not close to the USA, with regards to emissions. Even per Capita it is .5 (although I think its more 5.2, while the US is at 5.7 or 5.5 I believe)difference (using your stats alone) is significant. Overall, this means a reduction is necessary by both to meet `standards`, a .1 per capita difference is more significant in a country with a larger population and significant emissions.
a cts_and_figures/co2emissions_7.cfm t ation_statistics/2003/html/table_04_49.html
Also, CO2 tables clearly show the USA as being number 1 in all emissions tables. I could post more statistics or you could read your own. It disturbs me that you seem unable to assimilate the information you yourself find, but maybe this is a form of collective denial.
http://www.cnie.org/pop/intros/globalclimate2.htm
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/f
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transpor
Rush Limbaugh started this particular meme a few years ago. It's a bizarre meme to begin with, it doesn't make any sense and it's not exactly an argument for or against anything, but it actually refers to a procedural vote six months before the Kyoto summit. The Senate has never actually been given the chance to say whether the eventual set of compromises agreed upon are acceptable to it.
I suggest to anyone, not just you, who feels like repeating this little "fact" to steer clear of it. It's sophistry and ultimately it just makes the person making the claim look stupid.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.