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."
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.
'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"?
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.
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?
Is the fate of the environment now in the hands of the US?
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.
'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.
Either you're against polution or against jobs.
It's not "pollution". It's our survivial. How much would you like to pay for your water? And how much would you like to spend on preventing and treating skin cancer and other diseases? People tend to think of "The Economy" as the only thing that matters. We may be all dying, but "we have more jobs". What about quality of life?
We need less people in the world. That way we won't need to pollute too much.
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.
They why the TAR does he support outsourcing!?
What a fucking guy, this president...
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
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
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.
You ask: "What about quality of life?"
Tell me this... how good can someone's life be if they are jobless in a capitalist society such as our own?
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.
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.
how good can someone's life be if they are jobless in a capitalist society such as our own?
The present form of "Capitalism", just as ALL "isms" that appeared in the History of Humanity will go away. If we screw up the world, on the other hand, Humanity itself may go away.
The problem here is Bush's stance is BS. Increased Polution controls creates jobs, not destroys. No one gets laid off because a company can't meet some polution reg. The company hires more people to solve these problems. Or they have to buy more stuff from companies that make polution reducing hardware which then makes those companies grow. Bush's stance that reducing polution cost jobs is one of the most mind numbing of his policies. Sadly people tend to not call him on it since people just seam to belive even the dumbest things he says.
Also the idea of loosing a few jobs should never be a concern verses loosing the whole planet.
If there was some company that made a device that did nothing but make polution, that was it's purpose "bobs earth killing device co: All polution, no Purpose" You wouldn't say we shouldn't shut that company down to save 2 jobs at that company. It would be gone over night.
Also by going after companies that polute it gives companies that are clean a foot hold to grow.
Environmental friendliness is a win win all around.
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.
If it's the latter, then what's the *net* job situation? If the US loses five million jobs relating to the burning of fossil fuels due to implementing Kyoto (keeping things vastly simplified), then that's a disaster. But if it *then* gains four million in replacements using clean energy and another million job in the construction industry to build the necessary infrastructure then there's no problem with jobs, right?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
By limiting green house gases only in developed nations and allowing developing nations to create them without limit it only SHIFTS the production of green house gases. Jobs related to manufacturing that produces green house gases would be moved along with the factories to the countries that are allowed to produce them.
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.
[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!
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!
"No one gets laid off because a company can't meet some polution reg. The company hires more people to solve these problems."
-- What about moving the company to another country that not only does NOT have limitations on green house gas production but also significantly lower wages and benefits costs. Same level of green house gas production, but it just gets made on the other side of the world AND the evil company makes more money.
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?
What does it say about the structure fo the treaty?
And what does the fact that most countries other than the US joined the treaty say about its structure?
Well I guess that about says it. Either you're against polution or against jobs. Take your pick.
Yeah Bush has problems thinking ahead. Better to burn more coal and oil now, and keep the costs down, so our economy doesn't suffer. It would be just terrible if we lost jobs on our way to making the planet uninhabitable...
Its the same idiotic way that he thinks about the economy. Better to have large deficits now, and deplete social security now, so things look good NOW. In 20 or 30 years when the economy is shot and social security is gone, things will royally suck, but hey thats not Bush's problem as long as things look good NOW. He's such a freaking moron...
The problem is that the lobbyists with money all represent established, old-tech companies, like oil, automobiles, gas/coal/oil power plants, land developers, etc. Ironically, many of these companies have shifted their operations toward becoming more environmentally compliant, as quite a few of them are international conglomerates with operations/plants outside of the US.
What's being left out of the equation are all the technologies that the US could be developing if we were on the forefront of compliance - things like CO2 sequestration, alternative power systems, etc. Regulation has a cost (it creates economic friction), but where there's economic friction (inefficiency) there's an opportunity. If we took the lead on these things, we could be building a whole new export industry - equipment to retrofit existing plants to deliver Kyoto compliance.
What we need is a progressive interpretation of the Kyoto agreement in the states - one that would allow the same levels of growth, as opposed to the current negative interpretation, which is that going Kyoto would freeze American competitiveness (a given if we keep doing things the same old way.) Unfortunately, I think one reason that the US has been reluctant to commit, is because we're no longer willing to innovate as strongly as we used to - and personally, I blame trial lawyers for that (in addition to a bad patent and copyright system.) Why take the risk of putting $11M in development for a new exhaust control system, if at some point, some lawyer will point to your system, and instead of highlighting that the system saved the combined lives of 100 people (80yr lifespan) over 10 years of operation, point to the possibility that if you had spent an additional $1M, you could have saved 10 more people, and then sue you on behalf of the theoretical 10 more people.
If you need evidence for this, look at the cars and car systems in Europe and Japan, that they're not willing to release in the US for fear of litigation. Toyota is developing cars for the elderly in Japan, but they refuse to commit to selling any of those models in the US for fear of getting sued. Dalmier-Chrysler is selling the Two-Fours in Canada, but environmental compliance aside, they're unwilling to sell those vehicles in the US for safety (ie, litigation) reasons as well. Copyrights and patents also will contribute to this problem - basically, anything that enshrines the status quo, and deters development on anything new. If nobody is willing to innovate in the US, Kyoto treaty or no, we're going to have job problems...
Mean while the changes Kyoto has forced companies in other countries to make has actually saved them money without having to lay anybody off. Less pollution equals less waste, which means more product for the same amount of resouces.
This is all spin so Bush can't be forced to make fuel efficiency something that has to happen. Fuel efficiency means less energy needs, means less profits for the companies selling energy....
Kyoto == waste less.
USA == waste more == job incease.
Do you remember another country that thought it could create more jobs by doing things very ineffeciently? Do you think it worked?
M0571y H@rml355.
Wouldn't this be bad for life in said ocean?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
1) energy
2) raw materials
3) wages/insurance.
They are often in that order. How do you make you chemical plant more efficient and more cost-effective? Focus on reducing your major costs.
Since the biggest cost to a chemical plant is energy, how do you reduce you energy usage? Design more efficient processes, reuse energy - instead of dumping heat into the atmosphere, reuse it as utility steam (and reduce your energy costs). Process integration (using the byproducts of one process to fuel another instead of just dumping it) requires some smarts, some planning, but can make your industry more efficient, more cost-effective and more profitable. Did I mention that reducing energy costs is not only profitable, but environmentally friendly???!?
Yes, you heard me right - reducing energy costs is not only good for the bank account, but good for Mother Nature too? And it makes the industry more competitive?
What that means is that American industries will not be nearly as competitive or profitable as Kyoto countries. It will take a few years for the Kyoto countries to become more efficient, but when they are, America will lose big time in the global economy due to their lower efficiency.
The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Einstein
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/
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.
It is called "global" warming...
Not "US" warming.
Not "EU" warming.
Not "developing nations" warming.
US is the biggest polluter.
We produces the biggest emission per capita.
So yes. The "US must drastically cut out".
Because we are the ones that are causing this the most
For the same reason you should vote if you strongly support a third-party candidate.
I am trolling
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.
You used "responsibility" and "USA" in the same sentence; you are obviously naïve.
The USA takes responsibility for nothing, including:
Yeah, right.
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.
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.
it does NOT put restrictions on developing nations,
Why should it? The US and Europe have emitted most of the extra greenhouse gases now in our atmosphere. The fair thing would be to greatly reduce emissions in the US and Europe and to give developing nations a chance. And if we can't do that, we should actually compensate the developing nations for their share of global emissions that they were entitled to but didn't get to make.
It's like the US and Europe raiding a penny jar shard by the whole office. Now that it's almost empty, rather than returning the amount of money that went beyond their fair share, they are complaining that they can't keep taking out of it.
Abolish slavery? But the slave drivers would just move somewhere else and take our jobs!
No, Bushs position is total BS and is yet another reason why pretty much everybody in Europe loathes him and can't believe middle America was dumb enough to vote for him.
Everyone: "Bush, we need you to help us save the world!"
Bush: "That would cost at least one American job, I'd rather we all die in massive floods and freak weather events instead"
Europe is hardly a saint when it comes to pollution and environmental policies but at least it's not heading full steam in the wrong direction.
In England we've been hearing for the past week about how Bush makes "moral stands" and "does what is right not popular". So even if the bad guys move abroad, wouldn't that be morally preferable to keeping them here?
Me, bitter? Why yes. I think I am.
That's the american way of life: watch your belly and let others die. Following Mr. Bush's politics, no treaty against child pornography, prostitution or drug dealing should be signed: after all, those things create jobs.
It just feels like a very lame excuse to avoid responsibilities to me. Actually, I don't see how Kyoto kills jobs. I always thought opening a lab to search for new solutions actually created jobs.
Anyone actually think this is serious?
Qui ne va pas à la chasse n'a pas de gibier
PHP Queb
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.
Why less people? Why not use technology to make the same amount of people live more cleanly?
Because it's impossible to multiply water, space, and several other things "with technology". There is a limit to what we can do.
You have an anti-life attitude.
No, not "anti-life". Think "quantity versus quality". I prefer better life to "higher quantity of" life. Small tribes and countries are always nicer than huge countries. They have less problems. They have more resources.
President Bush is right: the Kyoto treaty is bad business for America.
"America" has been polluting OUR world, and is not paying for it. America takes more resources than other countries, and that is why they are a rich nation. I'm sorry, but that is NOT right. And it will change, wether you like it or not. Want to use natural resources and pollute? Do it the capitalist way, and PAY for it (check the Kyoto protocol for the idea of "credits".
So, are you going to be one of the people who dies to pollute our world less?
Nobody needs to die. Just have less children.
Less people is not the answer. The US represents a relatively small fraction of the worlds population but has an enormous energy consumption per capita compared to other countries. The key is in a more efficient use of resources.
" 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."
So basically.. Russia is still a mess right now, even worse than Soviet days. They have no money and need to concetrate on getting their country going. Fair enough. Once they manage to do this to the point they match where they were 15 years ago and get some money they then need to worry about being a good citizen.
This sounds fair to me since. I can't see any other way to get a poor country to come on board with something like this.
If the US was on board and got themselves compliant NOW then in perhaps 10-15years when Russia needed to worry about changing things for the environment the US would have a huge advantage because they would already be finished. All US industry would could go ahead opperating as normal while Russia is now spending money upgrading. And because the US was first it would likely have patents on all the cool technology that Russia/China/India needed to use. More money for the US! And the US would have industries of environmental improvement companies finishing their work in the US looking for new markets to sell their services to.
It is amazing to me how bad things are in the US right now that many citizens can't look more than a couple years into the future. What about sacraficing a little to make things a lot better for your own children and grandchildren?
What about moving the company to another country that not only does NOT have limitations on green house gas production but also significantly lower wages and benefits costs.
Please name one such country. The third world is in its most part trying to comply with the protocol. And yes, they do have to reduce emmissions
True, it will reduce our dependence on oil -- by holding a gun to our heads and saying "GET OFF THE OIL!!!" We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately. What do you think will happen if we cut our oil use by 20%?? Businesses WILL shut down, we'll have to stop oil usage somewhere.
You realise, though, that there is some timeline involved, don't you? It doesn't have to happen immediately after the ratification of the protocol. Also, other countries have actually agreed to reduce their CO2 pollution, and partly already reduced their emission. I'm not aware of any bad consequences because of that.
Apart from that, according to Wikipedia, the US emits 20.1 metric tons of CO2 per year and capita, the EU 8.5, China 2.3. Now, China is not fair to compare to, since the economy and standard of living are still quite below the so called first world, but I have a hard time understanding why the US needs to emit 2.5 as much per citizen compared to the EU. One should think that the "starting position" in the US to reduce CO2 emission should be better than in the EU.
You do realize that Kyoto protocol is an international treaty, and as such reduces number of such hypothetical countries? And specifically, it is to be ratified by all significant industrialized countries. The reason for this is exactly to prevent unfair competition between countries.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
No you are wrong. the Bush stance on this is very clear and dead on.
He has never EVER cared for the american worker, he cares about the american investor. and having tighter pollution regs will increase operation costs and lower stock values and make lots of investors less money.
I.E. pollution regulations are very bad for the wealthy. they will have to make 1-2% less in profits each year they have to comply with them, thus pay out less dividends and have overall lower stock growths.
THIS is what worries Bush. It will significantly affect the filthy rich and their abilities to get even richer easily.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Indeed! What many americans do not realize is that non-americans dislike of George is and was based on many things other than Iraq. GWB basically gave the middle-finger salute to the rest of the world right after becoming the president in 2000: refusing to join land-mine treaty and international court of war crimes, along with Kyoto protocol; and doing so without any diplomatic tact. In many cases excuses given were ridiculous ("gee, in the court it could happen that americans would get prosecuted and that would be bad"... yeah, saints like, say, torturers at that iraqi prison). Iraq really is the icing on the cake: important, but not the sole reason.
The whole presidential election was like a bad dream: and yes, it's hard to believe how dumb the middle class here is.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
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.
/Jan Dahl
Heavy metals are found everywhere in Greenland now, and there's no way of avoiding ingestion of it.
Fuck Bush and his capitalist wet dreams.
I don't care about the dozen people who are going to add me to their 'Foes' list because I said something bad about their flawless god-blessed country nor the half-dozen mods who readily are going to mod me down.
This is my opinion and I stand by it:
America is the home of the egotistical, the hypocrites, the polluters of the world.
The last one wasn't just physically.
The American economy isn't built to accomodate the education of the peons on such a scale as needed to make that possible.
Processes that are cost-effective at reducing energy consumption are, in fact, implemented by industries of their own accord. It would be stupid not to. The issue is that a lot of the processes for reducing pollution reduce the efficiency of the production process (or, at least, don't improve efficiency).
Take, for instance, the catalytic converter in your car - the catalytic converter reduces fuel efficiency and performance somewhat by creating backpressure in the exhaust manifold. Obviously, the emissions benefit is a large net positive, but given the choice, a lot of people would run their cars without a catalytic converter because (a) they wouldn't have to buy the converter and (b) their fuel efficiency and performance would be better. Laws require you to have a properly installed catalytic converter on your car.
Now, the issue that is of concern to our government (not just Bush, but also the Senate, which preemptively refused to ratify Kyoto in 1997, with a resolution sponsored by Democrat Robert Byrd that passed 95-0, including a yes vote from Senator John Kerry) is similar to what would happen to cars if catalytic converters were prohibitively expensive to operate. People wouldn't buy cars, and what's more, people would likely move to a country where they were allowed to run a car without a catalytic converter.
The same is true here - if environmental regulations make operating an industry too expensive in the U.S., then companies will (a) close down plants in the U.S., and (b) likely move those plants overseas to the countries who are already producing the most pollution per dollar GDP but who are exempt from the regulations of Kyoto (such as China).
.. 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.
To oversimplify - implementing Kyoto is in the short term more expensive, long term cheaper. However, the long term is more difficult to measure. A couple hundred $$ for a catalytic converter, or long-term better environment, lower health-care costs, and improved quality of life? How do you measure these things??
Then there is the whole issue of Tragedy of the Commons. Why shouldn't YOU implement these measures, and I'll keep to my old ways. It is cheaper for me to not buy the catalytic converter, and because everyone else is polluting less, I still enjoy cleaner air. But that only works when I am the only one who thinks that way. When everyone thinks that way, we have the Tragedy of the Commons. So we need some kind of incentive to make sure everyone sees the advantages of cleaner air and less pollution.
The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Einstein
If you think he, or any president, could persuade 67 senators, you don't know much about the Senate, or US government.
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
But treaties against prostitution (as opposed to slavery) and drug dealing are pointless. Never in the history of mankind have we been able to effectively curtail either. We can shift the control (and profits) into the hands of mobsters, dictators, and terrorists, or we can learn to live with behaviour among consenting adults that some people consider immoral and address them from a medical and sociological perspective. Your choice, but as you're thinking about your decision, pay attention to who's raking in the profits from those poppy fields.
Better than having less children: wait until you are 35+ years old to have kids. Spreading the generations out does just as much as having less kids. That and the fact that if you wait to have kids your are likely to want less of them anyhow :)
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
That's the american way of life: watch your belly and let others die. Following Mr. Bush's politics, no treaty against child pornography, prostitution or drug dealing should be signed: after all, those things create jobs.
We'd take all of the profits out of drug dealing if we decriminalized them. Yes, prostitution does in fact create jobs. It should be legal.
It's legal to be a slut, but it's illegal to be a whore? That makes no sense. It's illegal to sell something that it's perfectly alright to give away for free. Why?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Well, that would have been unconstitutional, as Al Gore has never held the office of President. His signature would mean nothing.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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?
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
A little strange BUT,,,
what we are talking about here is the fact that the largest and richest polluter in the world is been requested by the rest of the world to stop adding to the growing problem of global climate change.
Now there are a number of things to notice in this sentence,
first, largest polluter per person or per want ever you like in the world.
second, They are the riches in the world.
So we have the rest of the world asking the biggest polluter to clean up its act using some of its great wealth, which it made by polluting the world, and resource before it is to late.
Why should the rest of the world suffer from affects of global warming and climate change due to the greed of the US and its 4.6% world population?
I am sure that most people believe that if someone is responsible for making a mess that it is that persons responsibility to clean that mess up. A lesson many of us learn as youngsters and a lesson which we use daily in our adult lives. Now the question is, why it is that this mature well developed country is been asked by the countries of the world to help clean up the mess that it has made and yet refuse to step up and take its portion of the blame claiming its just responsibilities?
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.
Whenever i hear bush spout out "God Bless America" i think of a phrase a politician used in a cheezy movie i saw--i cant help but feel its how bush (and many americans) must truely feel. That phrase is:
"God Bless America, and America only!"
I am an american, and i am utterly sick of the hypocracy my country spouts out. State sponcered terrorism, pollution, agression, etc. Its ridiculous. We're the Fscking bullies of the world, and our mass media never mentions it. We need the smaller children of the playground to get together and confront the bully.
Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
how good can someone's life be if they are jobless in a capitalist society such as our own?
In any capitalist society, no job equates to begging and starving. Most people in their lifetime will be 'between jobs' at some stage. This is one of the reasons a good few of the European countries have SocialDemocrat parties polling 25%-40% of the votes. In Europe people tend to value quality of life, and hence social security.
I read the website http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/, the future predicted there will affect the average American more than the average European. Peak Oil has happened, now we have to live with it.
Night night.
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
You're entitled to think what you like. Being right is a different matter entirely.
In response to your points:
1. The US population is a fraction under 300 million people (source: CIA World Factbook). The world population is around 6.3 billion people (source: CIA World Factbook). The US population is therefore around 3% of the world population which, in my book at least, makes it a relatively small fraction - consider that India and China between them account for 2.3 billion people - over a third of the worlds population!
2. You are right, it is not only the US. If you look at the figures for CO2 emissions, you will find that the US accounts for around 36% of all emissions (source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) - far higher than their 3% of the population would attest to. In fact, it is double what the next largest polluting nation (Russia) emits. You will find that the figures for other pollutants are similar.
3. The US currently has a huge budget deficit. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the deficit for goods (i.e. tangible things rather than services) was:$150.8 billion (source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis). Contrary to your comment, this would suggest that the US imports far more than it exports.
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?
I think this approach is really the only way to guarantee reform. Individuals need to take personal responsibility and starve the corporations one consumer at a time. No politician will oppose them, since all political campaigns (and now the flow of information to the public) are funded by corporate monopolies.
We Americans live in a sociopathic society. Instant gratification is the only gratification we recognize. Combine that with an absolute avoidance of any personal responsibility, and you find yourself in a very frightening landscape of citizens who never emotionally developed beyond the toddler stage. Your average American doesn't really understand themselves or their own motivations. The things they see on TV translates directly into belief or action with little or no reasoning in the middle. Our entire political system amounts to little more than a highschool popularity contest. We are obsessed with social heirarchies ranging from which Jesus freak is the most holy to who has the largest penis-compensating SUV. We measure our worth by the sum of what we consume. How can Americans possibly wrap such a shallow and reflexive paradigm around a worldwide problem such as global warming?
Now, you can preach business and globalization into infinity to justify all the suffering we have wreaked upon the world. You can talk debt forgiveness and job creation and industrialization of our basic needs until doomsday. But at the end of the day, when the economics textbooks are closed and the offices are locked up for the night, we are still bombing villages and torturing civilians in secret facilities around the world. No society that does this can claim advancement, and no society that even tries to justify it can claim moral superiority.
If America was still a great country, we would never have been conquered by neo-fascists using nothing more than money. Twice. In a row.
But at least we'll have jobs until we fall down choking from fumes and heat.
Arguing for something that forces companies to behave more like companies for their own sake has no merit. It is the freedom of the human beings who own and run those companies to make their own mistakes.
Now passing treaties and such to help the environment is another issue which I generally support, but you must make the distinction. The government isn't here to tell companies how to run themselves, and though this treaty in some cases may make companies more profitable long-term, that is at best a nice side-effect of the treaty but not a founding reason to pass it.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
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!
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. I wager its really cheap. In a hundred years it will be beach front property in a temprate climate, and all the beach dwellers in Florida will be compelled to move their to escape the 130 degree days in Florida and the Category 6 hurricanes.
I vaguely remember someone, possibly in the Bush administration, suggesting this was a natural cycle and is really the "greening" of the Earth coming out an ice age, so as long as you just spin it right there is no problem here.
Unfortunately its happening rather fast for a natural cycle and to fast for many species to adapt so it may lead to extinctions.
@de_machina
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?
...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.
Having less children also presents another problem. It leads to a top heavy population structure. The replacement rate for the USA should be around 2.11 babies per woman. Less than that and you disrupt more than a few assumptions made with regards the economy, especially with regards to debt to future generations. The moment you have less people in future generations to shoulder that debt, the more they have to pay, and the less they will want to. In fact, I hazard to say that It would require much stricter policies especially with regards the budget deficit. They may be forced to balance this out. This top heavy poulation problem is already present in countries like Japan, which is why they have some of the problems they face nowadays.
Think it is called the "Ronald Regan method of dealing with AIDS".
M0571y H@rml355.
If you have ever seen that "entire earth at night" image, compounded from several hundred night satellite photos I understand, you'd probably agree with my first impression: We look like fungal growth, clinging first and strongest to the damp edges of the earth but essentially still covering it.
To my mind, "intelligence" isn't a gift, it's a responsibility. Helping to maintain the balance is MUCH more important. More important than your mortgage rates, more important than your particular kids. WAY more important than the drivel that'll get replied to this msg.
Not a troll.
Ahh, now the truth comes out. This isn't about a better enviroment. This is about making america pay for it's success.
Thats why i write to the president and congress telling them not to endorse the treaty. Remeber in america even if the president does sign it, it doesn't mean anything untill the congress aproves of it.
From the start the Kyoto protocal was seen as a punish or steal from the americans and give to the rest of the world. Your post kind of echos that with a but if "take that" This treaty is just the wrong one.
Even if we do ignore all the people thats saying global warming isn't happening or that the cause is somethign other then what is popularly being claimed, we cannot support the kyoto treaty as it is writen. We can however create a fair plan of action that deals with it. Going back to president clinton, our leaders in america knew that kyoto protocal was bad news. It doesn't measn they are out to destroy the world, it means they aren't stupid. Our quality of air is better today then 30 years ago. This has been achived by inovation that lead to regulation not some other countries trying to punish america.
BTW, the capitolist way of using natural resorces and poluting is being used right now. To force another step in the process designed to funnel money into somone elses hads while the rest of the process remains the same is just absurd. People like you really make me think about what a bunch of ass munches the tree huggers must be. To think that it isn't ok to polute the air unless you pay someone else that isn't poluting. And you even hold that other person to a more open or less severe standard for the amount of polution. What a joke. This treaty isn't about making the world a better place. It is about taking money from one place and putting it in another. It is about making more successfule econemies less productive while rewarding the loosers.
Make a reasonable treaty and we will sign it. Keep this shit up and we will continue to laugh at the stupidity. America or americas leaders aren't against helping the enviroment. They are however against redistibuting the wealth of the nation because some poorly drafted treaty that is designed to work outside the best interest of america. If you get a chance read about all the exceptions the other countries that signed on get. Look at the countries that have only signed on because they needed to for some trade arangment. It isn't really all that popular as it is made out. Hell it doesn't even take effect until a certain amount of countries sign on so all that have signed already don't even know the effects of it.
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
I am a hindu, and although I rarely let religion come into any of my discussions, one point you made up is somethign that my religion preaches, which I think is a very good common sense point.
Intelligence is not a gift, it is a responsibility. Those with greater intelligence also carry a greater burden. It is up to us to care for those with less intelligence animals and other humans alike.
Unfortunately this message keeps getting lost in our current "me me" society.
Have a nice day!
> find it funny that foreiners liked clinton and
> he didn't sign any of those treaties either
As others have pointed out, he was probably more diplomatic about it.
GWB's reasoning was slightly more polite than "STFU".
> Would you like it if america started just
> walking
> inot other countries and aresting thier citizens
> and bringing them to trial for laws not even
> passed in thier country?
Sounds like Guantanamo Bay to me.
Also, CIA and friends is deporting prisoners into 3rd-party countries where "other questioning methods" are allowed.
Additionally, several American citizens are held "incommunicado" in undisclosed location in the US.
So much for your constitution.
You are really diverting the discussion: the point of the ICC was to make sure, things like in Bosnia would never happen again - and if they happen again, the *leaders* could be properly prosecuted.
So, if you think about it, had the US signed the ICC-treaty, someone might have brought Donald Rumsfeld to the ICC over Abu Ghraib, not some poor underling like England or Graner !
The Bush-administration knew fully what they were doing, even back then.
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
"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.
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.
"What the treaty does is set impossible goals for rich industrial countries"
What you meant to say was 'America' instead of 'rich industrial countries'. That's because the majority of G8 nations have actually dealt with it.
"In the end, the emissions aren't actually reduced-- it becomes just another redistributionist scheme."
Are you objecting to the fact that developing countries now have a source of income other than black poppys or that the overall GG burden doesn't actually lessen? You can't refer to it as an impossible goal, then claim that it's simply redistribution.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
The US has a significant problem with the land mine treaty - the complying with the land mine treaty would cause the US to pull the land mines out of the DMZ in South Korea. The US and South Koreans have used the land mines as part of the deterent for North Korea from invading the South. Regardless of how rational this thought is, land mines are a part of the layered defences of South Korea which the US is comitted to defend.
what balance? Just show me one instance in earths history where there every existed something that can reasonably be called 'balanced'. Live and our ecosystem are in continual motion towards a balance and every so much missing it. Balance is static, it is death. Move to mercury if you would like to life on a 'balanced' world.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
>> Sounds like Guantanamo Bay to me.
> yes it does sound like it. with an exception of
> the prisoners at guantanamo were captured
> durring a war or war like situations were
That in itself is grotesque: they should be treated according to the Geneva convention.
Instead, state-departement has coined the "enemy combatant" terminus, to weasel the US out of granting them basic rights.
The sheer existance of these camps is - IMO - unforgiveable and has damaged the reputation of all Americans like nothing else (except for Abu Ghraib), just like the Nazi-concentration camps have damaged the reputation of all Germans upto today - and that was 60 years ago.
> The ICC could effectivly legislate laws into our
> own country by making somethign we do completly
> illegal
I've got a big surprise for you: it's already happening. The US does comply to forgeign-imposed legislation/descicions, through the WTO.
The European Union (the monopolies and mergers office) can (and has in the past) denied clearance to some US-based mergers when the EU is also involved.
A nationalistic rally is great and fun - while it lasts. But from our very own history I can tell you that from the moment it's over you will painfully realize that you can't eat nationalism...
cheers,
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin