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......
'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?
'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.
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.
India and China aren't currently producing the same amount of greenhouse gasses that USA and EU are currently producing. It's like comparing apples to oranges. India could never meet the USA's output due to its size; China isn't developed enough yet to produce, and with the steps that are being taken by China, they may never become as great a greenhouse gas producer as the US.
What the fuck with all this fairness shit? Live ain't fair, neither are greenhouse gases. Let's get on the stick about it and work out differences *later*!
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.
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.
Please check where most of the worlds factories are now being build and understand that giving the countries a pass is stupid and will result in the treaty not working.
You should also check the current cancer rates and water pollution rates in china. It is much worse than any place in the USA has been in 20+ years.
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.
Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol. If we want this thing to get signed, the US has to be on its side, period. 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. Er, they both ratified it a couple of years ago, as have 124 other countries. For some reason the USA continues to believe that it doesn't have to be responsible for picking up the mess it's making, unlike most of the world who're quite happy to deal with what they produce...
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.
[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!
"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.
He knows we're stupid.
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?
>India could never meet the USA's output due to its size
India has a population of 1065 million. The USA has a population of 293 million.
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...
And what stops the Chinese CO2 from crossing the planet? Do they have some sort of CO2 firewall at their borders or is the Great Wall really an ancient alien artifact that turns CO2 into grape jelly?
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.
For the same reason you should vote if you strongly support a third-party candidate.
I am trolling
"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.
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.
Why? Personal gain. Signing the treaty will loose 5 million jobs, and millions of dollars in Bush's (and friends') pockets via the oil industry. Whereas outsourcing only looses 5 million jobs, but has no ill effect on him and his buddies...so why should he give a crap about outsourcing if it doesn't effect their bank accounts.
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.
Sad as it is, I don't think mr. Bush really needs alleged extra money this will save/earn him.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
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
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
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.
Please don't over generalize. I care, my friends care, and my family cares. We are all pissed as hell that W is going to be around for another 4 years as the leader of our country.
As I see it, this is a very dark time for the US. Our leadership rejects science when the results don't agree with their policies, they promote religion as the answer to moral and ethical questions (bad idea), and their skill in diplomacy is about what I would expect to see from a bully on a fifth grade playground.
Remember, although a record number of people voted to elect W, a record number of people also voted against him. Those people are now screaming for help. Now more than ever we need help from our friends and allies abroad to help control this country from going off the deep end.
Just because a slight majority elected W don't abandon the rest of us.
All your attention are belong to my old internet meme.
So wait, Kyoto doesn't go far enough. Therefore we shouldn't sign it. I mean, its a start, right?
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like that rather than what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves?
Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.
I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.
If you'll read that Yahoo story you'll find that's exactly why Russia decided to sign. They are looking out for their own immediate interests and don't give a wet shit about what it does to the US or anyone else. That's as it should be.
.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Unfortunately it's difficult to see how you can change an agenda dominated by right-wing Christian fundamentalists: you cannot argue with these people, they are quite happy to choose their president based on only one issue (abortion) because the Church tells them to do so. Hate to say it, but they are apparently as impossible to reason with as Islamic terrorists.
The situation with America is very tricky indeed: the country appears to be deeply divided politically and worse, that division is split cleanly between geographic regions with the coastal city (more educated) areas blue and the middle states voting red.
Deep political divisions along geographical lines is historically a recipe for civil war. I think it's very unlikely to happen, but there's no denying the lessons of history. May we all hope that it is not so.
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
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
Oh no, 20% of the world's population is creating 2% of the world's total CO2 emmisions with coal! The horror! Actually, China has been reducing CO2 emissions from coal a great deal, that's where they're working hard on.
I live in Illinois and I know for a fact that about 80% of my electricity comes from coal power. EPA requires power companies to report these facts. So we can't be like China is coal, coal bad, we're not China, we good. My city doesn't even have a single recycling program, and trash is not separated.
While it might be true that the US is one of the most efficient, i.e. lowest pollution per GDP, US is by far not the smallest offender, esp. when you look at pollution per capita, they are ten times worse off than China.
Why should we expect China to be subject to the same levels of pollution restriction that the US didn't have to back when US GDP levels were the same as China's? Cities don't go from no electricity to efficient nuclear power -- there are gonna be growing pains, where there may be undesireable levels of pollution, because they don't have the capital or the advanced technology that the US has. If US is so confident about its ability to be efficient, Bush should go ahead and sign the protocol already.
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?
Intriguingly, China actually has a better record in the last five years on following their treaties than the US does.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
But since neither are Annex I countries, they have no targets to meet until 2012. Its like all those countries in Bush's "coalition" in Iraq, they signed up for the coalition without having to actually *do* anything, whether provide money or troops. China and India are effectively still bystanders.
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?
Frankly, at this point I've got no more sympathy for the US. We deserve everything that's coming to us. An inflamed sense of grievance, whether merited or not, is no reason to abandon basic common sense.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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 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