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.
He could lose his job if the Kyoto treaty were supported here?
'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
If that's the case, why does the President support off-shoring American jobs? Sounds like he's speak out of both ends of his a$$ to me.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Would have been nice to see a softer line from Bush on this one, but not unexpected.
"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job"
He doesn't need any treaties for that!
Are there reports done on the financial benefits (eg in medical bills) of Kyoto Treaty?
And why must reducing gas emission equate to job loss? Couldn't companies be more efficient instead?
In IT outsourcing, which costs a lot of jobs to foreigner countries, there are suggestions that with the increased exports to other countries, outsourcing probably isn't so bad after all.
--
Play iCLOD Virtual City Explorer and win Half-Life 2
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Think of all the fishing jobs this will create when we have that much more water!
Not a single lost job. That's a pretty high threshold for a policy or treaty. I guess free trade agreements are off the table for the next four years.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
I like the spin that the white house put on it. Loss of american jobs, pfft.
Because it won't pass Congress. You know, that body that has to ratify any treaty? Clinton didn't sign it either, for the same reason. Why sign something you know won't be ratified?
[o]_O
Is the fate of the environment now in the hands of the US?
President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,'
In contrast to the fifty million jobs our children will lose? I mean I'm sure our kids will love to watch New York disappear under a few metres of water.
Simon.
well i guess all real estate he onws is more than 60 meters above sea level - so he just doesnt care
Can someone please explain the rationale behind the loss of 5 millions jobs if Kyoto was adopted excuse.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job,'
This is yet another reason why this man (and by extension, increasingly America) is reviled the world over. How can one job be more important than the environment? It's a truly ludicrous statement.
Huge taxbreaks to corporations that allow them to offshore even more jobs while at the same time justifying losing american jobs through the Kyoto pact as a excuse to not join it..
Bush must think were all stupid..
Out of curiousity, how many jobs would be created in research, production and implementation of green technologies?
If you're going to defend outsourcing by pointing to the number of jobs created by the cheaper goods, shouldn't you also point out the green-inspired jobs, and the savings in health care from cleaner air?
President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job ... unless it's tax breaks for corporations that move jobs overseas.
Tie bush to rock near the ocean. Let ocean take care of the problem. Granted, probably is a good idea to tie him so his head is down and feet in the air for two reasons. First, he'd probably float like a bobber "head up", and secondly, it will take a little while for the oceans to rise - best to solve the problem sooner.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Clinton didn't sign it either, for the same reason.
Al Gore signed it, so technically, the US is a signatory to the treaty. It was wisely never sent to the Senate for ratification; it wouldn't have possibly passed.
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...
No, you don't understand the mindset:
You're either for the loss of jobs, or your for the creation of jobs. Now which are you?
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
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
I realize that kyoto is practically worthless without india or china jumping on board but the US needs to be responsible in developing next gen power sources.
:P Everyone knows that next-gen fuel sources will create jobs and patented technology as well as lessen the dependance on foreign oil. I'm not a tree hugger but i really think that the world needs to start smartening up when it comes to the environment.
It should be blatantly obvious that when bush says it'll cost a job, it will cost his friends/family
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
By that he means his.
Chaos will always win out over order because chaos is more organized
It's an excuse to sit back and do nothing. So what if all countries aren't held to the same levels? Surely doing *something* is better than doing nothing at all.
So developed nations have to cut back more than developing nations? Well guess what - we pollute more than they do.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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?
doh! too slow..... :(
Stupid me is comparing the public transportation here in Sweden with the public transportation in the US, especially railway commuting, where I have seen that the railways in the US in general aren't used much, and are often single-track rails and are often in need of improvment.
(Flamebait :-> )
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
he opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job... yet his corporate backers are busy offshoring as much as they can
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Why sign something you know won't be ratified?
Because it's the right thing to do and so it at least has a chance of getting ratified.
-Colin
Actually I belive the trading quotas for polution is based on the polution levels when the treaty was writen. That would give US *big* quotas, much bigger than EU for example, but i could be wrong.
"W" obviously asumes that there are no jobs in areas near the sea.
No sig today.
Since when did slashdot begin using Flash in their ads?
*sigh* Time to instal prefbar again.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Why sign something you know won't be ratified?
To publicly lend it your support. To persuade people and businesses to take steps on their own, even if it won't be legislated for. To show everyone that no matter what the rest of the government thinks, *you* consider it important.
I could go on, but you get the idea; doomed to failure or not, sometimes it's worth standing up to be counted. That's if you believe in it, of course. If not, then no, of course you wouldn't sign.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Doesn't the Kyoto Treaty have a clear bias for third world countries with growing industrialization and economies, ie China?
If I remember right, I thought that under the treaty, we (US) would be restricted to all hell, and China would be able to double or triple it's greenhouse gas emissions output.
Is this right?
This entire US/Kyoto debacle started in 1998 when Al Gore decided to sign the treaty even after the entire US Senate voted in 1997 (well, okay, it passed 95 to 0) to say they wouldn't sign any climate protocol without certain details changed. Knowing this, the Clinton administration didn't even submit the treaty for ratification.
Knowing all this, it is unreasonable to expect any administration to again resubmit the treaty for ratification, especially when US green gas emissions have gone up a bit since 1998. For what it's worth, John Kerry not only voted in favor of the 1997 resolution, but also made it clear he would not push for Kyoto ratification were he to be elected. (His campaign did criticize the Bush administration's decision to not resubmit the treaty for ratification in 2001-2004, however)
Nope. The sole purpose of Kyoto is to attempt to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. These gasses are are likely to cause the type of severe environmental degradation which will cause real problems for your children and my children.
The problem is where to set the 'proper per-capita' output for carbon dioxide. As you may know, the U.S produces by far the most CO2 per citizen.
Some background from the UK environmental agency may help illustrate some of the curbs that Europe put in place, at the same time that the U.S kept belching the stuff out. It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out how much C02 China and India put out per capita.
"By 1992, the world's governments had signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the treaty, industrialised nations aspired to stabilising their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.
Most failed. By 2000, US emissions were 13 percent higher, though the European Union had made a small reduction, mainly through cuts in Britain and Germany.
In 1997, in a bid to strengthen their commitments, most nations signed the Kyoto Protocol. This time industrialised nations agreed to an average cut in emissions of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But, individual targets ranged from an 8 percent cut in the EU, a 7 percent reduction in the US and an 8 percent increase allowed in Australia.
After the deal was signed, the EU agreed to reallocate its entitlements so countries like Ireland and Spain could increase their emissions, while Britain and Germany compensated by making higher cuts. The UK has promised to reduce emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012."
Is it me, or is this guy just plain stupid. Maybe it is my technical background, but why, oh why, do we have to put up with another 4 years of his crap.
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.
How does Kyoto would make the US lose 5 millions jobs ? I would tend to believe the opposite : increased energy efficiency would make American industries more competitive and help fix the trade deficit.
But who am I to oppose the American people God-given right to burn fossile fuel like there is no tomorrow ?
:wq
You would think that signing up for cutting green house gasses could push towards a less oil-oriented economy; surely in these days of rising oil prices and the dodgy areas of the world involved in supplying some of it that being less dependent on oil might produce a more stable economy.
The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions.
...
Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle.
Funny that you said this. Check your facts -- Brazil has REDUCED green house gas emissions BECAUSE of the Kyoto protocol.
Nice to see that Bush is off to such a good start making friends in the international community in his second term : \
-Colin
Sovereignty doesn't enter into it. Signing Kyoto is merely agreeing to do something - the method isn't specified. Nobody is *forcing* the US to do anything, as evidenced by the fact that they're not signing, hence no sovereignty whatsoever is given away. I'm sure the US can come up with their own plans. Kyoto, in fact, would COUNT on it having that kind of capability. And if you believe that all the nations that did sign the treaty aren't right-thinking, I'd say the only idiocy here is yours.
1. seed the middle of nowhere in the south pacific with iron
;-(
2. phytoplankton boom
3. phytoplankton die and sink to ocean floor
repeat and rinse
presto: millions of tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestered to the deep
but no, some think it's better to talk intractable complicated pointless blame game politics when there is a quick and easy technological fix
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, those who woted realy are further from the coast: most states that voted for W are in the central part of USA. New England and CA voted for Kerry. Florida voted for W, but that retired ppl living there correctly presume that they will die before the sealevel runs over their homes. Their graves will probably sooner or later be on the seabed, but who cares...
No sig today.
Yah! I would like to get that explained as well. And isn't there anyone thinking about the jobs that would get created if US signed the Kyoto treaty? New filters, new production methods, new energy scources are among the things I can come up with in a few seconds, that would need alot of R&D and hence create new jobs...
With his track record, maybe he thinks god will save us.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
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.
There is nothing preventing the US from reducing pollutants on its own without signing the treaty.
Energy would be better spent worrying about pollutants themselves rather than the treaty.
He opposes this on the grounds of protecting jobs, but he is all for allowing companies to export our most important jobs overseas which is costing thousands of jobs every month.
What a great leader. The SOB.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
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.
C'mon, please ... With this logic I wonder why the US is such a staunch member of e.g. WIPO, World Bank, UN and signatory of many other treaties (e.g. Geneva convention, although your old/new administration would probably prefer not to be ...)
The treaties are not there just to profit from them, they impose some obligations as well. You cannot have one and not the other - i.e. you have to trade some part of your super duper sovereignity for the benefits - in this case for cleaner environment.
Seriously, as an Amerikan citizen who voted to get W out, I hereby apologize to the rest of the world. We WILL do better next time, I promise.
You are not the customer.
[Warning - this post assumes that Global Warming is indeed a problem. It also presupposes we might be able to do something about it]
A picture comes to mind. A birthday party, where one child has already eaten a large quantity of cake, but wants all the rest subdivided equally. Not getting this result from the adults present, she throws a tantrum....
The US (and all the developed world) have exploited the natural resources of the world during the creation of their relatively-advanced technological society. Why should those who have been gentler towards the planet suffer the same consequences ? The US is not held to any harder regulations than any of the other developed countries, but it refuses to turn from its' self-indulgent and destructive path.
There will be more hurricanes next year; each will be stronger. There will be more of an 'El Nino' effect. The great farm areas of the American interior will suffer the consequences of this misguided 'screw-tomorrow' policy, and starving US children will curse their grandfathers stupidity and arrogance.
Or maybe not. The thing is that the risk-assessment of any course of action is the probability of the consequences multiplied by the effect of the consequences - and the potential downside here is enormous. Irrespective of the probability of the risk, it makes sense to limit the risk further, and that is what is not happening.
What US-observers see is a blind lemming-like tendency to rush towards oblivion with no provision for being wrong. Kyoto is not enough. Kyoto is a damage-limitation exercise - triage, if you like - that will need to be reviewed and tightened in various areas before it will be effective.
Global Warming does not require everywhere to heat up, it simply states that the average temperature will increase, thereby releasing more phase-space for the atmosphere to explore, and exposes us all to more-extreme weather - weather that was unavailable before the average temperature rose. Those extremes will kill people.
It never ceases to amaze me that people can dismiss a rise in temperature of (say) 1 degree C as nothing worth bothering about. I can barely conceive of the energy required to raise the average temperature of a *planet* by a degree C.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Have you ever been to China?? Take a trip down to Shanghai and you'll find dirty beaches dangerous to swim in, factories indiscrimately polluting, cars using leaded fuel, etc... Would the Kyoto treaty force China to reform? No, since they are a "developing country" they can basically pollute as much as they want.
The US on the other hand has the highest environmental standards in the world. You want to build a factory somewhere? You have to get about a million environmental permits, and heaven forbid there's some endangered rat that lives on your proposed factory site, because then it's getting rejected. Look at all the restrictions on auto makers, their median car MUST reach a certain fuel economy, and their exhaust MUST meet a standard that's by far the highest in the world. Of course Kyoto would strap the US, forcing us to close down factories and destroy businesses, because we're a "first world nation". We'd be forced to buy "pollution credits" from barren third world countries with no industrial output like Mongolia just to maintain our economy!!
Here's the bottom line: This treaty is bad for America. We're already the best in the world in reducing pollution, and we're getting better every year. The only reason we have a semi-serious smog problem is because of our reliance on cars for everyone rather than public transportation. We are resolving this though -- see more efficiant, cleaner cars like the Prius.
Frankly, I'd much rather accept the voluntary constraints of the treaty than the involuntary constraints that will be imposed by the effects of global warming. Admittedly, nothing on this menu is truly appetizing, but if we don't choose from column A (treaties and effective laws to reduce CO2 emissions), nature will choose for us from column B (flooding, loss of arable land, economic depression, famine, etc.).
Not that I think it, or any other effective measure to reduce CO2, has a snowball's chance in Hell in this -- or any other recent or forseeable -- administration anyway.
Even if we sign it, we wouldn't be able to uphold it. The same is true of most European countries. There were only two that managed to reduce their emissions to be in line with Kyoto, the United Kingdom being one of them.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
Yes, the bill would cost millions of jobs, because it would DRAMATICALY increase the cost of energy, and there for production. That meens MORE over seas jobs, especialy in the blue colar work force. But we all know how much the Slashdot crowd cried when "labor" workers lost there jobs. So quit with the crocodile tears on the tech outsourceing. Bush has been extreamly conisistant on this issue, and outsourcing. His solution to outsourcing is to make America a better place to produce, and the Kyoto Acords will make it worse.
BTW: Can we stop atributing G_d like powers to the president. His actuall ability to stop intelectual outsourcing is extreamly limited. And you don't need tax breaks to justify buying a programer in India that costs 1/10 as much. NO amount of tax reliefe can drasticaly change those figures.
Lastly, while the science of the Kyoto is debatable it's policies are absured. It sets unreasonable time limits for technologicaly and industrialy advanced countries to convert over their power sources, while allowing developing nations to develop the same unhealthy and destructive energy dependency levels while developing. No number of windmills or magic solar panels will solve our energy requirements as they stand.
The Kyoto fails entirly at reducing our energy demand (wich already reaches 10% of the daily bruto solar energy added to our system every day), while focusing entirly on restricting our means of production. It stinks of kneejerk statesmenship, and fanaticle chicken litteling. It treats smaller issues like CO2 cycles as the core issue, instead of dealing with systemic solutions.
Not even Clinton would sign this rag, and infact I remember the media blaming him too for not even bothering to negotiate. And given the attitude twoards the USA of the authors of this accord, I don't blame him.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
The Kyoto Protocol is nothing but a giant scheme for the reallocation of wealth under the guise of environmental protection, and I for one support Bush in rejecting it outright.
Russia supports it because, due to its post communist industrial collapse, the treaty essentially requires nothing of them. In fact, it gives them excess CO2 production credits that they can trade on the international market.
The main failing of the treaty is that it was drafted in a completely different geopolitical climate, one in which China had yet to start its rapid growth toward a major industrial power. It treats China as a developing country, requiring absolutely no CO2 output reduction on its part.
This has the side effect of giving them an enormous advantage: Kyoto would have us willingly cripple our own industrial output to allow China more advantage than its lax environmental laws and cheap labour already allow.
And really, for what? CO2 output reduction is an inevitability anyway. Within the next decade or so, we will have heavy hybrids that are able to charge themselves using household AC. Half of the people in major cities will be able to have zero-emission morning commutes. That alone will go a large way toward significantly reducing CO2 output. It's ridiculous to force a political solution to a technical problem.
Yes, going by the adverts produced by Honda (Can Hate Be Good?) and RailPower Technologies Corp. (Green Goat low emission locomotive), it would appear that stricter emission controls actually create jobs as researchers and companies develop products to match these requirements.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
"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?
Lets face it, the only reason Dubya is taking this stance is because his family and all his friends stand to lose out BIG TIME if the substances which create green house gasses are curbed. The only reason he doesnt ratify it is because the Saudis and all the rest of his "texas gold" friends are in it to shaft the rest of us for every penny they can get. This is what you voted for America and this is why the rest of the world is pissed off with you.
the sole purpose of the kyoto treaty is to cripple the US economy
Look out the window behind you! The UN / Al Qaeda black helicopter snatch squad are coming for you because you've exposed their secret plan!
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...
Not to argue, but it doesn't count unless it's ratified by the Senate - so the US isn't a signatory.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
I'm sorry; this is a quote from the Kyoto Treaty? Funny that a google search doesn't bring up the text of the treaty. Sure, you're thinking, that's because google censored them under pressure from the John Kerry campaign, but try this search and plenty comes up. Nothing about paying third world countries for the right to pollute though. Funny, the phrase "third world" doesn't even appear in the treaty.
Now can someone please explain what is insightful about the above?
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...
> The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions
Sorry, yes it does. It deeply encourages countries to commit to reducing their outputs - and it has already worked. In the UK, in Brazil, and in other countries, since signing on, they've made substantial reductions specifically to increase their position with the treaty.
> What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want
Actually, no it doesnt. It sets levels for all countries at the time the treaty was written. The lower-tier countries still have a limit on their production - its just not as tight as the largest producers.
The net result is that if those third-world countries sell their credits, they too will quickly become annex 1 countries - putting them under the same rules we would be under. The net result? They get money to modernize, we get to slow our reduction rates, and eventually everyone is under the same rules! A net win for all sides.
>Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle
Brazil has reduced their emissions - not increased them.
It has nothing to do with Bush - and everything to do with bad assumptions due to a short-sighted focus on "jobs".
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Bush said in one of the debates he would oppose it. There is nothing new here. Whats next, "Linus Torvalds writes some more C code"?
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.
Sounds like a job for Team Kyoto: Environmental Police.. F*ck Yeah!
Quite seriously though, the statement was made that "Bush must think we're stupid". I didn't believe so before the election.. but apparently slightly over 50% of Americans are.
There are millions of americans that fully support the Kyoto treaty. But we can't do anything because, unfortunately, we are a minority.
Kyoto was DOA when it was written and it will never, ever pass in the United States under any circumstances. Let's get back to a serious discussion ... like the social value of GTA.
If your argument for Kyoto is the reduction of GLOBAL warming via a reduction in greenhouse gases, then you should care about pollution in China and India. If you don't care, then why are you caring about US pollution? It is a global phenomenon isn't it?
As an example of how bad pollution is in China, the Chinese just put out an open coal pit fire that has been burning 1.8 million tons of coal a year.
But guess when that fire started? 1896. I'd like to see how much polution that caused all by itself. Its probably one of the largest single-point polution sources in the world.
Who knows what other stuff is going on that they won't tell us about.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
I'm sure many people may know the US produces by far the most CO2 per capita, because Australia isn't real. But I must admit that I do find it amazing that so many people can know things that aren't actually true.
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
Not if your primary function is to help out your oil industry buddies.
And what does the fact that most countries other than the US joined the treaty say about its structure?
That the treat is often in other countries financial interests to join, while it puts unfair strain on the USA.
but can we get the government to go dutch on paying for them?
this is the typical arguement pro outsourcers make. It's the sister arguement to the pro work-visa crowd (i.e., Americans don't want these jobs, lets give 'em to foreigners). It's bullshit either way. The work still needs to be done, no matter whose doing it. If company A goes out of business, that doesn't mean what company A was doing for society is no longer necessary. So along comes company B. Same for the work visa arguement: These jobs need to be done, and you can _always_ find an American willing to do it, for the right price. It's just that the rich fucks of the world don't want to pay that price. They want to shift societies efforts to grant them their every little desire.
Make no mistake, 1% of our population makes all the food we need and a small percent more is needed to make our housing. Everything else is just gravy. There's plenty of wealth to go around, and it's not even that rich bastards want it all to themselves. It's more complex than that. It's about power. It's about playing the rest of the poor dumb saps off each other so the Bushs and the Haliburtons of the world can continue to trick the people at large into giving them everything they want. They're the new monarchy, they just don't rely on God or Tradition as excuses any more. Now it's property rights and freedom.
Outsoucing is all about playing one group off the other to keep the masses in check. And I've said it before and I'll say it again: This isn't a consipracy, it's just good business.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For a group of people that claims such intellegent superiority over all the "hicks" in the midwest that voted for Bush, you sure to buy wholeheartedly into the media BS. That and Democratic press releases! As someone on Fark said the other day, if the Dems ever hope to get elected again they need to quit believing their own rhetoric!
Case in point: Outsouring. TWO PERCENT of the jobs lost this year were due to outsourcing. That's a bit more than 4,000 people. (sources: Here and here). Tragic? Sure, sucks to lose your job but 4,000 people does not translate into "everyone is outsourcing its the end of the world!". Nor does it translate into "President Bush supports outsourcing". No, President Bush supports tax cuts to encourage growth and it appears to be working (and no I'm not a wealthy person but I still got a tax break). The tax cuts are about the only thing he has done right. If he hadn't have started a useless war and pooped all over the Constitution I might have voted for him.
The Anti-Blog
Read the full article at http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040319014625.tbceu
There is no quick and easy technological fix. Time for the US, and the world, to take responsibility. The Kyoto-agreement is just the start, MUCH more is required for CO2 levels to stabilize.
And the top polluter in the world doesn't even want to take that first, symbolic step...
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Treat...heh, that was a fun typo.
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
Now, I realize that you'll tear apart my argument because "George Bush is evil" and "the US economy doesn't create any value to the world." Obviously those aren't valid arguments any way you slice it.
While I admire your proactive stance, it's generally considered poor form (not to mention confusing) to set up straw men for hypothetical future arguments. There's a shortage of straw men due to excessive over-use, so please, treat them like an antibiotic: wait to use them until you need them!
This message was brought to you by Straw Men Against the Constant Killing of Straw Men.
One minor point... remember the huge forest fires in indonesia that polluted the entire region a while back? I read recently that they have caused indonesia to become a *significant* producer of CO2, since the peat has gone from being a carbon sink to being a carbon source, possibly responsible for the huge blip that just got measured. If that is true then it is worth doing something about, even if it is a developing country.
The answer, of course, is that many of the politicians who have signed on to Kyoto have done so for short term political gain. It makes everyone feel good that something is being done, while they don't actually have to do anything painful.
If push comes to shove and people are actually forced to curtail their lifestyle in 2012 in order to comply with the protocol, then you will see those people dropping out of it. After all, there are no penalties for dropping out. So, if you have to choose between spending billions of dollars to reduce C02 production, or buy CO2 credits from Russia for billions of dollars, or drop out and keep your money, which one will the voters choose?
The only way that Kyoto will be complied with is if technology improves (e.g. more fuel efficient vehicles and energy production) to the point where painful choices are not required. And that improvement will happen regardless of Kyoto.
If it's based on per-capita output of CO2 then all the US needs is more citizens.. Hey, it turns out illegal immgration is of benefit after all.
In all seriousness, Kyoto is a bad idea. It simply hinders which ever nations sign it. If all of the world signed on, I'd have no problem with our president signing it.
It's cheaper and simpler not to generate the CO2 in the first place.
One thing that hasn't been pointed out much is that it will cost Russia virtually nothing to enforce Kyoto.
Basically, the treaty stipulates that pollution levels cannot rise above their level about fifteen years ago.
Fifteen years ago, Russia was still Soviet and had a lot more heavy industry. They were a massive polluter. These days, they don't have as much industry anyway, so they won't have to institute controls to meet targets.
For the same reason you should vote if you strongly support a third-party candidate.
I am trolling
"Now, I realize that you'll tear apart my argument because 'George Bush is evil' and 'the US economy doesn't create any value to the world.'"
One has to love arguments where the only logical opposition must be "evil." We are not saints, nor the sinners in your dichotomy, simply biological beings, which will need to survive in the exact same ecosystem as other biological beings. As somebody stated in a previous comment, we simply need fewer people. We're liable to get it at this rate, as we are much more dependent upon environmental influences than say lizards. We're not evil if there is such a thing. We just don't want to work with anybody else, and can do everything by ourselves for ourselves. The fictitous dictator simply adds color! What a load of black and white crap.
but the US can come up with their own plans for doing so (and do by the way).
come on, who can think that the current us administration will do anything on that matter ? Let's meet in four years and see what has been done.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
We basically have to accept that most of the fossil fuels reserves that exist are going to be burnt before a major shift in energy production happens.
Whether or not we try and be more efficient about it is a bit irrelevant because at the end of the day (or rather, at the end of the century) most of the fossil fuels will have been burnt, and the CO2 released. Only when fossil fuel supply becomes limited and the cost is pushed up will any major shift in eneryg production occur. All we can do is hope that the planet isn't permanently fubar'd by then...
It is pretty much impossible to regulate pollution, or almost anything else on a large scale, without costing jobs in the short run. Unemployment is not permanent though. It'll all balance out to a slight reduction in the quality of living, maybe or maybe not to the benefit of future generations.
With this sort of treaty, if not everyone agrees to it, then it allows whoever doesn't agree to unfairly compete with the others. So if we don't agree to it, the other countries will likely want to withdraw, and we'll be back where we started.
While I can't prove it made a difference in his decision I think it's important to point out that the Kyoto treaty is bad for the coal and oil businesses.
-2 from the US, +50 from China?
I don't see your point.
We'd only have net reduction if everyone is equally screwed by the treaty. That's why the United States won't ratify Kyoto. It doesn't hinder "developing countries" like China and India.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
There are several good reasons to sign a treaty even if it won't be ratified. For one thing, the senators become accountable for every treaty they vote against. So, for instance, when Senator Martinez comes up for re-election, his opposition to Kyoto can be made into a campaign issue.
It also clarifies the administrations position on the treaty, and can turn it into a national issue. If there is a large public outcry in favor of the treaty due to a ratification controversy, it might compel some senators to change their votes.
It can also buy "political capital" in the international community. If other countries see that the president supports a treaty, even if it doesn't get ratified, fewer doors will close to the president.
With this president, too, the story is a bit different. Bill Frist doesn't have enough political strength to run the senate as a force separate from the president (unlike, say, LBJ). Bush's policy pretty much sets the agenda for this Senate nowadays.
see http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/cu rrent/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle_new .html
"If you add Fe you stimulate growth and the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere by algae. In a careful biogeochemical analysis, however, this idea proved to be untenable because the algae would eventual run out of other limiting nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. The Geritol Fix could at most reduce our atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 10%."
You used "responsibility" and "USA" in the same sentence; you are obviously naïve.
The USA takes responsibility for nothing, including:
Yeah, right.
Well, I live in The Netherlands, and half my country is below sealevel. Actually, I live exactly at sealevel. In other words-- I'll be the first to drown as soon as global warming really kicks in.
Bush simply refuses to look at things from a different viewpoint. for him, it's black, or white, grey does not exist. The US are the biggest poluters in the world; them NOT signing the Kyoto treaty is simply unacceptable. You Bush-loving people probably all live high and dry near the Great Divide. That's all fine and such, but lemme tell you, the world doesn't end at the Mexican and Canadian borders.
If Bush just had slightly more intelligence, he'd sign the damn treaty. He hides behind comments like "We will loose jobs if we sign etc."-- perfectly knowing that nonsense statements like that bribe the American audience.
I'll seriosuly be pissed off as soon as I start to get wet feet around here.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in the Kyoto treaty or environmentalism in general, but why in the world is "per capita" considered the proper measurement of CO2 emissions rather than something like "per square mile?" It seems to me that given the US's low population density that our country is far better able to absorb what we churn out than other areas of the world. I've read frequent complaints about Kyoto not weighting carbon sinks enough, but all that I've seen from either side is rhetoric.
That during the Clinton Administration the Senate voted 99-0 that Kyoto was untenable for the United States in a resolution.
It's been dead in the United States since the late 90s.
Of course this theory doesn't explain florida, but if it gets flooded/blown away at least the spam output should be reduced.
Just curious, but how would conforming to the Kyoto treaty cost the United States jobs? I would think it would create jobs (people manufacturing filters / monitoring emissions / fixing plants emitting too much). Just because emission restrictions are imposed doesn't mean corporations are going to stop producing. (It may encourage them to move overseas though, in which case the US needs heavy restrictions on outsourcing.)
Bush just doesn't want to do anything that would cost large corporations a cent.
Less profits for bush, cheny, and the oil hording neocons in power. Seems fairly simple to see that. Additionally, we need oil to make energy to power crap, so using less means increasing energy prices, which means a depressed instead of regressive economy, which means massive depression since people won't be able to even service their debt or produce goods.
Now, if Bush really wants to make some friends, he'd make [insert really large number here] of dollars available for research into alternative energy sources and storage, and begin selling the public on nuclear power for the meantime as it's the only safe alternative to, say, burning coal or natural gas like mofo's. Then again, the man is turning our social security over to a private corp, among other things.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Well shit, why should I have to work when there are people out there who have millions of dollars and bigger advantages than I do. Don't fuck my life up saying I have to have a job.
It is our responsibility to do anything in our power to limit our pollution. It *does* effect other people. What, you think the ozone hole was a result of all the industrial waste the aussies are dumping into the atmosphere? I think not.
Why do you worry about china and india. Take care of our own business, then we'll deal with them.
You sound like a child, 'HE DIDN"T CLEAN HIS ROOM WHY DO I HAVE TO CLEAN MINE WHINE WHINE WHINE'.
"It is perhaps worth mentioning that the word 'profits' has largely disapeared from respectable discourse. In contemporary Newspeak, the proper word is to be pronounced 'jobs'."
-Noam Chomsky: Perspectives on Power
Don't know if quoting Chomsky means I'll get modded down or what, but I think President Bush's decision makes sense after we do the translation suggested by Chomsky. Otherwise we are tangled in a morass of contradiction, as other posters have pointed out. Everything falls into place if we think about profits instead.
However, in 1997, 94 U.S. senators voted for and signed Senate Resolution 98 which says that the U.S. should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol if: 1) it did not impose restrictions on developing countries, and 2) it would "would result in serious harm to the economy.
John Freakin Kerry was also one of the senators to also sign this resolution.
So you are saying that every other country is given preferential treatment?
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.
So, are you going to be one of the people who dies to pollute our world less?
"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job"
Yet he's happy to send troops to get themselves killed in Iraq.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
President Bush is right: the Kyoto treaty is bad business for America. We have a future of cleaner living through technology ahead of us, but Kyoto is not it. Furthermore, go google a search for "global cooling article" and you will see that 30 years ago the "scientists" who are now predicting global warming were back then predicting global cooling.
Because part of the growth in places like China is from people being able to afford to heat their homes? Drive a car? Ride a bike? Eat a full meal? Of course the other growth is from all of the jobs and industries we've outsourced to them. Pretty soon we'll be able to meet Kyoto because we're industry less!
It's quite clear what he's trying to do --- when the sea levels rise, the first US folks to drown will be those pinkos that voted against him, most of which live on the coasts. True, God-fearing, Republican-voting Americans live in the interior, and will be safe. They'll even be well armed to prevent a huge influx of Aetheist Commies from Massachusetts!
(It's a joke, darnit.)
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.
Yes folks, right here on slashdot. Michael knows damn well the previous slashdot he references [also posted by him] does not come close to constituting evidence. Michael, you misrepresent to further your cause. That's fucking evil. I'd tell you to your face if you were here. Why should we believe anything you say? I'm calling you out. You are a fucking liar!
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
The Kyoto Accord is nothing but a clever plan to redistribute funds from the industrialised nations to the developing nations under cover of alleged CO2 "pollution". This happens by assigning artifically low CO2 quotas to the western (industrailised) nations, which as essentially unrealistic and unreachable. LUCKILY, Kyoto contains provisions so that our evil, filthy rich nations can buy extra CO2 quotas from the poor, abused developing nations. (aha!) Can you see where this is going ?
The problem with the premise of Kyoto is that Co2 is not pollution in any sense of the word, but a natural part of organic life and human economic activity, at that. Dumping uranium in the artic sea, that is pollution. Oil spills in the coastal areas, that is pollution. Heavy metal emmissions from coal power plants, thats pollution. But dang, dont ever come and tell me that it's pollution when i take a breath of air. And keep your mitts out of my wallet while you're at it, thank you so much.
This article from The Economist suggests that Kyoto-land companies may not lose out compared to American companies if an efficient emissions trading system is set up. This means that businesses will make emissions cuts where it makes most economic sense to do so. Also many multinationals that do business in Kyoto-land may choose to implement new Kyoto-related measures across the corporation. For example DuPont has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 65% compared with 1990.
But we'll all be equally screwed by not paying the environmental problem any attention.
So what's it to be?
This so reminds me of the fuzz about the introduction of catalytic converters in Germany. "It will be way more expensive. It will cost jobs!", was the car industry's mantra.
And what happened? Instead of killing jobs, jobs were actually created. Someone had to design and build those converters.
Same goes with all other eco stuff, e.g. recycling instead of just dumping. Created plenty of new jobs instead of killing others.
Of course, those jobs are (at first) not within the big industries. Yes, those need to spend money to modify their "cost/win optimized" fabrication processes. Unfortunately, those are also the ones with deep pockets to buy politicians and laws.
If you're living in the US think about the following: why is pure drinking water more expensive than gasoline? And no, I'm not talking about that chlorified crap which runs out of your kitchen faucet and needs to be filtered to be useful for anything but cleaning.
Oh yes.... lets endanger our lives and the lives of future generations so that people can keep their jobs. Sign the fucking treaty and impose major import TAXES on people who out-source jobs.
Support our troops; bring them home. By fighting this war we are letting the terrorist win.
They want us to attack. They need us to attack.
The more we attack; the stronger they grow.
The stronger they grow the weaker we are.
The weaker we are; the poorer we are.
Meanwhile, we have 39.5 million people living in poverty (same url). Since it is "easy" to get over $200,000 with two wage earners, why do we have so many people in poverty? Can't they accomplish this "easy" task?"some workers"? Who gets to decide who doesn't have to pay into Social Security? What is the criteria?
And who is going to pay MORE Social Security tax to make up for the lost revenue?Who needs "greater incentive to work"? Practically everyone I know works 40+ hours a week with the current incentives of food, shelter and clothing.
Now I may not have a Nobel prize, but I can understand the numbers.
Better that than be both economically and environmentally screwed while countries like China both prosper and pollute like crazy.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
I was going to argue with your points, but then I realised that you didn't have any. Then I realised that your post didn't actually make any sense. For example, what the hell does this mean?
The Kyoto fails entirly at reducing our energy demand (wich already reaches 10% of the daily bruto solar energy added to our system every day)
Anyone?
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.
'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,'
Hey DuMbya, what about all the jobs you've offshored the past 4 years.
I can't imagine how this country will survive 4 more years of what we've had.
At the rate bu$h ships jobs away, there won't be anything left to do except work at Wally World selling imported Chinese crap or flipping burgers, either way, it's a minimum wage world we are moving towards, where the ultra-elites at the top are serviced by the little people at the bottom who live off the scraps they throw down..
There's no room in the middle for anyone, it's either you are at the top or you are at the bottom of the food chain..
Friggin hypocrite....
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.
Also worrying even now about people that could lose his job and vote is better than worry about dead people (by hurricanes and similars enhanced by climate changes) that dont matter because they dont vote anymore.
Hopely Bush is still alive (and whoever he cares about) the day of the end of the world as we know it, would hate that he fuck the world and don't lives to suffer for what he helped to cause.
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".
And what does the fact that most countries other than the US joined the treaty say about its structure?
It says that it's structured to benefit nearly everyone else primarily at the expense of the U.S.? Whether this imbalance is fair or unfair, I leave as an exercise to the reader.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Because people do things like drive cars, operate air conditioners and use other appliances, most of which either create greenhouse gases directly or contribute to that in the form of power consumption
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
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.
While I second your apology, I wouldn't be so quick to make promises. After all, many Americans were already promising the same thing not too long after the last time he was elected. (or not elected, if you're one of the many still beating that dead horse)
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Amory Lovins has an amazing book called Natural Capitalism that explains how you can save millions by saving the environment. He has a company, The Rocky Mountain Institute, and does work with major chemical and manufacturing companies to shave hundreds of millions while saving electricity and resources. Wasting is not good for the environment or your bottom line.
Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
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.
And thats where the kyoto agreement comes into picture.. It is therefor important that all/most of the countries can agree on pollution control measures to avoid companies moving in one direction or another.
And the US has only 4.6% of the world's population.
Kyoto or not, its time to buy smaller cars less often, take public transit, and carefully consider the effects of overconsumption. In the past three years, I've traded my SUV in on a Toyota Echo, taken the bus/train to work nearly every day, and started to buy gently used stuff on eBay.
It was actually pretty easy - And I was able to pack an extra $18,000 into the bank. I suppose I'm my own little "Mini Kyoto."
Of course, my behaviour is bad news for corporations like GM and many manufacturers - but its better for me.
since Bush has probably patented "causing the loss of American jobs" and doesn't want anyone to infringe on his patent.
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
Just realize that for many Americans, regardless of exit polls, it wasn't necessarily choosing Bush so much as not trusting Kerry. I dislike both of them; Bush's environmental policies on the domestic front, and the way Iraq was handled on the foreign front. Kerry, though, would not likely support Israel, which I feel is important, and his voting record on other issues is spotty at best. I voted Badnarik.
I heartily concur, couldn't have said it better myself. To some people, morals only apply to abortion and gay marriage.
Reminds me vaguely of this.
For a taste:
"US Suspects World not putting US Interests first"
Whitehouse evidence
International politicians and the media have blasted the U.S. for abandoning the Kyoto global warming treaty, despite the fact that the U.S. has explained the treaty would not be good for the U.S. economy."
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
WTF if you disagree with the post then POST A REPLY WITH YOUR REASONING. The parent is not flamebait retarded mods!!!!!!!!!!!
MODERATORS CAN SUCK MY DICK. Now THAT'S FLAMEBAIT!!
YEA THAT WAS HILARIOUS
But this one's better;
http://ace.mu.nu/
See : Photoshop Bait thread
now that'sa spicy meatballs!
...Chinese farting CERTAINLY does contribute to global warming. So you are wong!
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
This Bush is sending jobs elsewhere is TOTAL BS. Look at your *LOCAL* politicians. They are the ones that provide the most tax benifit to a company.
For example in my state NAFTA (thank you pres clinton!) 'allowed' jobs to go to Mexico then India. Yet my local group decided to raise taxes on ALL the groups here. Of COURSE they are leaving by the truckload full. In order to compete on a level playing field they have to move to where the tax's are once again let them make money.
If you think for ONE second a company hires you because they are 'nice' THINK AGAIN BUDDY. They hire you because MR=MC (that is the marginal revenue that you provide equals the marginal cost of which *YOU* cost). While your uncle may hire you because your family. That does not happen most of the time.
For example DELL wants to open a plant here in NC. They will be putting one in. It is now up to the *LOCAL* boards to make sure it is worth DELLs time and money to even be here. In fact two counties are fighting over who can get it...
Now lets say for a second 'SCREW the corps'. They should pay the same tax's as everyone else. Guess what? They will goto india, china, brazil, etc... Not because they have better emisions standards. But because they can get the SAME thing at a lower rate. And maybe just maybe they have to do it just to stay in busness. Smaller compaines worry about that quite a bit you know.
Have you never BOUGHT anything? Then kicked yourself for finding it somewhere cheaper? Companies do what you didn't they SHOP AROUND and get the BEST DEAL.
You may be sitting in front of your computer saying 'bush sent my job elsewhere' But think again. Your dreams of a being a dot com millionare were quite delusional. Do not base your life on maybe, shouda, coulda, wouldas. I personaly turned down 3 dot com jobs because the places had NO real plans to make money. They gave everything away! I shopped around for a job that I knew I could have 10 years later. I planned ahead a BIT.
Kerry lied to you when he was saying unemployment is at an all time high. It is not. It is at the all time AVERAGE. Guess what? You have to PROVE again that your worth a companies time... The 1990's are over pal...
Or let me put it to you in a way you will understand. Let us say I need to get a plumber. But last time Plumber X took 3 weeks to fix a leaky faucet. Am I going to go back to Plumber X? Hell no, I am going to find someone else who can do the job faster, maybe even cheaper! Now I am taking a risk. But I am probably no worse off than I was with Plumber X.
That is the way the REAL world works. Not the Dot Com world. That was a house of cards that clinton built. When he was gone, guess what, it IMPLODED on itself...
Also traditionaly computer jobs are usually LOW paying jobs. That there was a point where it was a hard thing to find. We are now a dime a dozen. Prove yourself and compaines will hire you. Think you are entitled to a job? Think again. The only place where your are entitled to a job is in a monarchy.
If companies can increase their profit while screwign up the invironment less, then there is no need for a treaty. Losing to the european competition would be reminder for them to start doing something.
Accept it. The United States is not going to sign a CO2 reducing treaty anything like Kyoto. Why?
The Kyoto treaty requires that all developed nations reduce their CO2 emissions to 92% of their 1990 levels. That's an odd algorithm to use to select the safe level. Why was it used?
Europe and the American Europhiles who negotiated this treaty chose that date deliberately. By 1990, the United States had done a *lot* of pollution-mitigating things (Keep in mind that that year the US celebrated *20 years* of Earth Day). However, by 1990, Europe was an environmental mess. Horrible emissions around the continent, most of them in the former Communist half, meant that Europe still had lots of 'easy' things to do to clean up its CO2 picture. Combine that with a Russia whose population has been in steady decline ever since then, and meeting the 92%-of-1990 becomes relatively trivial for Europe.
Also, at the rates things are going, it won't take long until the 'developing' world is putting out as much CO2 as anywhere else in the world.
Here's an alternative: No nation is allowed to release any carbon dioxide.
This could be implemented with a series of sensors around the world, measuring local CO2 patterns and wind patterns. These sensors, controlled by the UN would constantly measure the flow of CO2 around the world. If, for example, the air flowing into Portugal averages 207 ppm CO2 and the air flowing out of Portgual averages 230 ppm CO2, some sort of combined UN military force would implement an oil blockade, bomb factories, or do whatever else was necessary to get Portugal into compliance. (No offense to the Portuguese -- I'm just using them as an example, and I have no idea what their CO2 emissions are like.)
+1 informative
The main thing to understand behind the Kyoto agreement is the fact that it institutes a system of Tradeable Emissions Rights (TERs). TERs are already being used in the U.S. among coal-fired power plants with great success in curbing emissions. Basically, a TER is a publicly traded permit that allows 1 ton of pollution emission per permit purchased. Each power plant is granted a certain number of emissions permits up to the amount that needs to be abated (by statute), and the company must then purchase additional rights to pollute above that amount.
;)
This is a great market because it makes the industry self-policing. Those powerplants that can economically abate emissions are free to sell excess TERs to companies that are unable to do so, making it a win-win situation for all parties. Every year the amount of pollution abated increases, which encourages companies to invest in cleanup technology, or decommission powerplants that simply can't meet the requirements economically (which are replaced with new plants with better technology).
Now apply this on a global scale, and you have Kyoto. The reason Russia is so gung-ho about signing onto this treaty is because they stand to make billions of dollars on the deal. "Why" may you ask? Because the baseline was set at 10% below 1990 pollution levels (IIRC). Anybody that knows anything about Russia's economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union knows that they're running at about 30-40% of their industrial output as they were during the Communist heyday... in other words, they have a shitload of permits to sell... and guess who their #1 customer will be? The U.S., of course.
This is why the U.S. is so apprehensive about the treaty... we're already doing what we can within our country's own TER system to combat pollution, so there's not much room left for maneuvering on a global scale (we've already hit the point of economical abatement). So, that's the primary reason why the U.S. won't sign on, and why it's been a bipartisan issue.
We stand to lose quite a bit of GDP if we have to implement the Kyoto agreement, though with the price of oil forever-escalating this could finally spur development in the Hydrogen/Solar area.
Also, to those protesting the unfairness of Kyoto, keep in mind that in every country's industrial development, there's a point in time where they emit huge amounts of pollution... attempting to deny those developing countries economical fossil-fuel sources is a bit hypocritical, even though on a global scale it make sense. That is why Kyoto makes exception for these countries... they're allowed to pollute at their current levels for 10-20 years, upon which time they will also be subject to the provisions outlined in the Kyoto treaty. The hope is that by that time technology will have evolved enough that it will be economically feasible for these developing countries to afford, which will lead to implementation.
Any questions?
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
Humanity itself may go away.
That'd be nice. Too bad we might take a lot of other species with us.
It's better to let Americans die in Iraq for no good reason, than let them lose thier jobs to save the environment. What an Asshole.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
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.
[Stupid submit button next to the preview button...]
This proposal would allow countries to emit as much CO2 as they wanted, as long as it was reabsorbed by forests or whatever before it left their borders. There would be some practical considerations -- would we really need to ring, say, Greenland or the Northern 90% of Canada with sensors?
I couldn't find a list of countries and their border lengths, but I did find a list of areas. If you assume that each country is a square, and thus that it's border is sqrt(area) * 4, and you put a sensor every 10km, the total number of sensors becomes 50,000 -- and they're much simpler than, say, cell phone towers.
On a side note, the US already easily meets this standard of emitting no net CO2, so this proposal would never pass.
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.
*sniffle* God bless America.
less than the number which will.
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
In England we've been hearing for the past week about how Bush makes "moral stands" and "does what is right not popular"
I thought Bush's "moral stands" were exactly the opposite -- what is popular but not right. Esp. the gay bashing bit. I thought he did it for popularity sake even though for sure he had to know that such a constitutional ammendment would not fly, but he went through the trouble of trying anyway. I was always under the impression that he did whatever things Karl Rove tells him to do just so he could be popular with his core base supporters.
This lies at the core of the problem with Kyoto: it attempts to create a socialist "one person, one unit" system regardless of comparative advantage. The other problem is the international trading scheme for emissions; dictators in impovershed nations (with little carbon emission) would have one more way to collect fees from rest of the world and continue oppressing their people. The appropriate fix would be a mandated world-wide carbon emissions tax which is collected by each government, the level to be set by treaty. Anything else leaves perverse incentives which will be abused, no matter how much the socialists (aka "progressives") believe otherwise ("reality-based", my ass).
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
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.
Good for you, I'm glad to hear that. Better to vote independent if you don't agree with their policies than try and pick the least-worst candidate. Long term, people voting for those they actually agree with (rather than, eg those most aligned with their religion) is the only way American democracy can actually become democratic again as opposed to a personality pissing match.
It says that it's structured to benefit nearly everyone else primarily at the expense of the U.S.?
Are you saying that even if the US does not sign it everyone benefits at America's expense? If not, who benefits and who loses in its current state?
Unfortunately, the radical greens have shot down the only really viable means for radically reducing CO2 output, nuclear power.
Actually there are (at least) two others. But I'm sure the eco-fascists (not to be confused with actual environmental scientists) would be opposed to them as well.
One is space solar power: Orbital solar collectors and milimeter-wave downlink to rectennas. It's actually price-competitive with fossil fuel plants (despite a flawed NASA study) and will get moreso with the development of private orbital capacity. (Bullshit about birds cooked in flight has already been issued.)
The other is to seed the South Pacific with a bit of iron compounds so the algae bloom will suck down megatons of CO2 and sequester it in the deep ocean for time measured in kiloyears, and continue with fossil fuel until, say, the necessary fusion breakthroughs occur or the eventual price rises make other alternatives attractive.
It seems odd to see them whine on one hand about too much CO2, and then whine on the other hand that people would *gasp* actually consider using a CO2 free source of electricity.
Hear hear!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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).
Badnarik and Nader both had loads of arguments as to why Bush was the wrong commander-in-chief, but I didn't hear a lot of arguments against Kerry from them. Most of the flip-flopper claims came from the GOP camp. I thought it was a clever attack, because even if Kerry tried to tell people what his position was and what his solutions were, people wouldn't listen because they've been implanted a mental block -- even if he stated his position, people still won't think he had a position!! I voted for Kerry by the way.
Blame G.W. Bush all you want. Kyoto is just a bunch of leftist drivel that lets the EU and China off the hook while punishing the U.S. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/10311159 75127.html
All men aren't pigs... we just smell that way.
From what I read the treaty now goes into place regardless of what the USA does now. Somehow that means Bush is at fault?
The Yahoo story also points out that Russia agreed to the treaty because they hope to sell their pollution quota to other countries and attract jobs.
I'm at a loss to see how that helps the environment.
Instead this treaty seems to make pollution a commodity that can be bought and sold.
Can someone please explain to me just how the fuck that's gonna help?
.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
So you are saying that every other country Idiot. I said "often".
.. 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.
...have a lot more to do with any perceived "global warming" that might be occurring than greenhouse gases.
The recent 60 years of increased sun activity are the greatest period of such activity in the last 8,000 years.
Furthermore, the data upon which Kyoto is based has been proven to be statistically fraudulent.
The fact that Kyoto is based upon fraudulent data should be troubling to anyone without some unspoken agenda.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Considering that human life is a terminal condition, your response seems a bit inadiquite.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Very clever, Mr. Coward.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
If you ban mugging, you'll have a whole bunch of unemployed muggers. They might turn to crime.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Troll:
Giving Bush four more years isn't the end of the world. Oh, wait, IT IS!! Thanks for voting for Bush! THANKS A LOT, SUCKERS*!
Ok, I know most slashdotters didn't, but some of you...
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
Maybe a strategy for fairly sharing the rights to emit carbon dioxide worldwide has a chance? The Contraction and Convergence plan developed by Aubrey Meyer at GCI seems reasonable...
The Kyoto treaty is just another attempt by the 3rd world countries to extract wealth from the world's most successful economy.
There is no 'proof' that global warming is happening or that we are causing it. We just don't have enough data! 50 or 100 years are a drop in the bucket as far as the environment is concerned, we still have no way to examine long term trends with any objectivity.
ed.
Remember Lexington Green!
Let's say Johnny's parents are very strict about making him clean his room. Jimmy, on the other hand, lives with foster parents and they don't make him clean up at all. Then, Jimmy & Johnny's parents decide that their neighborhood is looking kinda dumpy, so they agree to make Johnny paint his house and mow the lawn. Johnny is so pisssed at this that he murders his parents and goes to live in foster care with Jimmy. (*I told you, it's REALLY shitty)
There are two more issues here. THe first is international political capital (of which the Bush Administration is rapidly running up a horrendous deficit), in that if we do our best to help all other countries with global problems then it will be easier to get their help later.
The second is this.... The dangers of doing nothing about greenhouse gasses is really greater than people want to think. Arctic warming poses some serious dangers to our costal areas, and if you think that September 11th hurt our economy, imagine what a rise in ocean levels will.
Or if you are worried about losing manufacturing jobs, what about the tourism industries such as snow sports which are likely to be endangered. What about climate changes? How will those impact our agriculture?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Actually, Clinton did sign the treaty despite the fact he knew it would be a battle to get through congress. Bush then *unsigned* it after coming into office.
Broken window fallacy.
While I adore trying to implement efficient solutions which bring value to mankind, I fear that this is just another politic scheme to divert untold loads of money into pork barrel projects with no net benefits.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
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.
I hadn't intended to make a comprehensive argument for one side or the other. I'm simply giving reasons why it would still make sense to send the treaty to the Senate even if it has no chance for ratification. But, since you bring it up...
I'm going to vote for the candidate who best supports American interests, not Russian interests, not Chinese interests, not Indian interests, or any other national interest.Fair enough. And while retaining American jobs at the expense of global climate change is certainly in our short term interests, a good case could be made that averting global climate change is in our overall best interests (as in, for instance, not losing California to the Atlantic Ocean.
There's a direct analogy to be made with outsourcing (although it may not make me any friends on /.). Although outsourcing American jobs is certainly not within our short term interests, the consensus among economists is that it is within the medium/long-term interests of both America and its trading partners.
We can argue 'til the cows come home about whether we should prioritize short or long term interests. The consensus view among environmental scientists is similarly that emissions can bring about global climate change, and global climate change can bring about some very, very bad things.
This globalization stuff is something non-U.S. nationals have come up with as an excuse to damage the U.S. economically and politically because they can't do so militarily.The primary accomplishment of globalization has been the expansion of US commercial power around the globe. That's not something non-US nationals came up with. Incidentally, I think that expansion of US commercial power is primarily a good thing, even if it does cause widespread short-term problems.
The overproducer doesn't actually have to reduce.
Gotcha. But the Al Gore signing the treaty for US has no more weight than it would if I, TykeClone, signed the treaty. It doesn't matter until it's ratified.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
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.
We've already lost many jobs under your adminstration. It's not the jobs you're worried about, it's the money your big company friends are going to lose to comply with the Kyoto protocol. Then again, companies cut jobs to keep their massive profits massive.
As you could probably tell, I'm not happy with another 4 years of Bush.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
In truth, up until about 3 weeks prior to the election I would have considered him. Kerry actually convinced me not to vote for him on his own in speeches leading up to the election.
That, plus I truly feel he wouldn't support Israel, and I think that is important - no one else seems to be willing to, and as much as I hate to see any people supressed, as we often see the Palestinians portrayed, I truly feel Israel is on the right in this.
There's something north of America? Huh. That's pretty neat. I wish them good luck as they apply for statehood.
Source: World Resources Institute. 2003. Carbon Emissions from Energy Use and Cement Manufacturing, 1850 to 2000. Available on-line through the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) at http://cait.wri.org/. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Top10
more sources: http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/104.htm
I'm no expert, but less pollution costs. You must develop new ways to produce the same goods in order to decrease the pollution. Development costs. Bying new hardware costs.
No one gets laid off because a company can't meet some polution reg.
Well, if the enviromental-department says it's gonna cost 100 million dollars to install new filters, the net present value of a company may become below zero. Thus, everybody is fired.
Cleaning technology is like any other technology, it costs money. The problem is that a company must pay for the cleaning-solution, but the "profit" from fresh air etc. is enjoyed by everybody.
I totally agree that the world should decrease the pollution, but saying that it's not going to cost money (and thus jobs) is false.
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
Why do people create products in a way that damages they planet they live on in such a way that to find a new way would put them out of business? Seems that it would have been more responsble as a person to a. not to produce the product at all or b. find some way to not polute.
I have a friend that lives in central Virginia. In his backyard there is a beautiful stream. Rocky, clear water, looks great. I asked him if he ever catches any fish it in. He laughed and said
"That stream has not had a single living creature in it since the Dow plant opened up 20 miles up the road, but, before that, people around here tell me it was good fishing."
That's what the electorate said (well, 20% of them anyway). So they voted for the guy that bears false witness pretty much everytime he opens his mouth, at least, on those occasions when he says anything intelligable at all. Bush is opposed to Kyoto because it will reduce the profits of his oil patch, neo-feudalist contributors. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the jobs of ordinary workers and never has. But he will write religous bigotry and homophobia into the U.S. Constitution, and really, isn't that all that matters?
without the east coast?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
See the electoral college map. See how many blue states are along the coasts. Melting the polar ice caps will put those states under water. The Bush Administration favors policies that will cause global warming which in turn melts the ice caps. Coincidence, ... ;)
So THAT'S why the americans are so BIG AND FAT. They consume all the ENERGY!
Again, not true. Al Gore was an official in the US government (not to be confused with Congress, which is a different thing). As long as he had authority from Clinton to sign it at the time (and there is no doubt that he would have had such authority at the time), it is signed by the United States.
This is fairly basic international law, although being international law, it's something a person is unlikely to be familiar with unless they are a diplomat or a lawyer trained in international law.
The real sad thing here are people turning this into a political issue when it is a scientific issue first and foremost. Notice that the majority of those against the Kyoto treaty argue on political grounds. And don't hand me the BS kool-aid malarky about regulations causing job loss. You don't know what you're talking about. You can probably create more jobs enacting efforts to clean up the environment than you can destroying it.
This isn't a political issue. It's a health/science issue.
Those of you who think that there is no consequence to dumping pollutants into the air should re-route the exhaust from your car back into the cab and then wait a half hour. After that I'll concede, and there will be one less bonehead to argue with.
It's all about self-esteem and respect.
We'd take all of the profits out of drug dealing if we decriminalized them.Drugs are lucrative for those who sell them, but they have strong dependencies and ruin lives. They are dangerous for those who take them and for those who live around them.
Qui ne va pas à la chasse n'a pas de gibier
PHP Queb
Sad. A typical american approach: threaten those who disagree, with your large army.
Stop it. You are better than that!
I read a great deal of the Department of Energy report on Kyoto. Something in particular that jumped out at me is the sheer cost of our implementing technology to comply with Kyoto. First to note is the best-case, most-compliant price tag; it's around 1.8 trillion dollars over the next 7-8 years. That doesn't take into account job losses/creations/displacements or other economic factors surrounding the implementation - like the upward change in oil and coal prices for the consumer market; DoE was unable to quantify these changes other than to say that they would trend upward.
Something else that is very important is that our energy will have to shift to a more nuclear approach, which is great and all, but we are a nation full of NIMBYs; the pro-Kyoto Americans need to realize that in accepting Kyoto, they are tacitly approving 60 or more nuclear power plants to be built and online in the next 8 years. Since the support for Kyoto is (at least on /.) a very environmentalist stance, I find this to be a little bit in conflict.
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
"We don't have to protect the environment - the Second Coming is at hand."
- James Watt, Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan administration
I hope Jesus gets here quick because my feet are getting soggy.
Why shouldn't YOU implement these measures, and I'll keep to my old ways.
That's exactly what the U.S. government is calling bullshit on. The developing world says that the U.S. should implement new environmental regulations, but those same developing countries are exempt from regulation, even though they are rapidly becoming (and in some cases are) the worst polluters in the world in terms of pollution per dollar GDP.
All nations should be subject to more stringent environmental regulations if any are.
First off, there's no real proof that our CO2 is heating up the climate.
Oh yea? Why? Because you, "the Shadow" knows? And what is the basis of your conclusion on this? Let me guess, "Cause you said so."
Nevermind the Carbon Dioxide Increasing in Atmosphere, Methane Also Increasing, More Frequent Extreme Weather, Disappearing Glaciers, Melting Arctic Sea Ice, Melting Antarctic Sea Ice, Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting, and Tropical Diseases Spreading. Let's just ignore all that, or better yet, let's bury our head in the sand and blindly support an administration hell-bent on burying scientific evidence.
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?
I'm not taking any position -- but I think the argument is something like,
"when there is money involved, there are two problems: first, people may prefer prostitution to other forms of work, and also, there is exploitation of the prostitutes, which is difficult to fight."
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)
In Brazil, as far as I remember, prostitution is not a crime. Exploiting prostitutes is.
Let's get one thing straight: The U.S. does not oppose the Kyoto Environmental Treaty. Bush and and HALF the U.S. population (at most) opposes the Kyoto Environmental Treaty. Don't put the other half of us in that boat...
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
Welcome to reality.
My 2 cents.
All nations are selfish. The reason US is singled out because they're the most wealthy and powerful, and other nation, also being selfish, want some of that.
The reality is, everything in the world is driven by greed. That's the reality, deal with it or die. I for one choose to deal with it and try not to sink to that level. You, my friend, will need to choose a decision soon (I hope its not the 2nd one...).
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
We have essentially bulletproof evidence that accumulating CO2 is caused by human activity. We understand the thermodynamic of atmospheres well enough to know that this is a significant perturbation. Paleonotological evidence indicates that this perturbation is occurring much more rapidly than any comparably large climate forcing event has occurred over at least the last fifty million years.
The first order prediction is that this will cause significant warming. Significant warming has been the consensus expectation of the scientific community starting in the early 80's, after a few years of debate as to whether human activity would cause cooling (through dust) or warming (through greenhouse gases). This prediction predates the observation of warming.
Since about 1990, computational models of sufficient fidelity to capture contemporary climate variations have been run with extrapolated greenhouse forcing.
Earliest and subsequent model results consistently predicted patterns of warming concentrated in the northern reaches of the continents. This is exactly the warming pattern that has emerged since then. These predictions show that the disruptions are expected to accelerate based on plausible emissions scenarios in the absence of policy constraints.
I encourage you to study the matter seriously rather than assert your hunches. The best place to start is the IPCC scientific working group report.
Michael Tobis
mt
Defend from what, sadam's mass destruction weapons?
Hmmm... he allowed the loss of the software jobs. Oh, but that's right... we're supposed to go back to community college to bone up. At least the community college jobs will be safe. Are they affected by Kyoto?
Oh, wait... perhaps he meant the the loss of a single American CEO job. I get it now.
I'm feeling like I've been boned.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
The idea is that everyone benefits, because it's supposed to counter GLOBAL warming.
As long as the USA is not joining, it's essentally freeloading on other people's efforts. This might arguably have some short term benefit on the USA economy, but it will not make them friends with the rest of the world, as they are by far the largest poluter per capita in the world.
It's a theme comming to the USA's current administration: Screw the rest of the world, we're only looking after our short term interests.
As the long term problems this causes are global, the USA will not escape the consequences, but neither will anyone else.
I am just fearing that the current focus in the USA on short term goals, with disregard of their long term consequences will make the future world a worse place for everyone, including the USA.
Only because the USA is the biggest poluter, are most other nations asking it to reduce emissions, because it's behaviour has the most significant effect. Everybody benefits if everyone joins, but without the USA, everyone looses.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
The less investment a company has it in, the less of a chance it has to grow and HIRE people. So yes, I'm all for making it more profitable to invest in a company. If you had half a brain, you would invest in stock and funds yourself. I sware, you make it sound like only the "Rich" can invest.
Life is not for the lazy.
Yeah, that's why Denmark has committed itself to cut CO2-emissions to 18% below the 1990 level, which was only half the US emission level per capita. It's a really subtle ploy, and I haven't figured out how it will do its dirty deed and ruin US economy, but I'm sure I'll work it out soon.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
It's an urban legend.
I don't claim to be an expert on the internal politics and laws in every E.U. country, but here in the U.S. the Treaty has little to do with this president per. se. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted by the U.N. in 1992, in the early part of the first Clinton administration. In order to become a Treaty under U.S. law the president must receive support via a 2/3 majority vote of the senate. The senate (controlled by the Dems in 1992 (IIRC) voted something like 98 to 2 against in a straw vote. President Clinton did not submit the protocol, and it basically died. SO, why is it somehow President G.W. Bush who takes the heat. I heard none of this outcry during the bulk of the Clinton administration. Come on everyone, fair is fair.
You must have just fallen off the turnip truck. This is the fundimental flaw with democracy. I distinctly recall the Republicans broaching the subject of fixing social security in 1998, and the Democrats used it to beat them about the head and shoulders. The reality is no politician will get elected unless he supports 1) no new taxes, 2) no decrease in social security or medicare. If Bush had taken any other position he wouldn't have been elected.
People look out for their own short-term interests. They don't care about jobs 20 years from now - they care about jobs now. You can do all the education you want, but if it comes to choosing between a new SUV and Kyoto the average guy will pick the SUV.
Incidentally, Kerry wouldn't have signed the treaty either, and even if he did it wouldn't have been ratified.
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
Trust me, our leaders are working on that.
Step 1. Have economy collapse.
Step 2. Sign Kyoto.
Step 3. Profit
Using George's logic (assuming what comes out of the wanker's mouth has ANYTHING to do with logic), the flooding of the Potomac and the consequent submerging of the capitol of the United States will be good because it will create jobs. Take this logic a little further and murder becomes good because it creates jobs for undertakers. Rape? Great! It creates jobs for doctors and psychiatrists. Diarrhea? You got it! Jobs for toilet paper manufacturers. You got bad schools? Stop complaining! It's creating jobs for tutors and Evelyn Woodhead reading programs. Bubonic Plague? Bring it on! More jobs for detergent chemists. Water in the gasoline? A bonanza for mechanics.
Dear God, deliver me from these chimpanzees who can't get the 2 1/2 millennia old basic principles of logic into their little anthropoid brains.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
What I think is a big deal here is not that Bush is doing what we all knew was he going to do (whether you think it be good or bad) It's that the news is reporting to the world decisions as made by the "U.S" When in fact these decisions are made by only 50% of the population. That means that approximately 50% of we Americans are misrepresented as individuals to the rest of the world.
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
... he's just following in his fathers' footsteps:
"The [unsustainable] American way of life is not negotiable" - George Bush on Kyoto, 1993
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Interesting isn't it. When it came to terrorism, the US government more more than happy to take the lead and do (what it thought) would fix the problem. However on an issue that could cause far greater long term suffering and conflict, it refuses to do so.
I wish I could speak from higher moral ground here, but my own country just re-elected John Howard. Still, from over here it looks like you guys have a democracy in name only, and the big interests (corporate america) are the only ones with any real say anymore.
I know most US Slahdoter's are good people who recycle, plant trees and drive efficient cars (maybe even walk, cycle or ride a mototbike). I feel somewhat sorry for you. We seem to be in the similar boat over here.
This is my only joy at a Bush victory - or rather, a bittersweet sort of feeling. The poor rural Christian fundamentalists who supported Bush en masse are going to get shafted in the next 4 years when massive outsourcing/a flatter tax/non-taxation of investments (Check this weekend's New York Times and the Washington Post online). There are basically two camps in the Bush administration - Cheney & co. want a flat tax, some other Cabinet members want to maintain but heavily reduce the progressive tax brackets and also allow for tax-free investments/capital gains.
To all the poor people who voted for Bush because he supports a "moral America" and "shares your values," just watch as you get poorer and I, the already rich liberal, get wealthier under Bush. Thank god for my massive stock options; at least I'll be rich while my country goes to hell.
God Bless America.
I don't care about global warming. It is global cooling that would be a problem.
Anyhoo, before people worry about manmade greenhouse gases maybe they should first try to cap all the volcanoes...
Oh well, what the hell...
I was listening to JJJ (Australia) the other day about the US elections. They were interviewing an American who had voted. She said, "I am apposed to the war in Iraq, but I voted for Bush because I am better off financially".
The same attitude is in Australia as well. People will vote for what will benefit themselves, not what benefits everyone.
Civilization is uncivilized.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
But if there is a world-wide ban on child porn then think of all those jobs that willl be lost. For shame, how unamerican are you? [/pointing out the illogicality of Bush's statement when taken to the extreme, then again people would say not protecting the environment just for jobs is an extreme]
it doesn't count unless it's ratified by the Senate - so the US isn't a signatory.
Your proof isn't towards your conclusion. No, it doesn't count at all unless it's ratified by the Senate, but yes, the US is technically a signatory since it signed.
"Drugs (...) have strong dependencies and ruin lives. They are dangerous for those who take them and for those who live around them."
Not by default, it depends entirely on the drug and the person using it.
One of the most dangerous and most addictive hard drugs is legal in most countries all over the world, the US president has even been been addicted to it in the past. I'm talking about alcohol.
Yet, something completely harmless as marijuana is outlawed and posession can result in serious punishment.
Why is that ?
You live in a country where it's perfectly legal to own a gun, a device specifically designed to hurt or even kill people. Yet, you're not allowed to enjoy yourself with some friends and a bag of weed because then you're somehow a 'danger to society'.
Some drugs are highly addictive and should be banned, but there's lots of drugs that can be enjoyed safely, and the world would be a far better place if more people did.
I'm not saying you should use drugs, but I am saying it should be your own choice, not the governments.
Never said it was so, never said it wasn't so. I don't know. Neither do you.
The main problem is that the main source of electrical generation in the U.S. is from coal-fired power plants. Out west here we have some hydropower as well, but we burn more coal than any country (even China).
Economically speaking, coal is the cheapest natural resource we have in the U.S. We have over 400 years of reserves by most estimates, but the drawback is that it's the dirtier, low-grade coal that's found in the Eastern U.S., not the cleaner Bituminous coal that's found here out west.
This is what GWB is talking about when he's talking about jobs... in order to clean up our sulfur dioxide emissions, it means moving away from coal as a fuel source, which would send the coal industry reeling. (Just so I don't seem sympathetic to him I'll divulge that I voted for Kerry).
To make the comparison fair, you need to compare U.S. emissions to 'all' of Europe and half of Asia... it's rather unfair to compare them on a country-by-country basis.
Like you mention, China is one of the success stories of the developing nations... even though the Three Gorges Dam is going to create the world's largest cesspool out of the Yangtze river, it will also take the place of them having to build several coal-fired powerplants. They've actually been reducing their pollution output as well from their current plants, even though they are one of the excepted countries in the Kyoto agreement.
You also are kinda forgetting that European countries have had a hundred more years or so to get their emissions in order... remember that at one time London's air quality was so bad that people were literally dying from breathing. Germany's Black Forest has also been almost completely decimated by acid rain... so they also had incentive to reduce their emissions, without needing the Kyoto agreement.
I don't want to appear like I'm making excuses, but sometimes you have to look past ideals and see how it's going to effect us economically... there will be a point in the future that we will be able to participate, but with the economy already in shambles, now is not the time.
I'm a senior in Environmental Economics, and the Kyoto agreement is one subject we've spent a lot of time analyzing. The economic repercussions of signing onto this agreement are pretty large, so we'll need to make sure the economy is growing pretty well before we take the plunge. Right now it's just suicide...
but all that I've seen from either side is rhetoric.
But that's the same with any issue.
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.
So, only the rich can afford to invest.
Meh.
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
So, to sum, None of the Above is Our Fault.
No go on back to the internets, fox, or wherever you get your "news."
I know you're---sorry, "your"---probably going to want to throw a nice party with some bud and hamburgers and freedom fires to celebrate your overwhelming mandate of 3%, so y'all best get to it. (You probably had a tough time with learning maths and stuff, so understand that squiggly thing at the end of the number three means 'out of 100').
Yeah, right.
Here's a Liberal Democrat who opposed the Kyoto Treaty: WASHINGTON, DC - The Clinton Administration's attempt to promote the Kyoto treaty on global climate change suffered another blow this week as Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a liberal Democrat from California, offered an amendment to H.R. 1743, the EPA Office of Air and Radiation Authorization Act, that prohibits the EPA from issuing rules or regulations to implement the agreement until it has been ratified by the Senate. Lofgren's amendment was approved during the House Science Committee's consideration of this important bill. U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), a staunch opponent of the Kyoto treaty, applauded this development. "I am pleased that Congresswoman Lofgren has joined my effort to prevent the Clinton Administration from implementing the Kyoto treaty through backdoor regulatory actions. "This fatally-flawed agreement would cripple our economy, send American jobs overseas, and erode the standard of living in our nation. Given the stakes involved, Congress must remain vigilant in protecting America's economic interests by opposing the Kyoto treaty." Knollenberg, who serves on the House Appropriations Subcommittee that is responsible for funding the EPA, included a provision in last year's budget that prevents the agency from moving forward with the Kyoto treaty prior to Senate ratification. Lofgren's amendment is almost identical to Knollenberg's language. "There is strong bipartisan opposition to the Kyoto treaty because it's a bad deal for the American people. With liberal Democrats like Zoe Lofgren coming out in opposition to this agreement, it's clear that the Clinton Administration's agenda is in deep trouble," Knollenberg concluded. -- It's not a Bush thing. Basically, the treaty put controls not on all goverments, but developed governments. Hence, putting more costs into goverments and developed economies yet not developing areas. I don't believe there's any such thing as global warming, the way it's being described around here. I believe, just my hypothesis, that the earth moves between cooler and warmer periods. It's just an evoluationary thing. If it we just global warming, this would be a trend that could be felt for centuries. However, it's a proven fact that the earth has been both cooler and warmer than it is now. In fact, Harvard recently released a study on this: A team of Harvard University scientists examined 1,000 years of global temperatures and reviewed more than 240 scientific journals from the past 40 years and concluded that despite man's influence on our environment, current temperatures are not as warm as during the Middle Ages. So, to say that we have the ability to destroy the earth is just a large amount of hubris, self elevation and chicken little. If SUVs are so vile and evil, why aren't busses, boats, trucks and cars? They all suck down gas at varying rates? Go into any american store and buy something not wrapped in a petroleum product outside of the produce area. Hell, in the produce section, what do you do? Grab a plastic bag and shove your items in it. It's simply a hypocrosy people have right now. Much less everything else that uses petroleum products within your house. Anything plastic? Carpet? What about the wood? Everyone clamores for cutting down trees, but I don't see people saying they don't want wood in their houses. It's not a Republican or Democrat thing. It's not a liberal or conservative thing. It's not a Bush or Kerry thing. It's a matter of opnions and theories. Each may be valid in certain areas, but they may all be wrong in others. Kyoto... I could care less.
How many scientists will it take before we can tear the blinders from your damn eyes!
You anti-environmentalists have been defeated with science, now go away and stop pulling crap out of your ass.
Meh.
We need less people in the world.
Hmm... the birthrate is falling and population declining in western nations like the US, Canada and Western Europe. It's still exploding in India and China.
What to do? Starve large segments of the population and conduct infantacide? Oh wait, China does that. Let AIDS run rampant and kill off the undesirables, while depriving them of health care? Oh wait, India and most African nations do that.
And curiously, the population explosion continues predominantly in command economies. Go figure! Free market economies (aka evil capitalism) have declining populations. How is this possible?
So, the deal actually is:
You want to save the environment
or
You believe the conservative BS about Kyoto and job losses.
Meh.
It's easy to decrease your emissions when you are burning soft coal with dirty processes. the coal plants in north america burn relatively clean so there is lots of opportunity for the rest of the world to decrease their emissions by upgrading plants.
Best King Canute No Ocean's Gonna Stop Me Now Head In The Sand performance goes to.....(drum roll)
The United States of America!!! Woohoo!!
HA HA look they're still in character! No wait don't point that ICBM at me! Here, have some more oil! Nice superpower....
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
"American economic dominance"?
In case you missed it, the EU's GDP now outstrips the US's. Of the 140 largest corporations on the Fortune 500, 61 are European, only 50 are US companies.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-08.htm
While you're at columbia.edu, you might want to try getting an education.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
"when there is money involved, there are two problems: first, people may prefer prostitution to other forms of work, and also, there is exploitation of the prostitutes, which is difficult to fight."
It's legal to work in porno. Some people do prefer that field of work, but it's not like bankers or even burger flippers are flocking en masse to that profession.
Also, if prostitution is legal there is no fear of punishment for reporting exploitation to the legal authorities.
If a known prostitute reports to the police that someone has beaten her up and taken her money she has to be worried about getting tossed in jail. That doesn't happen in places where prostitution is legal.
It's all about enforcing morality. Most people think that prostitution is a "bad idea" so it remains illegal.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This suggestion is already part of the Kyoto protocol.
Note that equilibrium forests do not absorb atmospheric CO2 in the net, only growing forests do, while retreating forests emit CO2.
I have never before seen a claim that the US has zero net emissions after accounting for biomass sinks. Do you have any evidence for this or is it just a hunch?
mt
Greenland?
o ri olis.html
c J: www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2004/2004-02-13g.asp+g reenland+chemical+plants&hl=en
Do you have actual documentation that pollution source is US-based, or is this just a Dane venting?
While the prevailing winds do seem to flow towards Greenland:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/c
Pollution comes from everywhere, like Asia:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:aSDhgSpkSH
According to the above article, Greenland seems to be a depository of pollution for Europe, North America, and Asia due to its location. Oh well.
It's fashionable to blame the US, but you should read the facts too.
It's all about self-esteem and respect.
It's about one group legally pushing their morality on all others.
The women in Nevada's legal brothels who are making $500k per year have all the self-esteem and self respect that anyone else does.
Drugs are lucrative for those who sell them, but they have strong dependencies and ruin lives. They are dangerous for those who take them and for those who live around them.
It is drug prohibition that causes most of these problems. If drugs were legal and controlled the quality would be higher. Much fewer overdoses. They'd also be cheaper, fewer addicts would be robbing others to pay fot their habits.
If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be obscene profits involved and no drug dealers would be having shootouts over territory.
Prohibition is more of a problem than the drugs.
I don't even smoke weed, but I don't give a fuck if you want to. Your body, your money, your choice.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So, no, this does not show too much. It does show that some nasties have gone down (but hey, 15 millions of tons of CO is still prety bad) but shows nothign about green gas nr1 CO^2.
Damn right. Just because Bush got elected doesn't mean all we can do is sit back and blow hot air.
I had to get a car this year, so I chose a Toyota Prius. I'm buying a house, and I'm making sure it's entirely built with high efficiency thermal insulation, zoned HVAC, and energy-reflective 'low e' windows. I work from home office rather than commuting every day.
If enough people vote with their wallets, corporations will start to notice. Notice that already Toyota can't build hybrid cars fast enough, while SUVs are cluttering dealer lots by the thousand.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
You conservatives are such god-damned stupid pricks!
Meh.
Just the truth. Read. Learn. Evolve.
Meh.
Bush opposes the Kyoto protocol because it'll "cost jobs."
Yet, Bush doesn't even notice the job losses due to outsourcing.
Let's think about this a bit - does Bush really care about jobs?
No - he just doesn't want his big business friends to pay for decent pollution prevention standards.
*This* is why I'm trying to move to Canada.
Thanks for your misinformational post. Read. Learn. Evolve. Then post.
Meh.
I admit to being quite a high mileage motorist (for a Brit). About 22,000 mles a year. But I use a very small car which gets around 45 miles per UK gallon or motorbike, around 57 mpg. Regretably even in England there is a trend to ever bigger gas guzzlers often only used for shopping and clogging up the rush hour traffic doing the couple of mile school run in a huge 4x4 or MPV ( commonly refered to as a Chelsea Taxi). When you consider the impact of moving 2 to 3 tons around with a barely warm engine doing about 10 mpg under those conditions then you know it can't go on like this much longer. What are legs for? Or can they barely support the increasingly clinically obese lumps of lard atop them. To quote the infamous UK politician, Norman Tebbit ":On yer bike!"
Tone
what we need is not more jobs, what we need is a society that regulates it's birth rate. With less than 5% of our populace engaged in critical stuff (food, shelter, maintence for the latter), we're still all struggling to get by. And why? Because those 'rich fucks' are busy making sure we fight and struggle amonst ourselves for their benefit. Here's a fun statistic (I'm too lazy to look through rotten.com's archives to look it up): out of 18 Billion in money earmarked to rebuild Iraq, 29 million has actually made it into the hands to Iraqis. Better question: Why the hell are we importing foreign labor into a country we're trying to rebuild? This is just an example of larger problems/issues.
Oh, and you fail consider why those goods and services are so much cheaper. Again, a question: How the fuck can steel shipped from South Korea be cheaper than steel made in the USA? Are the South Koreans that much better at making Steel? Or could it be the low pay, complete lack of safty, ignoring environmental concerns, no health benefits... Heck no, it's all that thar competition making their steel so cheap!
Finnally, outsourcing Dooms labor unions. You'll notice there are no big strikes to speak of in developing countires. All it takes is a simple threat to move the plant (which can easily be backed up) to get your workers back in line. No Strikes, no protests, no corrupt gov'ts getting international attention. Just a lot of poor, starving people.
If you outlaw or at least curtail outsorcing to poor, abusive countries, those countries can be force to improve their lot. Things are never going to get better in Mexico so long as the people can come here and get by on what they earn. Before people will act, the shit has to really hit the fan. But the way things are going, our planet is headding for some sort of perverted equilibrium with just enough people struggling to stay/become middle class that there'll never be a real impetus for positive change.
There is no defense for the world's current system and state. I'm sick of hearing people say it'll get better. It's not folks, it's getting worse.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
earn to live with behaviour among consenting adults that some people consider immoral
The only reason why prositution is illegal (at least in this country) is because the Federal Government can't make any money off of it. Look at Nevada, prostitution is legal (if you have a licence) because the state has things set up so that they can tax prostitution.
Red Bull gave me wings and I flew into the ceiling fan.
I forgot, global warming will only flood the coastal cities because of the above-land ice that melts and also cause massive weather disruptions around the world. No biggie. Oh, and don't forget about the slew of new diseases and plagues because of higher temps.. and desertification... and, well, still no biggie. We'll just all move to greenland!
Meh.
Factoids:
Not a single senator 99-0 signed up for Kyoto as it stands. Bush and Kerry both have said they would not sign it as it stood, both said they would sign it if changes were made.
The US is decreasing it's per-capita emissions at a faster rate than Canada has since signing the treaty.
So if the entire government refused to move forward with it and the US is reducing it faster than nations who signed up for it... what good would it be?
So president Bush prefers to fight a war against terrorism to the war against global warming. The former has cost 'only' a few thousand lives, the latter endangers millions of people. But maybe it is just more convenient to manipulate citizens with fear of terrorism than to save a few drops of oil.
Imangine an underground world where all houses and roads are underground. Imangine a world where one does not need to worry about the weather. Imangine a world where no one can go to anyone house unless they are invited first. We could build that world and drasticly reduce our energy requirements and thus reduce our polution. We could have automaticly driven electrical vehicles with no deaths or injuries. We could order all our goods and have them delivered to our homes. We could even do alot of our work at home and drasticly reduce our need for transportation. Once we build this world all future generations will look back at that time as the beginning of a new era.
problem here is that he, nor any us company can make any money....
I wonder, if God created the world, like Bush thinks, then isn't destroying the world, essentially destroying Gods work? Isn't that sending a message to God that he does not value his creation?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/277.html
6
One of the sticking points in the negotiations at the Kyoto meetings was whether developing nations would be brought under the emissions limits imposed upon the richer nations. China, the most populous country in the world, was officially treated as a developing nation and was not brought under the Kyoto limits.
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=56
Developing countries have been eager to see the Kyoto Protocol put into effect, especially since all of the required emission reductions would occur in the developed countries.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v7/v7n44edit.htm
"I now inform you that you are too far from reality."
But at least we'll have jobs until we fall down choking from fumes and heat.
Part of the problem with the treaty (at least as it was originally suggested, I am unsure about now) was that it was not a balanced regulation across the board, instead giving certain countries more leeway under the treaty than others. To a degree I can understand this as more technologically savvy nations can focus more on cleaner emisions than third world nations, but a certain measure of fairness to all must be achieved before I would support it.
Anyone care to add?
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
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.
Everybody is looking at this the wrong way, it's not the jobs that would be lost, but where the jobs will be lost. Right where the Bush family has most of their money invested and where President Bush get his campaign money - oil.
Hah. Every damned country on earth (except perhaps sweden?) has missiles.
It'd have been nice that Bush had invaded Iraq to get Sadam. But he did because of some weird weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist and because of relations with Alqaeda, which didn't exit. Is not that I'm for Sadam, I'm against which was started too quick and ignoring the rest of the world. Oh, and if I were american I'd be against making a war against a powerless dictator instead of trying to catch Osama. Thanks to the distraction cause by the Iraq war Osama has probably run away to a safe place - making the world and particularly america a less safe place. Kerry is an asshole, and it'd had been nice if Bush were better, but he isn't.
Now the same man who didn't know to prevent the 11S murdering and didn't know how to catch Bin Laden because he was fighting a war which he didn't know how to fight has been reelected. He probably won't be able to know how to stop more terrorist attacks and fight more wars. Enjoy your 4-years government, call me when a terrorist asshole puts the bombs in your ass...
If greenhouse gas emissions are really causing global warming, the obvious solution is nuclear power. It has other massive environmental and health benefits to boot. Read why Ignorance About Nuclear Power is Killing Us (literally).
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Are you saying that even if the US does not sign it everyone benefits at America's expense?
No, as a non-signatory how would the treaty apply to the US? It's usually a given that nations which do not sign treaties are not bound by them.
If not, who benefits and who loses in its current state?
As far as the US Senate is concerned, the fuck cares? I'm explaining the reason why the US Senate voted 95-0 to reject Kyoto. They don't give a rat's ass about how Nigeria might benefit from selling emissions credits to India. They clearly thought the deal stank and tossed it entirely.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The earth is plentiful - there is enough to go around. All of us could have every need fulfilled. There is no need to tread on others to get what you or your family needs. Only out of greed would you fight your fellows for more.
Your lack of empathy both saddens and frightens me.
Jag pratar lite svenska.
Me and my wife are both university graduates. I work as a programmer (although currently self-employed) and my wife is a highschool teacher. We are in our thirties. We have a family. We should be really well off... but we are not. We are examples of the gradual elimination of the middle-class.
Meh.
It hasn't screwed the UK over, I am not sure it will cost 5 million US jobs at all.
And it would definitely help long-term with the environment regardless of what China did.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, if a developing nation can manage to keep its emissions under their limit, they can "sell" the extra amounts on the global market to nations that are having trouble meeting their limit. The Kyoto Protocol creates a capitalistic incentive for the reduction of pollution where there were none. With this capitalistic incentive, developing nations will be as encouraged as first world nations to force pollution restrictions on factories, even those owned by global companies.
He wants to have a monopoly on losing American jobs.
You are presupposing that these increases in efficiency are possible and that they will be cheaper than waste energy. I'm not going to say they aren't, it just seems dangerous to assume that they will be.
Another consideration is the cost of raw materials. The major portion of the cost for most raw materials is energy. Under a treaty like Kyoto, the cost of energy is going to go up. This will increase the cost of pretty much everything. Of course that's the idea, but there isn't really any reason for the U.S. to ratify a treaty that will gut our economy. I guess that means we should probably start changing our economy in a more sustainable direction, but good luck getting people to think past tomorrow.
All that aside, I am in favor of taking steps to tie the cost of energy to the externalities that are involved; I'm just not sure Kyoto is going to do it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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!
From the protocol
Article 3 Paragraph 2
2. Each Party included in Annex I shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol.
> Bush makes "moral stands"
Anyone who believes that (and I know you aren't one of them from the contents of your post) should read Peter Singer's recent book "The President of Good and Evil" - I'm just reading it for the secod time. Singer's basic theme is, if I understand him correctly, that Bush is morally bankrupt, as his moral statements have no internal consistency or external justification.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
I didn't say it was though. It is, as I said in North America.
It's amazing how many people correct me saying it isn't though (which I find very weird).
I've met few on either side of the fence who have a rigorous understanding of economics, but I think you'll find many advocates of Kyoto simply value the environment above the economy. Plus, the thread grandparent made his case poorly if at all.
More portentiously, many here WANT us to go to hell by having to pay Russia and various Third World countries 'national welfare' for the 'privelege' of having a functioning economy.
I'm not entirely happy about that part of the treaty -- show me a treaty (or law for that matter) that doesn't have some measure of suck -- but you are aware, I assume, that if they sell enough credits to us, they will be subject to the same level of limitations we are? Some argue that we have a moral obligation to help out developing countries (mind you I don't think the Kyoto treaty is the proper venue, but why should international treaties be any less susceptible to pork than US laws? Not to mention debt relief never goes anywhere either). If I recall, though, Brazil and some other developing countries have lowered, not raised, CO2 emissions under Kyoto.
If they consider the US an unfortunate partner, let it be known that many of us will shed no tears if they abandon any pretense of alliance with the US.
I think the feeling is largely mutual. I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if we cut back on the number of military bases scattered around the globe.
I do blame people in the US for being unpatriotic for supporting the undermining of their own nation.
Without knowing to what and whom, exactly, you are referring, I can only speculate. But I'd be awfully hesitant about making this claim; it's inflammatory and largely arbitrary (just use your own definition of patriotism). Most people I know on the left who are critical of this country and its policies (including environmental policies) seem to fall into three camps.
The first place the US -- its principles, economy, security, etc. -- first, but think that our actions are, at best, penny-wise and pound foolish, and at worst, damaging in both short- and long-term. If we continue to keep up CO2 emissions, for example, we will certainly pay for it in the long run, and it's arguable that we're paying for it now by artificially sustaining inefficient industries and sending oodles of money to unstable countries (and yes, I am in favor of nuke plants, so I think there's a better alternative).
The second place the principles of this country (as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) ahead of its military dominance (and in particular reject the belief that being the dominant world power is necessary to our security). While I'm not going to argue that the US is currently in the hands of an evil administration hell-bent on world domination (use your favorite Godwinian analogy here), I do think many of the supposedly unpatriotic gadflies are the ones who keep us from going in that direction.
The third group truly places the interests of humanity as a whole above the interest of any state. The best among them are fully aware of the disparity in living conditions between countries and are prepared to accept a lower standard of living in pursuit of their principles. Many think the US as a whole is aggressive and immature, and think both we and the world as a whole would benefit were we knocked down a notch or two. I think some, although by no means all, of this group are naive at best, but that's a criticism I also have for the neocons in their faith of imposed democracy.
Going back to Kyoto, I agree that our economy could suffer in the short term as a result of adoption. I have the same criticism of our current globalization strategy, incidental
>It might be bad business for America, but every year,
>every GOD DAMNED YEAR, a new member of my family is
>stricken with cancer because of American pollution that
>wanders north.
>Heavy metals are found everywhere in Greenland now,
>and there's no way of avoiding ingestion of it.
Canadian, are you? Rest assured you are getting your revenge from the Cominco smelter in Trail, BC that has been dumping lead waste into the Columbia River 5 miles north of the border, and has by now laid down a layer of said toxic sludge all the way down to Grand Coulee Dam.
And if you check the wind patterns, you will see much of that Greenland metal dust comes from Sudbury, Ontario.
You talk a good line, but Canada has no "holier than thou" buttons to push.
Okay, that does it! Now, listen! Why is it that everything today has involved things either going in or coming out of my ass?!
-Eric Cartman, South Park, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Bush seems to think that a) there are no global-scale problems, b) even if there were, they should not be solved through collective action and c) the U.S. has a divine right to screw the rest of the world, take their resources, install oppressive regimes, etc etc.
The rest of the world doesn't like getting screwed. And half of the U.S. voters are smart enough and civilised enough to realize that sometimes co-operation is the better way. But it doesn't matter - the world isn't a democracy, and as we know, a few idiots in the "heartland" have taken all the world along for a demonstration of what happens when you let Enron-style capitalism and religious fundamentalism run things.
The good news is that now we'll all find out who is right. Are those who warn of the dire consequences of unilateralism, pre-emptive war, environmental destruction etc etc. just being whiny, or not? Maybe global warming really is just a conspiracy among scientists who want attention and funding. Maybe freedom and U.S.-style free markets will bloom in Iraq, and be so wonderful that the Palestinians will realize that they should strop trying to get back their land and go get a job for McDonalds. Maybe the "expert" opinions of the NAS, or the U.N., or our oldest allies, are just plain wrong, and reality will yield to faith.
I'm rather curious, actually. It's not every day that you get a chance to see your beliefs put to the test. Besides, it'll be fun - kinda like watching NASCAR; it's more fun when you think there will be a wreck.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Hiring in October at a seven-month peak
;-)
Good news: 337,000 new jobs, and numbers from past months adjusted up.
But: Some of it is from post-hurricane reconstruction.
(So if you believe that the man-made component of global warming is significant, you could say that polluting more creates more jobs. Ha!
Bad news: Unemployment rates went up.
But: That was because people who had not been registered as unemployed heard about more jobs being available, and started actively looking for one.
Worrying to me: Loss in manufacturing. The industrialized countries are losing manufacturing jobs to low-cost countries. In my country this is because we have ridiculously high wages and prices. You can't survive on just cutting each other's hair, you know.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Fair enough. And while retaining American jobs at the expense of global climate change is certainly in our short term interests, a good case could be made that averting global climate change is in our overall best interests (as in, for instance, not losing California to the Atlantic Ocean.
/.). Although outsourcing American jobs is certainly not within our short term interests, the consensus among economists is that it is within the medium/long-term interests of both America and its trading partners.
/. and that it's entirely correct. If America tried to fight outsourcing with protectionist laws, domestic companies would eventually find themselves unable to compete with foreign firms operating without such restrictions. Those companies would fail, workers would be laid off, and our economy would suffer for it. Although some are being laid off now and some are suffering, overall the impact is negligible. During the Clinton years, an unemployment rate of 5% was considered stellar. We're at that now. The only reason people aren't rejoicing is because we got spoiled by the sub-2% unemployment of the 1999-2001 technology boom.
And if there were convincing, unequivocal, non-debatable, overwhelming evidence supporting the idea that climate change is being done by humans, I'd be more than happy to use my Power of the Polls to put a politician in office that put strict measures in place. Thus far, no such evidence has come to light. There are as many studies for "climate change" as there are against it. And while there are a few obvious partisans in both camps (the anti-capitalists generally push their agenda's through environmental legislation, the corporate types fund their own studies saying it's all hogwash), there are several non-partisan, respected, credentialed scientists on both sides of this fence that no one can say climate change is our fault or not. In absence of definitive evidence, taking measures that are clearly punitive are uncalled for, which I why I do not support the Kyoto protocols.
There's a direct analogy to be made with outsourcing (although it may not make me any friends on
I agree entirely, both that it won't win you any friends on
We can argue 'til the cows come home about whether we should prioritize short or long term interests. The consensus view among environmental scientists is similarly that emissions can bring about global climate change, and global climate change can bring about some very, very bad things.
Undoubtedly. However, these bad things may come to pass with or without human interference if we assume the global warming is a natural trend. Personally, I do believe it, because solar output is trending higher. A warmer Sun gives a warmer Earth, no? Is such a warming unprecedented? Well, that depends on who you ask. We know very, very little about our Sun and the Earth's climate in general, so little that we can't even predict the weather accurately for more than a few days. To say that we can accurately predict what the weather will be like in 50 years is, in my mind, ludicrous given the paucity of data currently on hand.
The primary accomplishment of globalization has been the expansion of US commercial power around the globe. That's not something non-US nationals came up with. Incidentally, I think that expansion of US commercial power is primarily a good thing, even if it does cause widespread short-term problems.
Forgive me, I was arguing "globalization" from the perspective of politics, not economics. Clearly the rest of the world would benefit from an economically-weaked U.S. in the sense that the playing field would be "more level." I, as an American, do not want to see that happen. Call me selfish, call me arrogant, call me whatever you want, but I'm an American first and everything else second. If push comes to shove, I want American ideals and American principles at the top, not muddled down somewhere between Syria and Belgium. The re
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
If industries are already moving towards more efficient processing technology, and people are already moving towards more efficient cars, why even sign the treaty? It should be obvious that the free market is already taking care of the problem.
The thing is that as power becomes more expensive, not only does industry move to more energy efficient technology, but renewable energy sources become more cost effective. Consumers do their part by selecting the lower cost, less energy intensive products made from plastics or fibers over more energy intensive products made form glass and metal.
Everyone needs to look at this with Republican rose colored glassed and view this as an investment opportunity. Start buying up costal real estate in Alaska, Northern Canada and Siberia.
Lex Luthor, is that you? Quick, somebody trace his IP and wire it to Superman!
Hm. A shrewd businessman should know that you shouldn't hype the things that you are looking to buy yourself.
Ah, I've got it now: It's just Darl McBride trying to liquidate those assets that he put into empty oilfields in Siberia and Canada, so he can pay for whatever he's smoking.
natural cycle
Yes, the planet goes through natural temperature cycles. It's still a debate about how much of it is actually man made. But I recommend cation in favour of the theory until we know more.
species
Not only do new species get discovered by humans all the time, but evolution/God/Great maker makes us new forms of life too.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Are you suggesting that "Super-size me!" has created a new fast food sport? Quick! Register a domain and make a site about it. Design and sell elastic T-shirts and apparrel for it.
My comment that you can't survive cutting each other's hair, goes for serving each other burgers too.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
...twice...and still didn't see the part where they showed "a direct link" between the warming and greenhouse gasses. Yeah, I saw the same old "we think man's activities might...blahblah" and some more of the usueal "scientists believe there is a link....blahblah" but not once did have I EVER heard or read that the link had been proven. Also, the author mentions land in the arctic. Uh, thats news to me.
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
Not if "something" hurts our economy
On the face of it, worshipping the economy is not entirely stupid... money drives everything... and that good old invisible hand will just make everything turn out dandy.
But you must look at the reality of it. Corporations are more powerful than governments; corruption is rife; the environment get screwed along with everything else that has an orifice that's not surgically closed.
But the "right-wing" feels that the invisible hand meant to take care of the environment as well. It doesn't, and they are fooling themselves. In the effort to make more money for shareholders, who bare no responsiblity, corporations cut costs by pushing them onto what are euphemistically called "externalities". They are real world costs that never hit the books, usually for the simple reason that people don't measure them.
There is a good reason why people in high places don't want damage to the environment measured in $$$ terms... it cut's into their millions... despite the fact that they already control an enormous amount of wealth.
For example, take fishing in the North Atlantic. Marine biologists were warning about fishing trawlers since the 70s, but the "damage to economy" argument stopped any regulation of the trawlers until the 90s. The reality was that only a few people made a lot of money (the fishermen made the same as always). The amount of waste was amazing, the warning and studies were always there, and people ignored the scientists (and still do) as they scream devastation. Finally, when one of the most abundant species on Earth was near extinction, a moratorium was put on fishing. Now people still fish, and the North Atlantic Cod isn't making any miraculous rebound, and in some places are still depleting further.
The damage to the economy was severe and chronic. Millions of livelihoods were affected by the moratorium. The investors from the 70s walked away with their millions, and left the rest in poverty. That is an externality. That is what worship of the economy leads to.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Well, other countries joined the treaty even though they might not benefit from it in short term. The fact is that it is a political hot potato, everyone in Senate is scared to death of being branded as an ultra liberal who sides with Europe agains the interest of the US.
More than anything else it tells you something about politics atmosphere in the Senate.
Isn't that the setting of Logan's Run?
"If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
There's nothing like a Slashdot story on climate change to produce hot air.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/
I love the logic of these guys. You're all going to lose your jobs because the world is going down the pan. However, I'm not going to risk a single job in order to stop you all losing your jobs.
I realise the second sentence (you can count, right?) is an exageration but it doesn't change my point.
The alternative explanation is: 'I don't believe in climate change, la la la' *buries head in nearest sand dune*
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
So, for instance, when Senator Martinez comes up for re-election, his opposition to Kyoto can be made into a campaign issue.
Turn that around and you can also say "Senator Martinez's support for American interests and jobs can be made into a campaign issue."
You really haven't examined this from more than one angle, have you? I'm going to vote for the candidate who best supports American interests, not Russian interests, not Chinese interests, not Indian interests, or any other national interest. And, as an American senator, that's what I'd expect any American governing official to do. This globalization stuff is something non-U.S. nationals have come up with as an excuse to damage the U.S. economically and politically because they can't do so militarily.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
What do you propose we do with the nuclear waste left behind?
Bury it?
Fire it off into the sun?
Keep it in barrels around the facility to be later transported by train? And do you want those trains driving through your town?
I agree to an extent that we should be using more nuclear power instead of coal/oil/gas, but I feel this should be a short-run solution. Focus should be put onto solar, wind, and hydro while funding fusion research.
I also dislike your lack of addressing the problem of nuclear waste.
IT could also be good for Africa too. A few million years ago, before the last ice age, Africa was a much lusher place than it is today, as was parts of the USA. If we free up all that water in the ice caps, it's going to rain more often, and suddenly deserts in the western USA and Africa might be more hospitable places.
This is my sig.
The blue states rest within drowning distance of oceans and great lakes.
Coincidence?
READ THE BOOK!
Just have less children.
you're preaching to the choir man
It's been about 25 years since I looked at it, but at the time the mechanism for global warming went something like this:
:)
Sunlight comes through the atmosphere as visible radiation which is transparent to the CO2 molecule. It strikes the earth and is re-radiated as infared radiation. This is opaque to CO2 and as a result, CO2 absorbs this radiation and holds onto it -- the Green House Effect. So, how do we control the Green House Effect? There are two, separate distinct ways:
a) Control the amount of Greenhouse gas emissions - the Kyoto protocol (boring)
or
b) Control the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere, striking the earth and re-radiating as infared radiation (interesting possibilities)
I personally like b) because we can shift the blame for global warming:
1) We can blame the environmentalists for Global Warming. Those pesky clean air laws eventually allowed more sunlight to strike the earth. Allowing factories to continue billowing thick clouds of black soot would OBVIOUSLY lead to a reduction in the amount of sunlight striking the earth's surface - PROBLEM SOLVED.
2) We can blame the anti-nuke crowd for Global Warming. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty essentially outlawed atmospheric, underwater, and outer space testing of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons, among their many other wonderful attributes, kick up large amount of dust and debris into the atmosphere which PREVENTS sunlight from reaching the earth's surface. Remember Carl Sagan and his "Nuclear Winter" scenario? Regular distribution of nuclear explosions and carefully placed nuclear charges down volcanoes would keep Global Warming in check - PROBLEM SOLVED
Another avenue to solve Global Warming is to change the albedo or reflectance of earth's surface. The more sunlight is reflected harmlessly back into space rather than absorbed by the earth and re-radiated as infared radiation, the better control we will have over Global Warming. Two Words: Large mirrors. Remember the Bond flicks, "Diamonds are Forever", "The Man With The Golden Gun", and "Die Another Day"? Those films made use of the ol concentrated-sunlight-leads-to-world-domination ploy. Same idea here but in reverse.
Feel free to add any suggestions
It always amazes me to see people jump on the Kyoto bandwagon.
The US SHOULD NOT sign the Kyoto protocol. Not only does it not hold most of the worst pollution producing countries in the world to ANY standard what-so-ever, but it also puts the US at a significant disadvantage compared to not only China but the EU.
To top it off, the Kyoto protocol is estimated to have negligable impact on global warming, even with Perfect compliance by all nations ratifying it.
solar power isn't profitable for anybody... it has a high initial cost, low power output, and low reliability.
Why the flame? The GP was not arguing one way or the other (although their inclination is probably clear), but rather was answering the question "why sign a treaty if it isn't going to be ratified?" Answer: one reason might be to turn the heat up on senators who oppose the treaty. Whether or not you oppose the treaty, it's still a perfectly valid answer to the question being asked.
Oh, and you need to retake your civics class: senators are not "governing official[s]", they're legislators. Btw, I hope that one day, your senators will take a broader view of the national interest than you do. Global warming does not respect national borders.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Yeah, well, impenetrable tax laws also create jobs for those who write software to do taxes and who provide tax services, but you'd be a fool to argue that the existence of those jobs is itself a good thing economically.
The additional labor expended to meet stricter emission controls is an economic inefficiency, no two ways about it. Whether it's a necessary one is an entirely different question, and whether or not the emission controls themselves represent a net economic benefit is again a different question (offsetting the increase in labor required to meet the emission requirements are a reduction in health care costs and a general increase in well-being, both of which are economic wins).
Please, people, don't just equate the creation of jobs with economic benefit. The overall picture is quite a lot more complex than that.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
(rather than, eg those most aligned with their religion)
i don't see why this is so bad. for example, Christianity in part advocates being a good steward of your resources. there's also something about helping the poor, loving your neighbor, and other such things. all of these are characteristics i'd like to see in a presidential candidate, supposing their decisions were made accordingly.
Since volcanos emit massive quantities of greenhouse gases, shouldn't we make the volcanos sign the kyoto treaty too? All of the supposed benefits of the kyoto treaty could be wiped out in a single volcanic eruption.
It seems a bit arrogant to think that we can understand all of the variables involved in "global warming". So Florida had some hurricanes.. they had bad years in the 19th century too.
The Earth is a constantly changing system and trying to control it is an exercise in futility... or worse. If you want climate control, adjust your air conditioner thermostat or build space habitats and remove Earth from the equation.
"God Bless America, and America only!"
There is a similar quote in Head of State where the person running against Chris Rock for president used to say: "God bless America. And no place else"
No sig
Thankyou America for digging our graves once again.
By the way, don't tell me it's Bush deciding this, it's America, America chose Bush to represent them. That's how it it.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Volcanos have always been around. The earth is a self-contain system and when we mess up that system, bad things happen.
synaptic, you have been dumbed down by conservative-think
Meh.
HA HA HA
The following is a bit from a real scientist:
Richard Alley discovered something 10 years ago that made him worry the Earth's climate could suddenly shift, and it changed his life. It was a two-mile long ice core, pulled up from the center of Greenland. It contained bubbles of air that reveal what the Earth's atmosphere was like over a period of 100,000 years. The ice core showed that at one point, in as little as 10 years, the global climate had drastically changed. Soon after that discovery, climate change became a personal crusade for Alley.
-Richard Alley, Penn State University Glaciologist
(teehee, i forgot you don't believe in real science)
Meh.
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.
"we're already doing what we can within our country's own TER system to combat pollution"
umm...while the US is doing a lot within a few spheres (aforementioned TERs), aren't "out of the box" ideas (at least w.r.t. the US) worth thinking over? Public transportation in many places isn't good enough to justify not using a car.
When I went to school in Pittsburgh, the transit was in perrenial danger of folding up because of funding constraints. In fact, they just introduced a proposal reducing services, and increasing fares.
After starting work in New Jersey, I was forced to buy a car though I did not want one, simply because of lack of public transportation in my area.
Mass transit has been consistently shown to provide more efficiency in fuel usage per person (and in reducing pollution, of course). Creating economic disincentives for car users (like $8 tolls at the entrances to NYC) work wonders.
Also, the US consistently refuses to pass gas-guzzler laws to make gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks less attractive to users.
I'd say the US can do more. The government doesn't seem to be trying hard enough to break the resistance of the few parties who have the most to lose from this (the power co.s , the detroit lobby, and the oil lobby).
do a google search on it. no one in the senate wanted this. it isnt just bush.
always mosh clockwise
Why the flame?
No flame intended, it was an honest question. What a liberal sees as a possible weakness is almost certainly what a conservative would see as a strength. A simple acknowledgement that there are two sides to every issue is all I was getting at.
Oh, and you need to retake your civics class: senators are not "governing official[s]", they're legislators.
Picky, picky, picky...yes, technically they are legislators, but in the heat of the moment the best descriptor I could come up with was "governing official." I'm well aware of what a legislator is, it's just my skull-bound dictionary couldn't find it at that particular second.
Btw, I hope that one day, your senators will take a broader view of the national interest than you do. Global warming does not respect national borders.
What, pray tell, is "the national interest"? Interpreted literally, I see that as "whatever is in the best interests of the nation in question," which seems to be at odds with your follow-up "Global warming does not respect national borders." What I think you're trying to say here is that you hope a future U.S. legislator takes other nations into account for future policy. Sorry, I don't see it that way. Briton's want the U.K. to be on top. The French want France on top. The Russians want Russia on top. Ditto Chinese. Ditto ditto Japanese. It goes on and on. Wherever I'm at, that's who I want to be on top. It's human nature, and I'm not afraid or ashamed to admit it. It does not discount altruism on my part, but it by no mean obligates me to it.
If you had a solid foundation backing up the current global warming claims, I'd agree with you. No such foundation exists because the scientific community is fractured on this subject. As I stated in several earlier and related posts, for every unbiased, non-partisan expert study found backing global warming (or "climate change" as it's become trendily named), there is a corresponding counter-study with opposite results. Discounting the bitter partisans on both extreme sides (the ultra-environmentalists, which are really closet anti-capitalists, and the ultra-capitalists which are for total environmental exploitation at any cost), there are a lot of credible, informed, educated, non-biased people in the scientific community that simply cannot agree as to why the Earth is getting warmer. To take steps, any steps, to combat something you don't even understand, especially when said steps carry significant economic penalties, is unwarranted and uncalled for. What is called for is more studies, more data, and more time. The Earth won't burn to a fiery cinder if we wait five or ten years to figure out what's really going on, and we might just save everyone a lot of hardship if we do so. To claim otherwise is not only silly, it's unscientific.
Look, don't paint this as some sort of attack on the environment. Anyone with half a brain knows that if we manage to wreck this planet it could potentially destroy humanity. However, you wouldn't submit to chemotherapy unless (a) you were sure you had cancer and (b) you were sure the cancer was a type that would respond to chemotherapy. To do otherwise would (a) make you spend money on treatments that had no effect, potentially preventing you from spending money on more effective medicine, (b) make you very ill, which would negatively affect your lifestyle and perhaps even your lifespan, and (c) potentially deprive someone else in real need of chemotherapy from obtaining treatment due to finite availability of resources. All analogies are imperfect, but the arguments and their subsequent points outlined above should be obvious.
For something this big, we need more than a simple "second opinion" from the doctor, we need overwhelming evidence. A stab in the dark, hoping we're fixing the right variable, can do a lot more harm than good.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Sorry, this is just a disguised version of the broken window falacy. People who get jobs making polution controls are being diverted from the ultimate goal of all employment, making consumer goods.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The treaty only addresses CO2 output not the Earth's ability to absorb CO2. It punishes countries like the US for producing CO2 but does not give the US credits for her forests and plains that absorb CO2. The US tried to get the treaty to cover those countries that are deforesting and give credits for countries with large forest. But the tree huggers put their anticapitalism in front of their environmentalism and refused to amend the treaty and so it was never ratified under Clinton or Bush.
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.
- Sell credits that their people need, for the benefit of the elite (think Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il).
- Fail to account for emissions, selling something they don't have anymore (and who's to know?).
Graft and corruption are the poisons of the third world, and you want to make MORE opportunities for them? You're either hopelessly naive, insane or part of the corrupt class yourself.Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
It's quite okay for the US to continue to flout the Kyoto treaty that most other nations have been supporting. Even better that new technology development happens more and more outside the USA (alternative energy research in China, etc.). And once all of this begins to spawn new industries, at least those companies won't have to adhere to the now ridiculous financial reporting required in the USA, and progress can happen a lot more quickly. Now if we could only solve the problem of Americans abroad having to pretend to be Canadians out of sheer embarrassment...
sorry but there is no sustainable plan. There is no majick pill. all the windmills and tidal generators you can build will barely account for current demand. But the fact is that modern countries counsume some 10-15Kw per household. That's allot of power! And much of it is taken up by silly things, like running the water heater all day (.8kw), ovens running an average of 4hrs per day (1.5kw for a small toaster oven), Airconditioning, and cloths dryers. All these have at least partial solutions that could cut their anual consumption in half, but cloths lines just aren't trendy.
The problem, in the present, is the rate of consumsumption. And while drasticaly increaseing power costs may have the effect of lowering them, it also has the tendency to slam the brakes on the economy. Serious education has to be put into changeing public attitudes, it can be done look too the "crying indian" (now that was an offensive ad, but it did work)
Eventually though, no amount of renewables will account for total demand. Nuclear, fission or fusion, may be our only hope. Both are fairly clean, and hopefully safe. And are ultimately not dependent on 'solar' input into the system.
The US is not the #1 poluter. It's not just consumption, it's a ratio of productive output. Given our ratio of waste to GNP, the US stands as one of the most efficient nations on earth. China stacking much lower, as does the former soviet union (gotta find out there 'new' name already), and yes Europe
In fact there are only two countries on earth that have ended the 20th century with more forest than when they started the century. That's the USA and Israel (Israel also stands as the only country reversing desertification and gaining in productive land ratio)
The US shouldn't sign a treaty that lays unnecesary burden and blame at her feet.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Umm texas can grow trees too. I'm not sure what your getting to with the growing trees remark. Anyways the western section of texes is basical a desert but it was that way before we got here.
You do realize that the Protocol currently excludes China and India from committments. which are the biggest destinations for commercial and job emmigration. It would put the US on uneven ground with both countries. Without those countries being included it is a big deal to the US economy to ratify.
The relevance of this treaty to the USA is defined by the relationship of the US to China and India within the context of the treaty.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
I think most people on the planet would agree with your sentiments on kidporn. However the problem is that for a law you need some cut-off point (eg:age) that everyone will accept. Thankfully most places recognise that pre-teen porn is not acceptable (just as adult animals rarely mate with immature anaimals). Prostitution has a simple cut-off (sex for profit) but my bet is half the males reading this have purshased sex. Drugs are a difficult one because there are so many, coffee was banned in England at one stage but PCB clearly has an unacceptable social effect. The "wars" against behaviour will always fail if a large group of people are participating and there is profit to be made. If a rich yuppie in LA wants to snort some coke who is he hurting except himself. When a thief breaks into his house to steal some of his money to buy coke that's because coke is EXPENSIVE. What saddens me about the US is that they encourage governments to buy US arms to destroy the meager livelyhoods of peasants. This leads to unstable countries that in turn lead to "terror" (BTW: how can you have a war against an emotion?) and anarchy. Coke is cheap and easy to produce but because it's illeagal is is very profitable. Those profits are partly used by the drug cartels to buy arms to defend the peasant crops against the govt. that bought the US arms. Quite often (eg Burma) the US will supply aid with a string that requires a significant portion of the aid is to be used to buy US arms. So the yuppie ends up paying for both sides. Now by Bush's standard, we are unable to change any of the "wars" since that would mean quite a few job losses amoungst those who build and sell arms (at the very least). OTOH: The US could declare a war against polution (not it's own of course). If the US got serious about such a war and used a few neutron bombs it could be over by Friday. Having wiped out 90% of the worlds population in the process the polution problem would abate and the US could get back to "bussiness as usual".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If you break it down by counties, you can see blue enclaves along rivers and lakes too, not just the coast.
Umm i don't think bush even commented on a kiddie porn ban. Yuo are taking apples and oranges trying to make a point that doesn't follow the logic. First, they were talking about american jobs. Kiddie porn is already outlawed in america so there is no job loss. Next, there are different standards of kiddie porn around the world. In some areas the legal age of consent is 15 or 16 were in america it is 18. This would force us to accept naked 16 year olds because it would be legal in other countries. Right now americans aren't allow to have porn with people that young in it. Third, The kiddie porn treaty specifies what penalties we need to enforce with it. some of those penaltue are either less severe or far worse then the penalties we already have.
I have to agree with not sighning that particular trearty. Now word it a little different and maybe.
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
"It sets levels for all countries at the time the treaty was written. The lower-tier countries still have a limit on their production - its just not as tight as the largest producers."
t .html gives different perspectives on the treaty.
Where do you see this in the protocol? I can't find it.
http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL10/Warming/tex
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
Damn, forgot the link. Here it is:
m at eChange.htm
http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/atm5/L17-18-Cli
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I agree with you for the most part, but America has always come out on top when it comes to innovation. I think the key to innovation these days is creating a friendly business environment. The United States and Japan have lead the way in "corporatizing" the business world (and the rest of the world in a sense) and both countries have benefitted from a huge amount of revenue.
It could be argued that any wealth we gain from abstaining from the Kyoto treaty will only cause us to fall behind in the long run (just as Spain did in the 17th century) I would tend to think that any technological advances are short lives in this day and age, something you hinted at. Curious thing is, we are on the forefront of technology right now, and we have some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world, and also some of the best government sanctions for environment friendly research.
Now let me be frank. If you take a good look at the Kyoto protocols and the state our world is in right now, you quickly realize that this is to be taken as seriously as anything else the UN has to offer. The ACTUAL benefit may be negligable, but you will definately feel it in your day to day lives, increased energy costs, retarded technological advancement and a all around more stagnant economy. Giving countries a quota to meet up to will end up daring one country to break the rules. Corruption ensues. The actual environmental benefit is trivial at best, I've read.
The solution? Let each country deal with its own issues. If one is to gain economimcally from stricter environmental regulations, then other countries will follow. The main determinant here will be air quality. I moved out of southern california because of the poor air quality. Some days I would go outside and the "smog alert" was high, and I serioulsy couldn't breath a whole breath of air without my lungs hurting... but people continue to live there. Why? Well they chose material goods or whatever over air quality. If the price of gasoline goes over $2 everyone starts screaming for government intervention, you think they are going to take kindly to $3+ per gallon with the Kyoto treaty?
I, for one, see a technological revolution just over the horizon. Fuel cell technology, solar, wind and earth power, nuclear energy. If people just let nature run its course, we will move through this, it WILL become economically rewarding to pursue so called "green" technologies, and perhaps the government can speed this along with tax breaks and other incentives. With a stagnant economy you can expect those advances to take longer.
ENTITLED TO? By what or whom? For what, failing to develop a civilization? Your concept is floating in the clouds, without basis in reality.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It used to be the case that the air quality on the west coast, the air that comes off the pacific ocean, was clean, fresh air - the standard for clean air. (Heard this on Nova - Earth in the balance, or something like that.) That's no longer the case. We're already receiving polluted air off the pacific from China. Um, that sucks ...
Somehow losing control like this, being susceptible to the pollution of another country, pisses me off. Even if we do clean up our act we'll be starting with dirty air from China.
So is this is what it feels like to be the victim of another country's behavior ...
No actually it is for several reasons. Some reasons are morals but the most is common sence. In a society were we have done everythign possible to take sexual harassment out of the picture, you don't want to instatutionalize it. Thats right, you want to ensure every woman can find a job and make a living without having to be forced into poluting thier own bodies with potential diseases.
Can you imagine a woman being told, i will give you a dollar an hour raise instead of 50 cents if you blow me? It wouldn't be sexual harasment because part of her raise would include added job duties like prostatution to the executive. I mean this is really no different then a sift manager at taco bell making an extra 50 cent an hour for watching the store while the boss is counting the safe or making a deposit. It is extra money for extra duties. Do we really want this in society again?
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
- UNIFORM $X/TON CARBON TAX
Keep saying this until it finally dawns on you that you can create the same economic incentive (even in dictatorships!) without adding incentives for corruption, rent-seeking and other dysfunctional behaviors.What you want to do for the benefit of the world is to drive production to those producers who create the least damage in the process; that's what comparative advantage is all about. International cross-subsidies are irrelevant to this and only add opportunities for fraud and corruption, undermining the legitimacy of the system; they should be avoided like the plague.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
bush isn't blocking it. It is the demand that is. As a matter of fact i remember a plan to place off shore wind generatore some were around massachuses and the kenedies blocked it because it spoiled the view of the bay. This isn't a bush is stoping anyhting. If it was so good then clinton would have instatuted it. Actually i don't think the president could srtart or stop it out providing a couple of grants for research.
About 15 years ago I had a conversation with a Ford engineer who claimed that the cat converters are no longer a significant source of backpressure compared to the muffler. Given that IC engines are more efficient than ever, and 400 HP car engines are readily available for those willing to spend the money, cat converters can no longer be considered a serious degrader of efficiency or power.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Your analogy with WWII is pitifully narrow, and undermines your point in any case. Let me play your game of reductio ad absurdum.
If America had taken the attitude you espouse durning WWII, they would have bombed Japan to hell to retaliate for Pearl Harbour and left Europe to the Russians/Nazis, only to find themselves in a much more uncomfortable world afterwards. Instead they admirably stepped in and sacrificed many of their citizens to defend the values (and at that point in time the word had meaning) they held dear.
Fast-forward to 2004; congratulations on uniting the world against your country. Perhaps that won't seem such a smart move in 10 years. America will be paying for voting Bush for a long time.
Short term self-interest is not an intelligent survival strategy.
Touche. And that means the other countries of the world too, not just the american public. I want to see sanctions against the USA.
The comment by the Canadian is something that we Americans might as well get used to. While Canadians produce about the same amount of carbon dioxide per capita as Americans do, the Canadians weren't stupid enough to strongly identify their country with environmental destruction worldwide.
Thanks to the the Bush administration's self-indulgent high-profile nose-thumbing (and all those chromed up Escalades in the music videos we keep sending out), the United States is now firmly established in everyone else's consciousness as that country where "they just don't give a damn". If global climate change does turn out to have serious consequences in the next couple of decades, who do you think is going to be chosen as the fall guy?
Yep. That's going to be US.
"The women in Nevada's legal brothels who are making $500k per year have all the self-esteem and self respect that anyone else does."
You can not be serious...
"Drugs are lucrative for those who sell them, but they have strong dependencies and ruin lives. They are dangerous for those who take them and for those who live around them."
.... Oil, phones, TV, fast food, perscription drugs, liquor, tobacco products. You name it. The vast majority of things in american culture are bad for you and on some level addictive yet they are not illegal. Mostly because the religious right doesnt have a problem with it/them.
So do many things
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Just as a note, this comment should be +10.
However Jan, not all of us americans are here happily or agree with that fucking cocksucker. Regardless of weather he gets 100 million votes.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
you are worrying too much. All this out sourcing has been going on for as long as i can remeber in one way or another. In the 70's it was with car makers. Then robots became popular in the 80's and every one lost jobs because thier job be came automated. In the 90's the tech fields started over populating and it is only time for this to happen there.
All along with everything else you still had companies moving inside the US because the cost of doing buisiness was cheaper in another county or state. This cycle has always been here as long as i can remeber and will always be here. The main difference i see today is that instead of workers becoming more productive, some are actually becoming less productive. This almost requires companies to look for cheapor labor or taxes and such.
If you keep youself versital and don't lock into one specific field, you will do fine. If you cannot or don't think you can find a job in your area, then move or commute. There are plenty of opertunities availible if you keep that in mind.
No shit. This is slashdot, in order to have gets you must first find a woman willing to have sex. The inflatable doll your geometry club gave you in highschool doesnt count.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Thats right, you want to ensure every woman can find a job and make a living without having to be forced into poluting thier own bodies with potential diseases.
Do you honestly think that those in power care about the sickness of others? They don't even give a fuck about those that die or get sick from tobacco products. Haven't you noticed that tobacco products are still legal? Did you know that most of the medicines used to slow down (like HIV/AIDS)/supress outbreaks (like herpes) of STDs are incredibily expensive? Well they are. My point is, if some politian can make money off of something (via tax dollars) that is making lots of money then no problem. The product/serivce stays legal.
Red Bull gave me wings and I flew into the ceiling fan.
The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you. -Gordon Gekko
What i find more ironic is that if the treaties were so good, then congress would have aproved them over the president. The fact they didn't tells me there are at least 50 other people that don't like the treaties.
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? Would you like it if that other country had laws guarenteeing rights to the citizens that say you are entitles to certain priviledges if you ever are arested or sent to court and america refused to honor them? I'm not stupid, from your other post you would be outraged and calling for the heads of the american leaders. This is what signing the icc treaties would do. You foreigners don't/maynot value you rights the same as americans do. Hell you might not even have as many as we do. No american leader will give up controll to some other government. Acording to the icc rules, it would orver ride our supream court decisions and that would go against the constatution of the united states. (other wise, it cannot happen in america)
The qoute is accurate:
"Republicans are concerned that any global regulatory program to verify and enforce carbon sinks and sources will require the U.S. to lose sovereignty over its domestic economy to a United Nations tribunal." taken from this article linked in the GP post.
The commentary is somewhat flamebaitish, but certainly on-topic. Personally I find the trustworthyness of the article has dropped to about 0% after reading that quote.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
Actually it would be more likely become a required feature in all SUVs.
Move Sig. For great justice.
If you're doing polychlorinated biphenyls for fun, you've got some serious problems.
If you meant to say PCP (phenylcyclohexylpiperidine), well, that's different. There's a lot of myths about PCP, actually. It's largely indistinguishable from other arylcyclohexylamines and other dissociatives which don't have the negative rap. The biggest problems seem to be impurities (one of the more common synthetic routes involves a cyanide if I recall correctly), self injury, and triggering of latent mental illness.
However, the idea of PCP-crazed criminals immune to bullets is just a myth. People with violent impulses are more likely to act on those impulses on PCP, but people without violent impulses (and without serious mental illness) typically react the same way they react to ketamine: they lie on the couch and don't move a lot. Methamphetamine is much more likely to lead to violent behaviour; alcohol may even be more strongly associated with violence than PCP is.
Keep in mind though that I'm not advocating that you can go down to the corner gas station and pick up an eight-ball and a few grams of phencyclidine. I'm advocating treating drug abuse as a medical problem, and providing safe environments for recreational users of more powerful drugs.
I completely agree with you - currently fission power is the way to go, along with funding of fusion research.
But this has nothing to do with the US negligence towards current environment protocols - having a bunch of tree hugging hippies oppose nuclear power is *not* an excuse for ignoring the Kyoto protocol.
I think, because most prostitutes start doing it either because they're in dire financial need, or because they were abused as children and therefore think that it's natural for them to carry on being abused.
The law is there to try to discourage women from harming themselves for the wrong reasons (prostitution isn't all sexy fun and games). However, the law *should* treat the prostitutes as being in need of help, and punish their pimps (or others who profit from their misery) severely instead.
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
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!
Hasn't the EU been losing manufacturing jobs and all of their pollution more so then the US. I am almost certian they have. You don't really lower the globe CO2 levels by out-sourcing the sources of pollution. Especial if the work goes to a country with even lower envormental standreds. I know that EU has been reducing pollution by other means but I have never seen the lose of pollution causing jobs to other counties factered into lower pollution level charts. \\This Post is based on asumed facts
WARNING: Viewing This Sig May Cause Blindness.
According to US, developing countries like India should not develop nuclear power as they might use it for weapons, whereas GM wants to sell as many cars in China and India to make these crowded countries even more polluted. The EU is a lame duck which is trying a put up a brave face to the US while the individual govts surrender behind the scenes to the US. I think the day ozone layer depletes above the White house the US will start: War on Pollution .
It's not Bush's will, it's the will of "the people".
The world will just have to get used to bending over and being fucked sideways in the name of the lord and um freedom...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
This environment thing sounds dangerous.
Can we invade it?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
> 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
In the UK, prostitution itself is not a crime, however, other rules make it difficult for exploitation, and keep morals to a certain achievable level. If this suprises many people in the UK, what do you think these "escorts" that are advertised are?
Have a nice day!
Well said... the dangers of a top heavy population can already be seen in MANY companies.
:)
As health and life expectancy improve, the problems of a top heavy population increases.
A top heavy population together with a socialist government does help narrow the difference between rich and poor though, as money has to be better distributed. This is slowly happening in the UK, and most of western europe.
Children are a joy, and I look forward to the time me and my missus have our little gems
Have a nice day!
Why would reducing pollution lose jobs anyway that ignores that there are jobs in clearing up and preventing pollution, it's just that American industry can't be bothered to pay for the people to do those jobs. It's a case of company not wanting to make a bit less profit in return for a healthier environment and more jobs. It has nothing to do with job losses but profiteering at the expense of the American people. This reveals American industry's attitude, general industry doesn't want to modernise because of the dent there profits will take for a year or two and will fall behind the rest of the world like the steel industry did.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
"The good news is that now we'll all find out who is right. Are those who warn of the dire consequences of unilateralism, pre-emptive war, environmental destruction etc etc. just being whiny, or not?"
That's reasonable thinking, therefor not applicable to the situation. Take for instance Iraq. Right, Iraq.
The consequences of an invasion had been foretold many times before. By players from all colours and religions, so this is not some "Liberal whining".
We are there now, a region that's less stable, and less viable, more fundamentalist, and strangely with less liberty for its inhabitants. Yes, a puzzler, but suddenly women and girls who like to live are finding they will have to wear shrowds and hide everything.
Also, a region that introduces more weapons to the general population and its neighbours, most of US manufacture, but also lots of old stockpiles.
Also between here and twenty years a region that most likely will go through a very violent reshuffeling of its borders.
All in all, a risky business, the right spot for diplomacy, the wrong spot for war, especially pre-emtive, illegal war, especially when it also redraws former alliances and puts a divide in "the west".
Any mention of this by US citizens are suspect. They must be unpatriotic or not realistic.
Any mention of this by non US citizens are also suspect, and slightly vulgar. We must have no backbone, no gratitude, we must love Saddam (remember? the CIA's pet for many years) and worse, we must be French (remember? the first and for a long time only nation that helped the US to its independence and even gave it the fucking statue of liberty?)
And of course, very much underestimated by us non US citizens: there's not a thing Americans won't do in the name of God (like training murderers to put machine-guns through hospitals and pregnant women and calling it "Foreign Aid") TO SUPPORT A WAR-TIME PRESIDENT.
So to come back to your point: no, at least we won't find out who's right. Most people in the know already know, but nobody at the rudder now will ever acknowledge anything, and the general population will keep fighting for its right to be ignorant, god bless.
Everybody knows Kyoto is too little too late, slightly unfair and open to debate. That's not the point. The US is not open to debate, end of story. Every scientist on the subject also knows that human influence now puts the earth through something that could "possibly" have dire consequences. This is not really contested anymore, the fight goes on in the fringes and the political arena, but the last five years things have changed, most "unbelievers" have come around. That doesn't mean dick to a crowd that thinks it's not accountable. People will never find out, imo that's a very naive way of looking at things. We already know more than enough to draw some conclusions, and scientists will undoubtably keep score. But "the people"?
I think, therefore I am...I think.
according to this article on how the arctic is already warming at 2x the rate of the rest of the world
The "Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected," according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), which was commissioned by the Arctic Council and funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.
The report projects that temperatures in the Arctic will rise by 8 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. If temperatures then stayed stable, the Greenland icecap would melt altogether in 1,000 years and raise global sea levels by about 23 feet.
Possible benefits like more productive fisheries, easier access to oil and gas deposits or trans-Arctic shipping routes would be outweighed by threats to indigenous peoples and the habitats of animals and plants.
No ice, no bears... just oil.
The media has done an excellent job of giving the people what they want, instead of what they need. This administration has used the power of the media to increase nationalism. If the dems and reps jointly agreed to use the media to inform the public that social security has to be fixed now, that benefit cuts/ new taxes/ raise age to start collecting has to happen for the sake of the boomers and their children, I expect there would be little political fallout.
I hope you're right, because otherwise we'll fark up the planet too much. Just like hopefully all mankind will learn to live in peace, if WWIII doesn't nuke us back to the stone age first.
The actual story is that Canute knew full well that he couldn't stop the tide, he did it as an example to all his sycophantic advisors to show them that he wasn't the great all-powerful king.
Greenland?
Do you have actual documentation that pollution source is US-based, or is this just a Dane venting?
The articles you linked actually support the parent. You searched google, looking for greenland chemical plants (likely trying to blame the parent for the ecological problems) and then, evidently you didn't find much other than an article that mentions Europe and Asia as well. So, when asking the parent if they have evidence to support their theories, rather than venting, you actually provided the information yourself.
I think you found that the facts did support your parents argument, then you went off on a tangent regarding Asia and Europe in order to redirect attention away.
If you weren't aware, the Kyoto Agreement is supported by most countries, since you mentioned Asia, China and Japan in particular. Additionally since Asia seems geographically unlikely to effect Greenland specifically with regards carbon emissions, by concentrating on the additional heavy metals issue the introduction Cleaner Product Promotion Law shows a certain commitment (particularly with an international commitment shown with Kyoto) to reducing these too.
According to the above article, Greenland seems to be a depository of pollution for Europe, North America, and Asia due to its location. Oh well.
You comments don't really make much of a point other than to suggest, 'hey the US is not the only that does it'. I'm sorry, but that really doesn't make the US any better or less a legitimate target for criticism, especially when other countries show a commitment to change. You start of by discrediting what the parent says, then you go on to later suggest that well, everyone does it and then its fashionable to criticise the US.
It's fashionable to blame the US, but you should read the facts too.
It might be less fashionable to criticise the US, than it is fashionable to ignore valid criticism. You might want to try reading those facts you do find that don't support you, instead of searching for ones that do, but then its far easier to just think its fashion going against you.
What would you sooner have, a world were we actually think about and tackle issues that are crucial to our survival or a world where we simply shut our eyes and drive ourselves off a cliff?
It's not about jobs, so much as sacrificing a way of life. If you move from a large 8 cylinder SUV to a 1.6 litre 4 cylinder car you aren't losing anyone a job as such.
Alcohol and Tobacco? but of course those are good (taxed) drugs. You have made a strong case to criminilise Alcohol and Tobacco.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Pollution link to heart disease
Did he inhale?
I actually live next door to a 'massage parlour' which advertises in the local paper.
We get the odd stray caller from time to time. Nothing unpleasant or threatening so far but next time my wife might try the following:
Caller: "Is this the 'massage parlour'?"
My wife: "That'll be 100 pounds please."
(takes money)
My wife: "No, you want next door actually..."
(closes door)
Adapting to the markets is how countries survive. Engineering and manufacturing are in decline in the west, many jobs have moved to the east.
Technology will aid the reduction of pollution, the US can take a lead in this by developing the technology. But Bush isn't interested, so the US will end up having to buy the technology from the EU simply because we have signed up and have a head start.
So in the end the EU countries will create jobs in areas to do with research and installation of anti-pollution systems and the US won't.
I totally agree that the world should decrease the pollution, but saying that it's not going to cost money (and thus jobs) is false.
It's not as simple as 'true' or 'false'. It depends. For example, some factories can meet CO2 emissions targets by increasing energy efficiency. This costs money in the short term but can very quickly repay the original investment and then lead to increased profits and more jobs due to lower energy bills. Some factories can even exceed their emissions targets and make a profit trading their emission quota under the Kyoto trading system, which is just getting going now.
Some factories will be too expensive to upgrade and will close - but then this may be an indicator that they are old and inefficient and would have closed soon anyhow.
There will be winners and losers but it's not clear that there will be overall job losses. The UK has some reductions to make as a whole but there's no big outcry about job loss potential from either the unions or the employers' organizations, and certainly no suggestions of 1 million jobs lost or anything (roughly equivalent to the '5 million job losses' figure claimed by the US government).
Anyhow, most of the rest of the world is going to try this system (limits and quota trading) out while the US watches. I think the US is going to lose out in the end since the efficiency gains will outweigh the costs, but that's just my 'educated' guess.
Actually paying for sex is ilegal here. Prostitutes get around this because you pay for ther time and company "escorting" being legal. Anything that happens in that time is between consenting adults ;)and no concern of the laws
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Back shortly - I'm sneaking off next door to get dinner from my neighbour's fridge.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
...so we can outsource them.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
95-0 was the vote against any framework.
source
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Cash. Pure and simple.
Because of the decline in Russia's economy they are already below their levels and thus can sell credits for other countries that won't meet their treaty levels.
Of course, in a few years when Russia's economy picks back up it'll be interesting to see if they re-ratify the treaty.
Right now it's pure gain for Russia to ratify this treaty (along with some other "incentives" the EU threw in) with absolutely no consequence.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
find it funny that foreiners liked clinton and he didn't sign any of those treaties either. Actually, what most foreigners are ignorant of is that the president cannot sign it unless congress gives him the authority to (for each indevidual treaty).
t ml
t able.htm
Incorrect, he signed a number of treaties, they were just either not ratified, or rejected by GWB. He (Clinton) didn't have support of the senate which was and still is Republican controlled.
"The United States ratified the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child on February 16, 1995. However, in 2000 when the U.N. attempted to pass the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts, the United States raised strong objections and still refuses to ratify it. President Clinton signed the Protocol in May 2000, but the Republican-dominated Senate did not ratify it, raising the objections that the treaty undermines the rights of parents and is unfair to the U.S., since the U.S. currently recruits and deploys 17 year-olds for service. The Bush Administration is taking no action on ratification."
http://www.clw.org/control/bushunilateral.html
"On Dec. 31, 2000, Bill Clinton signed the Rome agreement creating an International Criminal Court. He waited until almost the last permissible moment to affix the United States to the agreement even though he did not, he said, agree with its contents."
"President George W. Bush, recognizing the consequences of treating the U.S. signature so frivolously, has instructed the State Department to make clear the United States has no intention of being bound by the signature by informing the United Nations of the decision."
http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=3312
"The current treaty at issue is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, first opened for signatures in 1996. This multilateral agreement bans all nuclear tests above and below the Earth's surface. The treaty also established a worldwide monitoring system to check air, water and soil for signals that someone set off a nuclear explosion. While President Clinton signed the treaty, in 1999, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it."
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/nucleartreaties.h
"Although President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, mandating a reduction in carbon emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012, a 2001 State Department memo rejected the protocol on the basis that it would harm the US economy and exempt developing countries from reduction requirements. Of industrialized states, only the US, Australia and Israel haven't ratified the protocol. The US did ratify the UNFCCC, but has not complied"
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2003/treaty
Likely there is more (thats enough for today, but I see a recurring theme). It seems pretty much like his hands were tied.
...Australia? They're not signing onto it, either.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
This one has been tough. Next one can have 2 class-5 hurricanes hit at the heart of Florida.
I guess that a job policy doesn't work by having workplaces available because of dead people, neither because large areas are devastated.
US are powerful, nature is more. You can't stand against that.
Got Pike?
So to sum up, Americans are evil and stupid, right? By the way, all of you worried about global warming should read the opinion of this Harvard scientist: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/defau lt.htm
No, you're the pig-headed one for (assuming you're not American) thinking that your national leaders are any different than the leaders of the United States. They are out to protect and promote their own country's interests, period. To do anything else would be derilection of duty. It is not in the United States' interest to sign a treaty like the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that does not have fair reciprocation between the signatories. Smaller, less-developed countries signed on not because they want a cleaner world, but becuase they see the KP for what it is-- free money for them!
In the US, we assume that you know you will be "between jobs" and we expect you to pack your own parachute. If you choose not to, then go flip burgers.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Oh, you mean like the green Eden that was Communist Eastern Europe? Ever heard of Chernobyl?
Science doesn't work by consensus. It only took one Einstein to introduce relativity; once he proved his thesis, you either disproved it or accepted it. This talk of "scientific consensus" is basically a smokescreen for the fact that there is no proof for the assertions made by the climate change advocates. There are simply too many variables, too much bad data and bad science, to take on something as potentially damaging as Kyoto. If the computer models are so great, why can't they predict the weather for more than a few days out? Yet you want us to believe they can predict what the temperature will be in a few decades? Come on!
Global warming is the new religion.
The Bush administration pretty much spit on Kyoto in its first term. I would expect no less from the Texas oil crowd, and I only expect more of everything in the coming four years.
Excuse me while I start packing to move to Lincoln, Montana.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Yes, most of the owners(madames/pimps) are apparently female. the hookers don't make that kind of money.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Said it before, I'll say it again...
Training smarter sheep is not in the best interest of the sheperd.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
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.
yes it does sound like it. with an exception of the prisoners at guantanamo were captured durring a war or war like situations were there was at least a claim to be in the country they were taken from. imagine if there was no claim, imagine if it was the U.K. or russia and they did it.
No, i'm not trying to divert the discusion. I'm showing what the treaty does. It apears that those for the treaty or against bush (wich ever it is this week) seem to want to skip alot of the details. No body in the world has the right to go into a foreighn country and enforce its laws or will on the people. I know everyone gets real pissed when an american company tries to use the dmca on site ion other countries so this issue isn't somethign to skip.
Donald rumsfield's name was mentioned. I don't like him in the least. however if another country or organization tried to arrest and prosecute him, i would be more them happy to take arms against them. You cannot take out a sitting government official like that. If he is guilty of somethign them file war crimes charges. You see there are already laws dealing with the stuff that went on at the prison. There are already treaties and proceedures dealing with this stuff. One big problem with the ICC is something that is allowed today, could be changed tomarrow and then aplied to some one that did it yesterday. Also, after the laws would be changed, we would have no chance to accept or denie the changes. The ICC could effectivly legislate laws into our own country by making somethign we do completly illegal. (how about owning guns, or how about the death penalty for murdering thugs.) Yes thats right they caould make rules describing how we punish our own criminals and may efectly dictate our sentencing guidline by making life in prison or the death penalty international illegal.
The ICC as it stands has too much power for americans to be comfortable with. I apose it and let my congressman know that. i also let the president know it.
how would agreeing to Kyoto treaty cost jobs? It would seem to me to do the opposite for at least a short while anyway. I know one way we can conserve energy and thereby cut some pollution -- shut off at least half the damn city lights at night. Seriously ever notice the light pollution? It's horrible, even my small town of 20,000 I have to drive 20 miles or further into the country to get a dark enough spot for night sky observing.
Well, it seems I do. I was born and live in Santiago, Chile, so I think I'm from what "developed people" calls the Third World. And from down here, it's sadly funny watching the White House, the UN, and all those we-got-the-power Clubs pretend it's legitimate doing something good for their countries and bad for the far far away Third World. In fact, even "good" means "good for the pockets of our wealthy ones". Third World is not a geographic issue: we have our own few First World people, and you have plenty of Third World americans and europeans. Back on topic, for the White House and their supporters is pretty comfortable messing up the environment and let all those funny-little-countries-that-surround-us pay the bill. Take the Ozone layer, by example. This is a Salon article from 2000 if you want to know some of the mess: http://dir.salon.com/health/feature/2000/11/03/ozo ne/index.html?sid=992601
(You may wish to activate your sarcasm detector for this one)
But if we pollute enough, we'll destroy the human race, and good old "mother earth" will start over again, but this time, maybe she'll get it right and not allow evolution to create humans!
I mean, really, let's review the beliefs of your typcial atheist/evolutionist/tree-hugger.
ATHEIST: There is no God, so any structure in the universe is merely the result of a freak accident, so we cannot declare the human race as superior to the animals.
Evolutionist: "Survival of the fittest" is the theme here, so if we pollute ourselves to death, we obviously weren't fit for survival, so such action would in fact be the natural way of things!
TREE-HUGGER: Yes, it may hurt now, but the trees and bunnies would be a whole lot better off without us in the long run!
What's the problem? :p
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
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
The Kyoto Treaty would cause heavy pollutant manufacturing to occur in nations that have less rigid standards. This means a redistribution, not necessary less polution. Of course, it could mean less polution, but companies are going to find ways around that.
Further, why should the U.S. agree to do this? A great majority of countries have decided to not do this. Out of all of the industrialized countries, the U.S. produces the least amount of polution, and that is a fact. Why should we struggle to squeeze water from a rock?
If we would like to actually lower greenhouse causing emissions, a plan should be generated, country-by-country.
What could we do in the U.S.? Use less petroleum. That would help us in many areas and it is something we could begin today. It is realistic, as long as we can get the oil companies to embrace it, everyone will benefit.
Do not come to me with this silly Kyoto crap, it doesn't make any sense for the U.S. to agree. It is an aggregate of other nations that believe they can assert some control over the U.S., and as far as I care... they can shove it. Europe uses diesel fuel almost exclusively, they create a lot more green house gases with it than we do with our unleaded fuel. China burns more than half of the world's coal. Natural gas is becoming one of the predominant energy sources in the U.S. and it is by far the cleanest of the fossil fuels. We have done our share. Is it enough? I doubt it, but there is much more that other countries can do that will make a greater impact. It is analogous to this idea I had:
If someone is covered in mud, and you put more mud on them, you will not notice a difference. But, if you take someone who is clean and put a little mud on them, you would notice immediately.
With that being said, I am not against the U.S. making efforts, but I think it would be in the world's best interest for everyone to work on the biggest problems first: systematize, prioritize, and perform. Most people here are tech savvy (I guess) and should be able to understand that.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
>President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job...
Bush is a dumbass of the worst order. No environment = no economy at all.
How important is the notion of being employed when there's a planet-wide ice-age and no food to eat because selfish Americans collapsed the environment? (yes I said Americans: you produce on average 10x more pollution per capita than anyone else in the world).
By not taking action NOW Bush is just pushing his responsibilities onto our kids. Because of his selfishness and stupidity the environmental legacy that our kids will have to deal with will be FAR worse than just dealing with it now.
look I'm sorry about your family. But if you haven't been living behind the moon you would know that *everything* causes cancer. My own prediction is that living past the age of 35 is most at fault for cancer.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
You know what? Just drive less! Can you do that? Can you put a sticker on your car stating you do not drive on certain day in the week and really let your car stand on that day?
The oil companies will loose plenty of money from such an act, and the atmosphere will gain from it.
I submit that this is more an example of incredibly stupid and short-sighted economic policies, rather than a reason to keep increasing the population. If you keep following your line of reasoning, the U.S. will never get itself out of the trap that it is in. It is physically improbable, and historically impossible to maintain the level of population and economic growth to meet the demands we are placing on future generations. If we continue the current fiscal policies there will inevitably be a catastrophic crash (ex. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).
The only intelligent solution is to start living within our means and paying off our debt. There is a certain amount of government debt that is beneficial to the economy, just as there is a certain level of unemployment, inflation, etc. that shows signs of a healthy economy. If any of those, or other, factors get wildly out of line it affects the others in a drastically detrimental way. Back in 1996, when we elected a Republican congress and they signed the "Contract with America" (anyone else remember that?), the Republicans forced a balanced budget (though they conveniently failed on making it a Constitutional Amendment) hoping that the resulting drop in government spending and social programs would infuriate and/or discourage the Democrat base and bleed enough people off to elect a Republican. They got thier wish and Bush, Jr. was elected. At that point everyone in congress and the media had a massive attack of amnesia and completely forgot the contract. The outrageous overspending and lack of fiscal responsibility since then was, on its own, enough for me to vow to vote anti-republican this past election.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
*again* is wrong. There never has been a society like that. Consentual business contracts covering sexual services have always condemmed and banned. If you think that this is to the benefits of hookers you are wrong. It deprives them of security that everyone pays for through taxes (VAT etc.) and criminalizes their only income source. No unpartial agency will enforce the contracts they make with customers so the door to abuse and violence is wide open. This is the reason they have to resort to 'pimps' who usually protect them.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
ANything anti-business in this conservative envrionment always tries to confuse the electorate into thinking its about jobs. Whether its environmental regulations or unions, or minimal wage laws.
Just like saying minimal wage increases cost jobs and outsource McDonalds jobs oversea's. Yes, I heard this on Florida radio.
The numbers are artificially created by special interest groups so they dont have to pay to be responsible.
By reclaiming it and making it a debate about jobs you are giving the lobbiests a win. This will make Americans think its somehow a sacrifice and bad things will happen when we dont poison our own water, etc.
There is no proof that it costs jobs at all. All it will do is force businesses to raise the prices a few percentage points to pay for the cleaning. Thats it.
Clinton did well with cleaning our environment and we all did not see a recession did we? Under the clean skies act we have seen mercury and heavy metal buildup to toxic levels in most states. Hell in New York state alone every single river and stream is considered unsafe to drink. Why? Because of only 2 power plants in Ohio who were gave the green light to pollute.
http://saveie6.com/
It's all about self-esteem and respect.
Yeah, its pretty good for ones self esteem when big drunken, beating daddy state tells you in detail what you need to do and what you mustn't, in you own interest of course. Having the values of others imposed really futhers indivduality, too. I mean, your logic is unimpeachable: I won't sell my body because it's bad for my self esteem, I'm human, therefore all humans that sell their bodies have low self esteem, therefore I must free them from their shackles by chaining them to mine.
___
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
you don't have a clue. I know hookers from my job as barkeeper, believe me, the usual hooker is not not the starved down dirty women with the little girls eyes that suffers from each penetration. These women could just as easily work as waitresses or cashiers or hair dressers but they like earning 100k und couldn't do with 30k.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
please, stop making that argument. the more people point to the fact that alcohol and tabacco are drugs as well, the stronger the case for outlawing them will be. It already started. Your argument will not get drugs leagized, it will get A&T banned.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
If I read something like your post, I can't resist imagening a 15 year old pimple faced, long haired, hippy style youth. Reality is not a movie. Here, my girlfriend is 37 years old, she could tell me in detail how the transition to prostitution comes about: you work at a bar, making between 20k-30k a year. In germany, this a median income and you can life of this pretty good, even with a child. Now you meet certain people, hooker and pimps and such. You see there luxurious world that comes with earning 100k a year. You might like big mercedes convertibles and jewelery but could never afford this so you start to think: well, I like and enjoy sex very much, why not also earn money with it. My girlfriend has been there, she didn't take that route because she'd rather become a nurse.
There is no drama, there is nothing special about prostitution. It's just a job, it has risks like any other job and provides a very good income. Now the perceptible difference is caused by the law that won't accept prostitution as business and provides NO protection, but the opposite: persecution.
Now imaging your job was literally outlawed, pursuing your profession would be punishable. Imaging nonetheless exercising your jobs. You'd be at the mercy of your customer/employer because you have no legal route to make him/her pay you after you've done your work. You can't even tell anybody about it because you risk landing in jail. That is where abuse and violence enters the picture caused by measures that suppossedly should prevent it. In truth, no such intent was there when those laws where made. Imposing morality was the intention. The pimps you complain about are the creation of the meassures you support. They are the prostitution police, preventing abuse of the hookers by customers and making sure they pay. Now the protection contract between hookers and pimps is just as illegal as the prostitution itself is -> abuse and violence follows. But the risk a prostitute takes when 'contracting' a pimp is a little less because it is in the pimps interesst that the prostitute is in good shape and has good morals.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
If you vote for "what benefits everyone," how is that different from saying, "I know what's best for you?"
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Actually, maybe Bush is good for global environment. I don't know if anyone thought of this earlier - by destroying local economy in the long run, Bush insures that the country will go into deep recession within the next 10-20 years, this just may end up doing what the Kyoto could never even dream of: americans will stop buying. If they do, the CO2 emmissions will go down, only for a different reason.
You can't handle the truth.
Unfortunately, even if the other countries did band together against some screwed up US policy, the US Government would try their best to justify it in their own minds and ignore the rest of the world.
The only real way to change this country is to get rid of the pseudo royal class career politicians and go back to farmers! But how can we do that when we're only given two choices every four years?
American politics is a self serving, self perpetuating beast that won't let anyone else get anywhere near close enough to competing with their two main parties, Republicans and Democrats.
Wait a minute. I got it. You could play with your magic nose goblins.
We signed the Kyoto Protocol but we increase our emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere... We are planning to increase our wind power but it's not sufficient to answer to the needs.
Of course if you have a 3 digit IQ you know that's not the case.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Kyoto treaty itself may be bad, but it is very much in the US interestes to somehow find a way to avoid the looming climatic chaos. I'd hate to think what happens to, say, New York, if ocean level rises 20 meters, or if hurricanes start sweeping then entire east coast of US, or if Golf stream going North gets replaced with a freezing stream coming straight from the Arctic, or if it completely stops raining in the Midwest, or any other seriously bad thing that may or may not be in store for us...
There's so much evidence that what we are doing to the climate is going to cause big changes, that I don't really see how anybody with a brain could just think everything is ok. And I hate the defeatist attitude that if something is going wrong, it's not our fault, it's 100% natural process and we can't have any impact on it one way or the other. I mean, just look at a satellite photo of Earth, and then tell me humans can't have any impact on a global scale...
Oh well, I'm mentally prepared to live in an igloo and hunt other people for food, if the worst happens...
Once again, it seems that the /. editors listed a mostly political story under "science". Just the volume of responses alone should indicate that this is really a political issue (I think the only topic that gets as much response would be an apple story).
I don't mind if there banned so long as it ends the hypocrisy, yes i do use them but would accept there loss. anyway the chance of Alcohol and Tobacco Banned are slim because the majority of politicians use (and even abuse) them, the hypocrisy im talking about. It could also do society good but most likley it will do it more harm like prohabition.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
You mean Leah LIED to me?!?!?
;)
^-- NSFW
+++ATH0
insightful? gimme a break, I havent read a more jingoistic xenophobic pile of bullshit in years.
what idiot modded this bullshit up?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
while I am, too, disgusted by hypocrisies, I really enjoy the scare liberties that are left in the political correct, socialist police state (germany). If alcohol and tabacco really get banned I'll have become a 'terrorist' aka freedom fighter.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
And big time.
The claim to have perfected a reactor that is cleaner and safer to operate than any of the current ones.
Check Wired Magazine one or two months ago.
Tha would deal with their CO2 emissions. As in regards to other envrionmental hazards I would say better dealing with the most immediate problem and we will figure out something else later.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think, because most prostitutes start doing it either because they're in dire financial need, or because they were abused as children and therefore think that it's natural for them to carry on being abused.
In places where it's illegal, you're correct. In places where it's legal you're not.
However, the law *should* treat the prostitutes as being in need of help, and punish their pimps (or others who profit from their misery) severely instead.
Like their children? They too benefit from a prostitute's earnings. There is no way to write a law that punishes all pimps and madames without including others who benefit from a prostitute's earnings like her children or the stores that she patronizes.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I don't see why Bush doesn't sign the treaty. He can just ignore it like he does all our other treaties.
"Looming climatic chaos?" You have got to be joking.
Cite please? It's the height of vanity to think that anything like us could effect world climates with any significant effect. All the power ever produced by mankind (including nuclear weapons) probably wouldn't equal one hurricane.
Do you even understand the mechanism that causes the Gulf stream to rotate clockwise around the North Atlantic? Why do you think that eastern Asia has warm water like we have here in Florida, but California has cold water, like people have in Europe?
Hed Herring. Nobody doubts that urban areas are visible at night due to lighting. It's a very large stretch to jump from that to "people are EEEVIL." Using your own argument, I add this extension: the Democrats are at fault. Since the people that voted for Kerry live in the areas that show up on your satellite photos, THEY must be the ones responsible for Global Warming and the Death of The Environment.
America has changed the world for the better in so many ways. America will continue to change the world including the use of science to make our world a safer place to live. I am for limiting business from destroying the environment but I will not stand for 100% halting of progress for humanity. There is a middle ground on this issue and I think in the long run that makes sense. You can disagree with me but I think you fail to see the future and the best of both worlds that comes with it.
0 0. html?tw=wn_tophead_5
Until then, I appreciate all you radical left wingers for your continual entertainment with regarde to your nonsensical statements.
Read this article for a lesson in history and the benefits of American enterpise.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65618,
Why was this article not classified as politics?
How do you know that heavy metal exposure caused the cancer? You may have actual information to back it up, but I suspect it's along the lines of:
1: People exposed to X are statistically more likely to get cancer.
2: My relative has cancer.
3: My relative has been exposed to X
4: Therefore my relative got cancer because of X.
Where X includes any number of chemicals and unhealthy behaviours.
An awful lot of people use this logic, despite it's major flaws. (You may not be one of them, as I said.) The following 2 facts are often ignored:
1a: Some people exposed to X never get cancer.
1b: Some people get cancer who have never been exposed to X.
I'm always suspicious of statements stating that N people died because of X, because they invariably fail to state how they determined the value of N.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
I think it is safe to say that California is pretty much safe from risk of being inundated by the Atlantic Ocean. What with 45 other states in the way.
The Pacific Ocean, on the other hand....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
How much would you like to pay for your water? I think they're making a new market for themselves... Think about it: at some point, the oil wells will run dry and they'd be out of business. Why not polute everything now so that 50 years from now they can start selling clean water and air. Just convert the oil refineries to water/air refineries.
Has the UK actually done anything other than sign/ratify the Treaty?
Seems to me that Kyoto hasn't even gone into effect yet (takes 90 days after the requisite nations have ratified it, which condition had not been achieved as of October 2004)
Yah, the Renewables Obligation (4.9% now, unless you just pay the bribe, er - Buyout Option, so it doesn't apply) might have some effect, but it isn't really Kyoto, since Kyoto isn't yet in effect.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Oh no, people do believe the smartest things that President Bush says. The problem is, this doesn't even hit the list of top ten dumbest things he's said. People are too busy sorting through the other trash he's spewed to bother with minor logical deficiencies.
"global cooling"? At least that's the scare I remember when I was a kid. Chicken little science sure produces a lot of research grants and fame, and the people who get in the way get smeared.
Are you putting your money where your mouth is and not having kids?
If yes, good - less competition for my kids.
If no, are you saying that its all the folks in the "brown" countries who should stop having kids?
Oh, and it's "fewer" people, not "less." I wouldn't have noticed except you went to pains to emphasize it.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Personally I don't think it was a big surprise GWB is not planning to care about Kyoto protocol. He's pretty averse to participating in any multi-lateral treaty, unless it's proposed by US (kind of NIH syndrome at governmental level). But I hope there could be some public plan to aim at similar goals; for US to commit to some improvements, even if that was separate from Kyoto protocol. Even something as modest as trying to freeze current Co2 output as of 2004 level... Kyoto protocol itself is meant more as proof-of-concept (prototype) than anything else; if US would produce something similar, at least it would indicate americans aren't ignoring the potential problem.
I think it really is interesting that at state-level there are much more ambitious plans; like the Colorado's brand new "10% from renewable sources" amendment. And that from a generally conservative mid-western state.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Thank you for your excellent post! Proponents of Kyoto mistake coersion for comprimise, consumption guilt for science. Russia signed on for improved trade status in the EU. That should hardly motivate the U.S. which runs a large trade deficit with Europe. The idea that you can manipulate climate to some undefined favorable outcome by reducing CO2 emissions to an arbitrary level is absurd. I believe that elevated global temperature will lead to increase rainfall here in the midwest, and increased crop yields.
On election day "Redneck Nation" roared. Mr. Bush's mandate largely draws from people who have contempt for Kyoto. Get used to it.
an ill wind that blows no good
I'm fully aware of that, actually. :-/
There are plenty of tin-foil folks having nightmares about UN "domination"... those are hilarious; on one hand these deriding of UN as useless powerless institution (which it is, and was designed to be, with veto powers), and on the other, there's deep concern about UN's sinister plans. I guess it has to be based somewhat on trying to find one more level of "bad government"... after all, it's "our guy" in the white house, so there has to be some other evil organization above it that we can fight against.
That their motivations for many global policies being driven more from "third-world jealousy" and "aristocratic guilt" than global prosperity.
Yes, it goes back to values. Just like I can rephrase "global prosperity" as "simple greed" (and claim US could give a flying fuck about global prosperity; it's just the old Reaganomics' idea of "give more money to the rich so some trickles to the poor" in global scale; ie. reason for why rich need more and poor whatever drips down), you can rephrase terms "global justice" (ICC) to "third-world jealousy". But I do think it also shows that economics aspects are not number one priority for most countries; and claiming that's wrong makes as much sense as claiming international solidarity has to be the number one shared global value.
But in the end there's nothing fundamentally wrong about being selfish at international level. You just have to present it right; to minimize damage. Bush does decent job explaining his stances to US citizens (judging by the election results...); but doesn't even try the same abroad.
So why does this matter? Because it wouldn't cost him anything to be bit more tactful! He'd get more support from his allies; avoid aggravating non-allies even more, and yet cost NOTHING in domestic politics. 90% of americans couldn't care less what he (or any president) says outside of this country. Just like europeans paid lip service to Bush's Iraq plans ("yes, we are also concerned about Iraq"... No they weren't; they were just being diplomatic there!), Bush could easily do what Clinton did. Claim it's a "decent idea", yet drag his feet, and never do anything bare minimum (or less) to suppor t whatever idea it was. But no, he has to grand-stand, argue it's a sucky idea and that essentially only an idiot would propose it. And to top it off, bitch and whine about others not proposing American "lead" in fixing the world. Amazing.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Even if global warming doesn't exist, wouldn't you rather have some clean air and water left for your kids? or your grand-kids? Why submit them to a life of air masks and bottled water when all you need to do is pay closer attention to what you're contributing to the trash of the world. I'm not a tree hugger, i work for an oil company.
But, then again, i live in Alberta. If you don't work for an oil company, you're either working for someone that supports an oil company, or you're in the service industry catering to oilfield employees.
IANALOOA
ok, again was a little much. The fact though is that sexual harassment of women in the workplace has been tolorated through out periods of time. I was also getting into how it can be justified rather then adopted. It isn't totaly out of the question when paying for sex is legal.
It apeaers that you objections are more or less based on the morals we have today. (I use the term morals loosley because it is a term that best fits what i want to say but recently if you have morals you apear to be some religous zelot). Anyways back to the point. We have a much firmer belief system on that issue today then we had in the 30's or even the 50's and 60's. Yes today it is unimaginable for that kind of actions to happen and if it did, there would be a big backlash. In other periods of time, it was not viewed as bad as it is today. I feel that if prostatution were legal, we might revert to a time were it is more acceptable. Years of struggle for equal treatment might disapear over night.
In response to some of your points:
2. It would be more instructive to compare C02 emissions versus some measure of productivity or output as opposed to population. As an example of what I'm driving at if the US produces 2x as much C02 emissions as Russia how does that compare to the productive output of the respective countries' manufacturing industries? My guess is that although we may have only 3% of the population our C02 emissions measured as a cost of output is in-line or better than the rest of the worlds'; i.e. we produce more products for less pollution. Of course this measure would disregard non-manufacturing sources of C02, but I don't know how prominently they figure into the 36%.
3. Don't confuse budget deficit with trade deficit. The budget deficit means that the government is spending more than it takes in in taxes and other revenues. The trade deficit is a country-by-country measure of the balance of trade. Your conclusion may still be correct (I haven't followed the link to go check) but the terminology at least is suspect.
i don't know what kind of harassment you mean, I'll just assume unwanted 'gropping' and such: you see, thats the point. This almost borders on physical violence, a violation of ownership of the womens body. Now, if a woman chooses to enter a contract that includes blow jobs she excercises ownership over herself. Forbidding prostitution actually equals sexual harassment on the moral plain becauses both deprive the woman of the right to do with her body as she pleases.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
To be fair, you did mention fingerprinting and iris scanning when coming to North America. That doesn't happen in Canada, and that's why it looked like you were the ignorant one. All you have to do to avoid it while on a trip to Canada is fly to Toronto, Montreal, or some other big international airport in Canada.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
No. But let's just say that I very much hope that I'm wrong and you are right... I guess coming decades will tell.
First Google hit on a subject of man made vs natural CO2 emissions by volcanoes (the only natural mechanism that brings *new* CO2 from the crust to the biosphere) here . First google hit about us people reducing forests of the world here , telling that humans have cut down 20%-50% of *all* forests on Earth on a very short time scale. And keep in mind that we have oxygen atmosphere only because there are plants to sustain it, and forests are a big part of that. Just look at Venus to find out what kind of atmosphere Earth might have if there was no plant life...
Thinking that we have no effect on Earth is like thinking that dumping your garbage out of the window (the Middle Ages style, you know) does not make a city filthy, it all gets absorbed by the nature, eaten by the pigs, or something...
*Life* has made the Earth what it is today. Human life is also life, and it's the other way around: it's vanity to think that we're above mere animals and plants with no technology that made the Earth what it is today, so that our actions (altering atmosphere, turning large areas of forest to desert etc) have no consequences.
Not sure what you mean by that, since Europe has extremely warm water (comparatively speaking), thanks to the Gulf stream... In Siberia and Canada it's permafrost where in Europe there are still lush fields and big forests. Also, Gulf stream has stopped or changed direction before, so it's not very far fetched to think it would do it again. So I have to wonder how well *you* understand the issue...
I don't quite follow. You can also see forests in satellite photos, as well as you can see human fields and cities. By your logic, I'd think trees are evil too, or what? I don't quite follow your logic, really...
The point isn' "humans are evil". The point is
that humans have an impact (and a big one at that). Why is it so hard to consider that:
1. the climate and biosphere has (had) a balance before major human impact (ie beforeCO2 increse, cutting down forests, expanding deserts etc)
2. after humans have started to alter some variables (eg the ones listed above), the balance isn't any more
3. when there's no balance, things will start to change, until variables have stopped changing and a new balance is found
4. there are much more ways for things to get much worse for most of us, than there are ways for things to get better for most of us. Just things changing fast is expensive in the *best* case without sealevel rising or anything, since everything (from heating/cooling to rainwater handling) is optimized for how things are now.
So are you suggesting we all just look out for number 1 and screw the rest of the world?
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
You'd think you could google.
NATO document affect on local climate human impact reference ref ref ref ref ref ref ref
Logic, macros, and more
And by strong evidence you mean having to buy oxygen by the tank because the phytoplankton has died and there's a 70% deficit in conversion of carbon dioxide? Or perhaps you're waiting for the Steel Pier in Atlantic City to go floating out to sea? Don't your ears get dirty with your head in the sand?
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Given the rapidly increasing lifespans of our older generations, our seniors are going to have to come to grips with the fact that Retirement is not about taking a vacation on the government dole. It's about not having to work when you're elderly, decrepit, and too feeble to work.
The problem is with people's view of life expectancy: If you're in your early 40's today, the life expectancy figures show that you have an even chance of living another 40 years.
The problem is, in 40 years, technology will be so advanced that the life expectancy tables will probably still show that you have another 20-30 years left in you. How could we even conceive of letting some "retire" at age 67 when they'll probably live another 40-50 years after retirement?
And the answer isn't to just keep raising the retirement age: some people really are old and frail at 65 and deserve to take a break. It shouldn't be an age standard alone: it should be a weighted sum of age and poor health. Poor health at 65 qualifies, moderate health at 75, and good health at 85. Or whatever: the system will need to adjust.
Once we find an effective way to measure someone's biological age, regardless of their chronological age, then we can make the system a little more fair.
But for heaven's sake, why should I pay for someone forty years older than myself and in better health than myself to take a freakin' vacation!
I agree on some of your points. Some will create more efficient processes and earn on that.
But what if the investment was used to create at new product instead? That would earn more than the energy-saving.
We really need some numbers...
I think you all should take a look at the facts before chastizing president bush. On the outside, it seem that he is making a bad decision. I thought at first that he was an idiot, but then when I looked at the facts, I realized that he may be making the right decision.
You may think that the Kyoto treaty is reducing the overall worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is the Kyoto Treaty only shifts the opportunity for pollution from the current Industrialized countries to the non-industrialized countries. There are no output limitations put on Countries that currently do not have a problem with high volumes of pollution output. And that is exactly why we have not ratified the treaty. For ratification would means that we are setting ourselves up for having to pay large penalties for non-compliances, while other countries are being given the opportunity to attract "our" industries. For imposing the regulations on the Industry in the industrialized world simply means that the industry will find another place where they will be allowed to pollute... leaving us with high levels of unemployment. All other countries, including Europe are all after weakening our economic position. Just ask your self the question: Which other countries have a self imposed Vehicle Emission testing system in place. For we all know that vehicle emissions are actually the main culprit in this Pollution problem.
well i mean harasment like having to blow the boss for a biger raise. IF prostitution was legal then the boss could say that in order to get a better raise, she would have to asume job responcabilities that include getting groped or blowing the boss.
Right now, when a boss tries to imply that is neccesary to gain a raise it is sexual harassment. If prostitution were legal it would just be a job description. Is it right to hold money over a woman for sexual measures? I mean, it is like the smoking argument in california, if a person want to make a living they need to be in a buisiness and if they allow smoking then they need to be exposed to it. That was one of the main arguments for the smoking bann. It was that a person had a right to a job more then a buisiness had a obligation to smokers. Telling them to get a job somewere else didn't matter. Telling a wman she needs to perform sexual behavior to earn money or keep a job is along the same lines. They might end up being cerherced into that position to maintian job stability or security rather then consent to it.
It isn't hard to see were it is not right. If you cannot see the problem then look a little longer.
So... there's every chance that following Kyoto would initially increase our foreign energy dependence. It might even be inevitable, hard to say.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in the Kyoto treaty or environmentalism in general, but why in the world is "per capita" considered the proper measurement of CO2 emissions rather than something like "per square mile?"
Actually there are no per capita or per square mile values in the treaty. All of that was only part of the negotiations where it was decided by which standards countries had to be held, which was set as a percentage value of the emissions during a certain period in the past. During those negotiations, the politicians of course all had their own ideas about what was fair, but the end result doesn't include a specific ideology (in favor of more objective rules, which is a good thing).
However, per square mile is certainly not a good measurement since the out- or input of a piece of land depends on the way that land is used. A forest may be a carbon sink (but not even necessarily), but a cattle farm is going to produce more greenhouse gasses than it absorbs. However, the treaty has provisions that allow for the use of carbon sinks to achieve the reductions. For instance, you might be able to use a tree farm to store carbon, although scientific studies have shown that this may not work that well (you have to prove actual reductions according to the protocol, but you can probably work around this by paying for the research results you want).
Personally I think that a net output per capita is most fair (what kind of sinks you count for that is a seperate question). If you accept that all humans deserve equal rights, but also that we cannot let everyone consume as much as they want, then it makes sense to allow every human the same number of flights, car trips, etc. It doesn't seem fair to me if we say to an Indian or Chinese guy: "Sorry, you can only use half of what we can use, you second-class #$%@". In short, everyone should have a budget of emissions that they can use or sell. Then the market forces allow people to optimize their uses, in that people prioritize their consumption in a way that keeps our planet in good shape. If Bob really wants to fly a lot he can offer me money for some of my emission rights and then I can decide that I like the money more than travelling. Kyoto is a first step to achieve this, on the level of nations (which is a necessary step).
It seems to me that given the US's low population density that our country is far better able to absorb what we churn out than other areas of the world.
Whether or not to allow 'natural resources' to help you is a difficult debate. A big problem is that you basically just have to be lucky as a country to have a huge sink. A country with a large rain forest and few citizens will be able to sell a lot of emission rights without a real effort. If you are born in such a country you will be rich (or your dictator), if you are born in a country with a lot of farting animal life (methane), you will be poor. In this way, emission control becomes less and less about taking responsibility for your use of our resources and more about where you were born.
On the other hand, it is important to preserve rain forests and other sinks, so that is a good reason to value them. Personally I think that a medium is best.
I've read frequent complaints about Kyoto not weighting carbon sinks enough, but all that I've seen from either side is rhetoric.
One of the big issues with carbon sinks that a lot of Kyoto opponents want to be counted more is that the goal is to replace underground stable reservoirs of carbon (oil, coal, gas) with above ground unstable sinks (trees). However, trees absorb carbon for a while, but they do not hold it indefinitely. At one point the tree will burn down or fall down and rot away, causing most of the carbon to be freed again. The result is that a lot of the sinks that are touted aren't really that great to offset the burning of fossil fuels. The important question to ask when people talk about carbon sinks is therefore always: "Where will all that
On the two sides thing, OK, fair enough, but I still think this is -1, Redundant. The discussion was about why a liberal president (well, vice-president in this case) might sign a bill knowing that it would not be ratified. That conservatives would have different views is taken for granted.
On the national interest, basically, you put your finger on it when you said "If you had a solid foundation backing up the current global warming claims, I'd agree with you." I don't think we are a million miles apart then. I agree there are big uncertainties, it's just that I think that we are close enough for a consensus to act. But I can understand why others don't think so, and hopefully it won't make too much difference either way in the end.
I retract my implication that you have a narrow view of the national interest. Basically, I read into your OP that you were the sort of person who would look at the jobs lost and industries damaged and think that was the end of the matter, that under no circumstances could these risks be taken. I see now that this is not fair, sorry.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Only a die-hard Star Trek junkie would propose space collectors as a "price-competitive" alternative to any ground based system. The obstacle isn't "eco-fascists" but physics and current (or any foreseeable) technology.
Bull.
This was studied in the '70s. It was a bargan even then. It's even more so now, with the price of surface-based plants higher and space transport lower.
NASA's study to the contrary made a fundamental error: They separately designed a plant, then a launch system to lift the pieces. With no feedback from the launch system effort the plant designer got a few percent extra efficiency by making the turbine rotor enormous. This resulted in a perceived need to build a GIANT booster to lift the turbine - a design cost to be ammortized over a small number of launches since it could lift the rest in a very few shots.
But foregoing that efficiency tweak (unnecessary, since you can just make your collector and radiator a few percent larger when "fuel" is free), means you can use more shots of smaller vehicles, at much smaller per-shot costs. Even with '70s tech it would have been a big win compared to a ground plant.
But NASA was heavily invested in the shuttle (to the point of "losing" the plans for the Saturn V). So there was little ineterest in anything that didn't need to carry those big wings and live crews on every trip.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Opps, PCB was a typo, as you say speed would have been a better choice (alcohol is legal). I was just trying to demonstrate there are different grades of drugs and different levels of govt. tolerance. I grew up in the 60's in Australia, most "grown ups" drank and smoked tabacco. I found out in the 70's that they also thought a jail way out in the desert was best place for dope smokers. I now have 2 serious junkies in my extended family that I have known since birth, that ongoing experience has confirmed my long held suspision that prohibition just compounds the the problem. I also found out along the way, that frequently prohibition IS THE problem. PS: Great stuff with the chemical names, the only one I can pronounce is "meth", I'd have no chance at spelling any of them!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Japanese firm's profit goes to -1$/product, and goes out of business.
American firm picks up the Japanese firm's market share, making $7/product over greater volume. Total economic output increases by $8 times the Japanese firm's former market size.
It is the elimination of the least-efficient producers (creative destruction) which is the beauty of the tax scheme. Subsidies are crippling.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
2. I don't have the figures to hand, not am I inclined to go trawling around looking for them - the CO2 example I gave was really just an example of the scale of things. Both the US and Russia stand out in the figures as producing significantly more CO2 than anywhere else.
3. The goods figure I quoted claims to include "industrial supplies and
materials, in capital goods, and in consumer goods". I'm not an economist so can't claim to be an expert but it sounds like this is a trade deficit (physical things [im|ex]ported) rather than the more wooly budget one. If anyone cares enough they can follow my original link and see for themselves...
But you frnakly know nothing about what you are saying.
If the arctic become warm enough to grow tropical plants then the water there, currently in the form of ice, will have to go somewhere else.
This would mean increased sea levels.
Since a big amount of economical activity in the world takes place in coastal towns the effect of sea levels raising as little as 2 or 3 meters could have devastating effects in our economies.
The problem is not changing weather and sea levels, the problem is that we may be accelarating the change beyond what is manageable.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
So lets throw some facts in there to complement the picture:
-Bush is not the US. The current US goverment believes (and here I use the verb in its most damning meaning) Kyoto will accomplish nothing. Well, it is like sombebody in the Titanic believing he is safe staying in the sinking ship because he does not trust the lifeboats. The lifeboats may not be enough, but if that is all what you have got. And actually Bush has not stated scientific reasoning. He has cited economic "reasons" (an US job is more valuable than you children breathing and eating polutants).
-The US did not jump into the treaty in a "knee jerk reaction" fashion. There is enough scientific evidence collected and debated for the best part of 40 years that convinced a reasonable goverment (Clinton) that something like Kyoto was the best shot at addressing the problem. If there ever was a knee jerk reaction was that of Mr Bush withdrawing the US from the treaty. A failed former oil baron, whose VP is a former successful oil baron, whitdrawing without even trying to negotiate alluding to "science" that by know is spoused only by a shrinking voviferous, normally paid for, minority (not even the author of "The scheptic enironmetalist disputes anymore the *fact* of global warming happening).
The Bush administration's handling of Kyoto my friend is the definition of a knee jerk reaction.
-You pretend the US public cares about green house emissions. You are the number 1 polutant in the world (far outwheing your population size and econimc output. You simply do not care about green house gasses). THe testament to this is the popularity of polutant vehicles in the US.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
it's a choice for her. A decision. Either I blow him or leave for a different job. The minute you allow yourself to become sole judge over the rightfulness of a persons decision, your are on your way to totaliterialism. And after all, it's not a businesses obligation to employ people on the condition those people set.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Well, I made it thru several pages of comments and all I saw was the anti-Bush and anti-American crowd spouting off and attacking the person. Just because you don't like the man doesn't mean you should blame him for all the Earth's ills or all those of our country. Is it even within the realm of possibility that there is something wrong with the treaty? I think so and that is the issue at hand. If everyone else has signed the treaty and you think it's so great then just move along without the US. Or maybe concentrate on fixing that part of the treaty that the US finds objectionable.
Make the emmission rates for all countries equal per square mile or kilometer. Or make the numbers based on population. That should be fair no matter if you are a 3rd world country or not. If they are just now getting industrialized, then they don't have old tech infrastructure to worry about or upgrade, right? Are there other countries that refuse to sign? Look at their objections. Usually you negotiate the rules and requirements of a treaty before you start making people sign it. Why didn't this all come up before? Maybe it did and the tree-huggers just ignored all objections.
Don't label me as a Right-wing wank or whatever from my comments. I'm an independent and I do believe in recycling and environmental issues. My point is that treaties like this should really go in small or medium steps. You don't really want something that reaches real far in the future unless it ramps up over time to reasonable levels.
How about a treaty between countries to share development costs of so called green technology? Share in the dev. of better solar power products, wind power and nuclear power. I should be able to build a house that is not much more expensive than a normal construction method house that includes all current energy saving tech. and have the extra tech pay for itself over a 5-10 year period. Why don't we have durable solar panels for the sun-facing side of the house and the roof that can stand up to any weather? How about a small, efficient windmill that will go on my roof and is no bigger than a TV antenna or a satellite dish? How about a cheap Geo-thermal heating and cooling solution for the house? I talked to a guy last week that said the one he put in his house cost $14,000. That's a bit steep. How about building a power center distrobution device for the home that you can easily wire in the solar, wind and other equipment, that handles the extra power coming in the home and putting the extra into a battery backup or back on the line for sale to the power company. That would be truely useful, especially if a gov't lab designed it and gave the design away, royalty free to several companies to build and sell at a small percent profit. They would sell a ton of those if the other tech. came about.
Just some thoughts.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
America is wonderful. We are number one for a reason. If America was so bad, why are so many people trying to become American?
I'm playing devil's advocate but I would like to know what the balance is.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Sure i could see it as being a choice for her. I also se it as a choice a person should never have to make when trying to earn a living. It is kind of like having to decide if you are willing to have novice shooters pratice shooting cigurettes out of you hands in order to get a raise. It is thier choice but it is a choice they shouldn't have to make.
I find ity funny that people actually don't have a problem with this. I don't think it is a moral issue either. women lib struggled to get this type of behavior outlawed and to guarentee a fair workplace. Granted more probably needs to be done but to go back and act like the sufferage of other women means nothign because it is a choice now.... well it just doen't seem right to me. maybe i'm wrong and we shoudl legalize prostitution and go back to those days. At lest i could get my ricks off before going home to the misses who let herself go after having the kid.
you don't get it. You mix concepts that might be similar on one level and treat them as equal on all levels. Womens' sufferage is clearly a different thing. Within a democracy it's the legal recognition that women are in fact just as human as men, ability to reason and ability to be responsible included. What you advertise is forbidding women from accepting payment for sex (or payment for sex+work). This is not empowering in the least. Yes, I realize women have struggled to 'achieve' this but its fallaciuos to assume that this lends the proposition any credibility whatsoever. I hope it is obvious that I am not opposed to equal rights for men and women, but I'm also for maximum rights for humans and those include freely enterting contracts of any sort they see fit, without first having to consult a 'higher' authority. I stand firmly convicted of the principle that liberty (=rights) should end only where the liberties of others are concerned. In this case the 'other' is the boss (owner of a company). The boss has just as much a right employ people on his conditions as you have the right to only be employed when your conditions are met.
To illustrate the point: many would think that they shouldn't 'have to' decide between starving and working and yet you don't advocate that companies should pay people to do nothing just because they feel they needn't have to make the decision, or do you?
As an ulitarian side note, in your example, your boss just wouldn't give the woman the choice, leaving her with the lower income and no futher discussion, eventhough she might really like the option of 'work+sex=more income'. Your world view leaves absolutly no room for this; - a good hint that your framwork of though might by glaringly inconsistent with reality.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
See were i am comming from? i think it is verry degrading for a woman to have to resort to having sex in order to get ahead in life. Also i think that if this is alowable then women would be hire because of thier looks instead of thier qualifications. Your corect in that I didn't leave the situation with the woman getting the raise anyways. Yes that was short sighted but i just threw that example together trying to make a point. You could change it to instead of getting the full raise she deserves to only getting half unless she blows the boss. There are al kinds of different scenarios that can be used here.
Actually this reminds me of a joke were mariage is legalized prostitution and divorce is phone sex. I guess you see a persons right as an elevation and i see it as a potential way to opress her. In truth, i guess it could go both ways. Wich direction does the damage though? And would that damage be enough to outweight the liberation?
"who do i gotta fuck to get a raise around here?" said Tracy when realizing she over drafted her checking acount agian when buying dinner for the kids.
Actually the prinson condition in guatonamo bay do meant the geneva convention standards. At least form what i have heard. The problems i have been seeing there is that they were denied basic constatutionaly protected rights and then reclassified but denied other rights on the same level the geneva convention gave them.
The WTO agreements don't give a clear court that is enforcable outside trade sanctions. This si totaly different form the ICC. The ICC could jail someone for thier own reason and do so against american law. It would even deny americans right guarentied by being a citizen of america wich is somethign you already stated was aplorable when done to P.O.W's at gitmo.
As far as the EU denieing mergers, well that is doing buisiness in thier land and they need to respect thier laws. This is different the the ICC wich is more like a world government. International law should always be created by a treaty proccess with the proper review process and any changes should go thru the same. Also No outside organization shouold have the right to jail a citizen of another country reguarless of thier crime if it isn't a crime in thier own country. It is just that plain and simple. I use the example of the U.S. going into another country to get a rise out of people. in reality it is exactly the same thing as the ICC would create. It is the wrong plan for a free country.
Japanese firm A gets $2 profit while emitting 1 CO2 unit per widget.
Japanese startup B has a new process which would get the same $2 profit while emitting 0.75 CO2 units per widget.
Situation under Kyoto: Firm A has an allocation of CO2 units. Startup B has no allocation, so has to buy them from firm A. Startup B cannot beat firm A's margins because it has to subsidize its competition, and the potential reductions in pollution are not realized.
Situation under a carbon tax: Firm A has to pay tax on 1 CO2 unit per widget; call it $1 per CO2 unit. Startup B only has to pay tax on 0.75 CO2 units per widget, yielding a $.25/widget cost advantage. Startup B can take over market share from inefficient firm A and reduce overall pollution; alternatively, firm A is forced to adopt the improvements rather than resting on its laurels.
You have shown no such thing. You have not even made a hand-waving argument for that assertion. Why should any country be given anything? The only way you can say that is if you abandon the concept of externalities.The problem with allocation of CO2 units is that the allocation itself entrenches the current scheme of doing things. Why should cement makers get a gift of CO2-emissions credits, when the makers of other building materials do not? If rammed earth makes a more ecologically-sound wall than concrete, why should the concrete user get an allocation of CO2 emissions to use or sell while the rammed-earth contractor gets none? Why shouldn't the price of aluminum (made with electricity which increases demand for gas and coal) go up relative to wood?
Allocations appeal to bureaucrats, who get power from their ability pick favorites. This influence is deeply corrupting, and it should be eschewed. A uniform tax requires no bureaucracy, chooses no a priori favorites, and lets the people in the economy find better solutions than any bureaucrat could ever come up with.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
We are both under the assumption that some firm is given co2-units. I havn't read the kyoto closely, so I don't know if thats really the case or if it's an auction to begin with. Anyway:
Your example:
Lets assume co2-units = 100 (owned by A).
For A: 1 co2-unit is worth $2.
For B: 1 co2-unit is worth £2,66 (2/0,75)
NO trade:
A produces 100 and has profit = 200.
B = 0 profit.
Trade: 1 co2-unit is worth 2 to a and 2,66 for B. They agree to split the "profit" and a sells 100 units for 2,33.
A produces 0. Profit $233.
B produces 100. Profit $33.
Overall profit is 266 which is $66 more than in the no trade scenario.
Also, the trade-scenario creates just as big incentives as yours when it comes to reducing the co2 with innovative technology. That's because both firms will profit more from doing so.
Try changing my example, but use gold as resource and rings as the product. The result will be the same. It will also work with cross-country trading, between industries and examples with many competitors.
It's not like that I'm saying that a co2-tax won't work, I'm saying that the overall created value is lower.
You have a point when it comes to the initial distribution of the co2-units, but hey: You can't give every industry excately the same industri-terms anyway. It's not like that now, it won't be in the future. The most important is to negotiate with all parts, and secure an agreement that everybody can accept. That would be a good start for kyoto.
Perhaps the most fair way would be:
1. Countries agree on some distribution of co2-units.
2. Authorities in each country auction away the co2-units granted at 1.
If we choose tax as the tool: How are you going to tax all producers in all countries just the same? That can't be fair, because it's going to for example bankrupt all the cement-producers in bangladesh. That's not politically acceptable either.
PS: What I meant about more pollution is this:
Since not competitors = no market share takeover. And since profit > cost then probably production will be higher than 100 units. But that depends on the overall cost structure of firm, which is not defined (too complex).
Never said it was so, never said it wasn't so. I don't know. Neither do you.
That's another evasive, ridiculous argument, like "We didn't find WMDs in Iraq. That doesn't mean they're still not there."
True, global warming MIGHT be the result of a giant invisible llama in space breathing on our planet, so in lieu of him turning off his invisibility cloak, let's just disregard the oodles of other scientific evidence and bury our heads in the sand. Good thinking moron.
If B can make more value out of a unit of CO2 than A, there is no reason for A to be involved in any way, let alone be paid for getting the hell out of there. Consider CO2 emissions as a scarce good. Each unit is worth some price to someone. If the price is set at N, the users to whom it is worth N or more will buy it and the rest will go empty-handed. The cost of their products will reflect the CO2 contribution, and affect people's buying decisions to make them more ecologically sound. None of this can happen if credits are handed out on the basis of what companies used to emit.
If that's true, you've done a very poor job of explaining it. Based on what I've seen so far I cannot agree; your examples still involve payments to entities for no reason other than they exist, which is the definition of rent. Creating opportunities for rents will create rent-seeking behavior as opposed to creative behavior, which is bad. Tax level set by international treaty, as I said. It's as fair as trade in any good that travels internationally. It will only bankrupt the cement producers in Bangladesh if they are much less efficient than their counterparts in Korea (CO2 output from Bengali > CO2 output of Korean + transport), and if they are it is BETTER for the world that they stop making cement, is it not?I do not understand your final example. I get the feeling that English is not your first language, so maybe we just won't be able to understand each other unless we write things as very simple mathematical statements.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Heavy metals do not have a great propensity to get airborn iirc. How the fuck are you going to blame heavy metal contamination in Greenland on the US? Did we cropdust your country side with lead paint sometime in the past 50 years? Maybe the cancer in your family is hereditary. Don't go and assume that it is the environment when it is most likely not the case. It is not America's fault everytime someone in a foreign land gets cancer...
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
You want to argue over semantics and say it's not pollution, fine, keep your head in the sand. What DO you propose to call it?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer