Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Continues Opposition to Kyoto Environmental Treaty
fenris_23 writes "The AP is reporting
that President Bush has reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Treaty despite President Putin's acceptance of the treaty and recent scientific evidence directly linking greenhouse emissions to arctic warming. 'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality."
in the dike-building industry based on sea-level change, for instance......
'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
If that's the case, why does the President support off-shoring American jobs? Sounds like he's speak out of both ends of his a$$ to me.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
"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!
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
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.
India and China aren't currently producing the same amount of greenhouse gasses that USA and EU are currently producing. It's like comparing apples to oranges. India could never meet the USA's output due to its size; China isn't developed enough yet to produce, and with the steps that are being taken by China, they may never become as great a greenhouse gas producer as the US.
What the fuck with all this fairness shit? Live ain't fair, neither are greenhouse gases. Let's get on the stick about it and work out differences *later*!
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
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.
shhh...stop thinking or they'll catch you!
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
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?
"India and China aren't currently producing the same amount of greenhouse gasses that USA and EU are currently producing."
Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol. If we want this thing to get signed, the US has to be on its side, period.
If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it.
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.
China ratified it, and will become an annex 1 country (bound by its terms) within the next decade - probably sooner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Please check where most of the worlds factories are now being build and understand that giving the countries a pass is stupid and will result in the treaty not working.
You should also check the current cancer rates and water pollution rates in china. It is much worse than any place in the USA has been in 20+ years.
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.
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.
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)
Then it will become the American Venice. And everyone will go there to catch gondola rides, then go back to Europe to go back to work and run the world.
China has ratified it, and *will* be held to the same standards (Annex 1 country) within the decade - probably sooner.
India has also ratified it, but is not yet an annex 1 country. As more countries join in, more countries will commit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Nope. The sole purpose of Kyoto is to attempt to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. These gasses are are likely to cause the type of severe environmental degradation which will cause real problems for your children and my children.
The problem is where to set the 'proper per-capita' output for carbon dioxide. As you may know, the U.S produces by far the most CO2 per citizen.
Some background from the UK environmental agency may help illustrate some of the curbs that Europe put in place, at the same time that the U.S kept belching the stuff out. It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out how much C02 China and India put out per capita.
"By 1992, the world's governments had signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the treaty, industrialised nations aspired to stabilising their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.
Most failed. By 2000, US emissions were 13 percent higher, though the European Union had made a small reduction, mainly through cuts in Britain and Germany.
In 1997, in a bid to strengthen their commitments, most nations signed the Kyoto Protocol. This time industrialised nations agreed to an average cut in emissions of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But, individual targets ranged from an 8 percent cut in the EU, a 7 percent reduction in the US and an 8 percent increase allowed in Australia.
After the deal was signed, the EU agreed to reallocate its entitlements so countries like Ireland and Spain could increase their emissions, while Britain and Germany compensated by making higher cuts. The UK has promised to reduce emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012."
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
Much as I feel for the Chinese and their local pollution problem, the U.S is exporting its current pollution problem across the planet.
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.
Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol. If we want this thing to get signed, the US has to be on its side, period. If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it. Er, they both ratified it a couple of years ago, as have 124 other countries. For some reason the USA continues to believe that it doesn't have to be responsible for picking up the mess it's making, unlike most of the world who're quite happy to deal with what they produce...
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
China isn't developed enough to produce? Yeah, that's why they've got a huge smog cloud that can be seen from space...
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.
No, the only three ways Bush could lose his job are to be impeached and convicted, for him to resign, or for him to be bodily unable to do the job, like if he had been more hurt when he fell of that Segway, among other injuries.
Normally I'd include "mentally unable", but for some reason that hasn't stopped this particular president.
External forces like treaties and trade don't usually directly affect the President to the level that would be needed to call for his impeachment. Bush would have to have a stance so heinous that most other nations would completely cease trading with us in order to really cause enough trouble motivate the people to call for his removal. The problem with this is that our economy has been very important to other countries internationally. This can be seen easily back to 1929 when our economy's tanking took Europe, and a large portion of the rest of the world, straight to the crapper. The Middle East, for example, can't afford to cut off oil sales to the U.S. any more than we can afford to immediately cut them off as a supplier, we consume so much that they would be in as much trouble as we would.
I'm getting tired of how the Government constantly makes short-term changes to deal with long-term problems, somewhat blocking the problem until it rears its' head again. We could set the example for what a country can do for the world, but we don't.
I guess that I'm still just a little peeved by the election results.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
Sorry, not quite.
First and foremost, it will reduce our dependence on oil - a huge win for America, considering that 12 presidents havent managed to do so.
Second, it puts the biggest producers first, and the "little guys" who will be hit the hardest financially a close second - the little guys still get moved up to Annex 1 in time, resulting in everyone having the same rules.
Third, as you said, it gives us an easy transition method - we can buy credits from other countries, allowing us to reduce the impact of transition, and ALSO increasing the speed of those smaller countries reaching annex I status.
All in all, its a team-work oriented approach to getting everyone on the same rules, as fast as posisble, while still being reasonable.
All in all, very good for America - less reliance on oil, less pollution, less health problems, new jobs (green technologies), and a better standing in the international community.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
About 10 years ago, China was the 5th largest consumer of oil. Today they are #2. China is burting at the seams with economic growth and they're pollution control standards are weaker than they are in both the US and the EU. That is but one of the many reasons that many US companies are moving factories over there.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
[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!
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.
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!
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?
>India could never meet the USA's output due to its size
India has a population of 1065 million. The USA has a population of 293 million.
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...
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
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.
And what stops the Chinese CO2 from crossing the planet? Do they have some sort of CO2 firewall at their borders or is the Great Wall really an ancient alien artifact that turns CO2 into grape jelly?
>We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately
Not true at all - it gives us over a decade to reach our goal, and gives us the ability to buy credits to ease the transition. Thats called "reasonable compromise", not "a gun to your head".
>The best way to cut oil consumption is through market forces
And thats why it has worked so well for the last 3 decades? Oh wait, right - our use has only continually increased that entire period, never once slowing due to "market forces".
>A few years from now there will be hybrids all over the road.
Multiple manufacturers just halted production of hybrid vehicles this year. Why? Low profit, high cost. Market forces hard at work against your theory.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
That is a terrible excuse for keeping America out of a treaty it negotiated. Besides, America is a developed country, while India and China are still growing substantially. Even though I dislike the pollution produced by China and India, you have to give a developing country a little more leeway, just as the US certainly polluted plenty during its industrial era.
However, we are largely based on a service economy now, and the idea that a developed and wealthy country can't reduce its own filth is absurd. We have the resources, if not willpower to accomplish this.
One could even say that this would save us money by sparing the next generation of asthma and other illnesses that are clearly induced from high pollutant levels. Too bad that it'll never happen under the current business-at-any-cost administration.
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
this is the typical arguement pro outsourcers make. It's the sister arguement to the pro work-visa crowd (i.e., Americans don't want these jobs, lets give 'em to foreigners). It's bullshit either way. The work still needs to be done, no matter whose doing it. If company A goes out of business, that doesn't mean what company A was doing for society is no longer necessary. So along comes company B. Same for the work visa arguement: These jobs need to be done, and you can _always_ find an American willing to do it, for the right price. It's just that the rich fucks of the world don't want to pay that price. They want to shift societies efforts to grant them their every little desire.
Make no mistake, 1% of our population makes all the food we need and a small percent more is needed to make our housing. Everything else is just gravy. There's plenty of wealth to go around, and it's not even that rich bastards want it all to themselves. It's more complex than that. It's about power. It's about playing the rest of the poor dumb saps off each other so the Bushs and the Haliburtons of the world can continue to trick the people at large into giving them everything they want. They're the new monarchy, they just don't rely on God or Tradition as excuses any more. Now it's property rights and freedom.
Outsoucing is all about playing one group off the other to keep the masses in check. And I've said it before and I'll say it again: This isn't a consipracy, it's just good business.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Read the full article at http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040319014625.tbceu
There is no quick and easy technological fix. Time for the US, and the world, to take responsibility. The Kyoto-agreement is just the start, MUCH more is required for CO2 levels to stabilize.
And the top polluter in the world doesn't even want to take that first, symbolic step...
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol.
China and India?
If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it.
What the hell are you talking about?
India has ratified Kyoto.
China has ratified Kyoto
Are you going to say now that you think the US should too? Or was all that talk about India and China a smokescreen?
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.
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.
For the same reason you should vote if you strongly support a third-party candidate.
I am trolling
Your right the treaty doesn't assume everyone is equal, because (oddly enough) they arn't all the same! Some nations - such as those in the EU and in North America - can afford to make greater sacrificies as they are significantly more developed.
I am quite happy to give nations like India greater allowances for some time, to allow them to build their economy and industry up to a greater level. I'm not surprised to hear Americans say they are unwilling to do that though (even though as an EU member citizen I'm happy to make greater sacrifices because I know we can afford it, and I think the vast majority of EU members think the same way).
The rest of the world has a very low opinion of the US now (not because of GWB, but because you were so collectively retarded as to re-elect him, not because he's Republican, just because he's the wost president the US has ever had). You guys can do what you like now, other people have ceased to care what Americans think or do. The sad truth is America no longer has any real friends in the international community.
Note I say that as someone who has been a big fan of the US for along time and is both pro-globalisation, and was in favour of the invasion of Iraq (because it meant disposing Saddam). I'm not a typical 'anti-American/anti-capitalist' left wing loonie. I just think the US has simply burned too many bridges now, the re-election of GWB was seen mind bogglingly stupid (especially given that in the end he was found to have lost the popular vote by 900,000 votes in the first election). The rest of the world looked on last week and thought "WTF?".
I've been to North America many times, as far west as San Fransico, as far east as New York, as far south as Cape Kennedy and as far north as Canada. I will not being going back though. The requirements to be finger printed and iris scanned are the most over the top in the western world. Law enforcement is comparibly officious and oppresive and the people are highly insulated with very limited knowledge of the world in which they live. I think Americans are lovely people, just staggeringly poorly informed.
This is not intended as a flame or troll, it's very tragic, but really I honestly don't think people care if you sign up or not anymore, because as a nation you've made it quite clear you don't give a damn about 'the free world' (or those who are not free), just yourselves.
It's also tragic that in such a close election you never the less have a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican Supreme Court, along with the divisive final term Republican president (politically empowered to do what ever the hell he likes, even though the result was so close). The system is fubard and Americans don't seem to even notice or admit it to themselves, let alone care. *sigh*.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
This so reminds me of the fuzz about the introduction of catalytic converters in Germany. "It will be way more expensive. It will cost jobs!", was the car industry's mantra.
And what happened? Instead of killing jobs, jobs were actually created. Someone had to design and build those converters.
Same goes with all other eco stuff, e.g. recycling instead of just dumping. Created plenty of new jobs instead of killing others.
Of course, those jobs are (at first) not within the big industries. Yes, those need to spend money to modify their "cost/win optimized" fabrication processes. Unfortunately, those are also the ones with deep pockets to buy politicians and laws.
If you're living in the US think about the following: why is pure drinking water more expensive than gasoline? And no, I'm not talking about that chlorified crap which runs out of your kitchen faucet and needs to be filtered to be useful for anything but cleaning.
Meanwhile, we have 39.5 million people living in poverty (same url). Since it is "easy" to get over $200,000 with two wage earners, why do we have so many people in poverty? Can't they accomplish this "easy" task?"some workers"? Who gets to decide who doesn't have to pay into Social Security? What is the criteria?
And who is going to pay MORE Social Security tax to make up for the lost revenue?Who needs "greater incentive to work"? Practically everyone I know works 40+ hours a week with the current incentives of food, shelter and clothing.
Now I may not have a Nobel prize, but I can understand the numbers.
"What the fuck with all this fairness shit? Live ain't fair, neither are greenhouse gases. Let's get on the stick about it and work out differences *later*!"
So WTF are you complaining about. You're right, life isn't fair. So the president has taken your attitude and acted in what he sees as the best interest of his country, the economy and the environment of that country.
So what if you don't see it as fair. He's doing his job and will work out the differences *later*!
.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Abolish slavery? But the slave drivers would just move somewhere else and take our jobs!
No, Bushs position is total BS and is yet another reason why pretty much everybody in Europe loathes him and can't believe middle America was dumb enough to vote for him.
Everyone: "Bush, we need you to help us save the world!"
Bush: "That would cost at least one American job, I'd rather we all die in massive floods and freak weather events instead"
Europe is hardly a saint when it comes to pollution and environmental policies but at least it's not heading full steam in the wrong direction.
In England we've been hearing for the past week about how Bush makes "moral stands" and "does what is right not popular". So even if the bad guys move abroad, wouldn't that be morally preferable to keeping them here?
Me, bitter? Why yes. I think I am.
That's the american way of life: watch your belly and let others die. Following Mr. Bush's politics, no treaty against child pornography, prostitution or drug dealing should be signed: after all, those things create jobs.
It just feels like a very lame excuse to avoid responsibilities to me. Actually, I don't see how Kyoto kills jobs. I always thought opening a lab to search for new solutions actually created jobs.
Anyone actually think this is serious?
Qui ne va pas à la chasse n'a pas de gibier
PHP Queb
Unfortunately, the radical greens have shot down the only really viable means for radically reducing CO2 output, nuclear power. It seems odd to see them whine on one hand about too much CO2, and then whine on the other hand that people would *gasp* actually consider using a CO2 free source of electricity.
If you want to reduce CO2, ban coal. Simple as that. Coal is responsible for more than half of our CO2 (correct me if my numbers are wrong), and banning it would do more than anything else. Just get rid of coal and leave people with the choice of either paying ludicrous prices for gas power, or using nuclear. The NIMBYism would end real quick as soon as people couldn't choose to just pollute the whole world evenly and cheaply with coal burning.
Nothing else would matter much other than that. Natural Gas and Oil produce far less CO2 per unit of energy than coal, and they'll run out anyway within a couple of decades, so it's a really bounded problem. Coal however has sufficient supply, and produces so much CO2 per unit of energy, that it's the only one that could truly decimate the planet. It's also responsible for all the fish you eat being loaded with mercury and lead, and it releases more radioactive gunk into the atmosphere than all the world's nuclear powerplants (including cherenoble) ever did.
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.
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)
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
" One thing that hasn't been pointed out much is that it will cost Russia virtually nothing to enforce Kyoto.
Basically, the treaty stipulates that pollution levels cannot rise above their level about fifteen years ago.
Fifteen years ago, Russia was still Soviet and had a lot more heavy industry. They were a massive polluter. These days, they don't have as much industry anyway, so they won't have to institute controls to meet targets."
So basically.. Russia is still a mess right now, even worse than Soviet days. They have no money and need to concetrate on getting their country going. Fair enough. Once they manage to do this to the point they match where they were 15 years ago and get some money they then need to worry about being a good citizen.
This sounds fair to me since. I can't see any other way to get a poor country to come on board with something like this.
If the US was on board and got themselves compliant NOW then in perhaps 10-15years when Russia needed to worry about changing things for the environment the US would have a huge advantage because they would already be finished. All US industry would could go ahead opperating as normal while Russia is now spending money upgrading. And because the US was first it would likely have patents on all the cool technology that Russia/China/India needed to use. More money for the US! And the US would have industries of environmental improvement companies finishing their work in the US looking for new markets to sell their services to.
It is amazing to me how bad things are in the US right now that many citizens can't look more than a couple years into the future. What about sacraficing a little to make things a lot better for your own children and grandchildren?
True, it will reduce our dependence on oil -- by holding a gun to our heads and saying "GET OFF THE OIL!!!" We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately. What do you think will happen if we cut our oil use by 20%?? Businesses WILL shut down, we'll have to stop oil usage somewhere.
You realise, though, that there is some timeline involved, don't you? It doesn't have to happen immediately after the ratification of the protocol. Also, other countries have actually agreed to reduce their CO2 pollution, and partly already reduced their emission. I'm not aware of any bad consequences because of that.
Apart from that, according to Wikipedia, the US emits 20.1 metric tons of CO2 per year and capita, the EU 8.5, China 2.3. Now, China is not fair to compare to, since the economy and standard of living are still quite below the so called first world, but I have a hard time understanding why the US needs to emit 2.5 as much per citizen compared to the EU. One should think that the "starting position" in the US to reduce CO2 emission should be better than in the EU.
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
No you are wrong. the Bush stance on this is very clear and dead on.
He has never EVER cared for the american worker, he cares about the american investor. and having tighter pollution regs will increase operation costs and lower stock values and make lots of investors less money.
I.E. pollution regulations are very bad for the wealthy. they will have to make 1-2% less in profits each year they have to comply with them, thus pay out less dividends and have overall lower stock growths.
THIS is what worries Bush. It will significantly affect the filthy rich and their abilities to get even richer easily.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If you think slashdot is "radical left" you need to spend some quality time in Cambridge or Berkeley. I'd say ranging through moderate left, substantially libertarian, and occasionally (IP and corporate issues) touching on anarchist. Multilateral, in this case, I'll grant you; global warming is obviously a global problem, and addressing it will require cooperation among nations.
(as evidenced by the anti-Bush rhetoric and pro-Kerry numbers in the polls recently)
Sucks to be in the minority, doesn't it? Life isn't fair! Nobody's making you stay here; you can avoid political threads or articles, or just leave /. entirely and hang out at freerepublic. On the other hand, it's substantially more difficult for me to avoid the impact of laws and policies I find abhorrent. It's all but impossible for me, or anyone else, to avoid the impact of global warming, without the imposition of constraints on CO2 emissions. Somehow, I'm feeling less than sympathetic for your situation.
isn't going to let you live it down though.
If you take any position here you can expect a rebuttal from someone. That's kinda the point.
I'm burning karma right now, but who gives a shit
If that's a ploy to avoid being modded down for a reply that isn't relevant to the topic, I don't think it's going to work.
as if caring what this crew thought is somehow important.
which you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't waste your time replying.
When the US won't defend your ass
If by "your" you mean other countries, it seems to me, based on conversations with many people around the world, quite a few see our "protection" as being at best misguided, and at worst in the finest tradition of the Mafia. I'm all for our allies picking up more of the tab for their own protection if they find it necessary.
If by "your" you mean those of us in the US who disagree with you, I'm quite capable of defending myself (nice thing about being a left-libertarian is you can support all the amendments). But when did agreement with a particular side become a litmus test for patriotism, anyway? I'm pretty convinced you're misguided about environmental policy, but I don't think the US should sell you down the river because of it.
Look, this may be difficult to believe, but most of us are in favor of Kyoto and other measures to address global warming because we believe it is in our long-term best interest, not because we want to hand the keys to the country over to the UN or foreign nations. We're racking up environmental debt. Sooner or later we're going to have to pay up, and there won't be a mommy and daddy to bail us out.
*sniffle* God bless America.
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.
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).
.. 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.
Now, lets see that again. If Kyoto will be accepted there will be a GLOBAL framework. Good or bad is another matter. The important part is global.
People may be bitching about China, India and Russia, but if all the factories GM, Ford, GE and so on are building there will be completed China will definitely hit its pollution limits before the end of this decade and they know it. Even so, they have signed it. I have my own hypothesis on why - to twist the hands of the same GE, GM, Ford, VW, etc to move there modern technology, not to become the scrapyard of the world. There are many things you can say about Chinese "communists" (quotes intended), but one thing you can't say is that they are stupid.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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...
But treaties against prostitution (as opposed to slavery) and drug dealing are pointless. Never in the history of mankind have we been able to effectively curtail either. We can shift the control (and profits) into the hands of mobsters, dictators, and terrorists, or we can learn to live with behaviour among consenting adults that some people consider immoral and address them from a medical and sociological perspective. Your choice, but as you're thinking about your decision, pay attention to who's raking in the profits from those poppy fields.
Better than having less children: wait until you are 35+ years old to have kids. Spreading the generations out does just as much as having less kids. That and the fact that if you wait to have kids your are likely to want less of them anyhow :)
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
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
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
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, ... ;)
Please don't over generalize. I care, my friends care, and my family cares. We are all pissed as hell that W is going to be around for another 4 years as the leader of our country.
As I see it, this is a very dark time for the US. Our leadership rejects science when the results don't agree with their policies, they promote religion as the answer to moral and ethical questions (bad idea), and their skill in diplomacy is about what I would expect to see from a bully on a fifth grade playground.
Remember, although a record number of people voted to elect W, a record number of people also voted against him. Those people are now screaming for help. Now more than ever we need help from our friends and allies abroad to help control this country from going off the deep end.
Just because a slight majority elected W don't abandon the rest of us.
All your attention are belong to my old internet meme.
So wait, Kyoto doesn't go far enough. Therefore we shouldn't sign it. I mean, its a start, right?
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
I don't think I would care much. I came from Taiwan, which currently have 4 operating nuclear plants on a tiny island.
Nuclear plants in modern day are relatively safe. The only catastrophic disaster so far is Chenoboyle, which is a result from stupid engineering (the safety system controls the reactor, which boils the water, which drives the turbine, which power the safety system... anyone see a problem here?).
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like that rather than what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves?
Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.
I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.
If you'll read that Yahoo story you'll find that's exactly why Russia decided to sign. They are looking out for their own immediate interests and don't give a wet shit about what it does to the US or anyone else. That's as it should be.
.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
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?
Unfortunately it's difficult to see how you can change an agenda dominated by right-wing Christian fundamentalists: you cannot argue with these people, they are quite happy to choose their president based on only one issue (abortion) because the Church tells them to do so. Hate to say it, but they are apparently as impossible to reason with as Islamic terrorists.
The situation with America is very tricky indeed: the country appears to be deeply divided politically and worse, that division is split cleanly between geographic regions with the coastal city (more educated) areas blue and the middle states voting red.
Deep political divisions along geographical lines is historically a recipe for civil war. I think it's very unlikely to happen, but there's no denying the lessons of history. May we all hope that it is not so.
Yeah, that's why Denmark has committed itself to cut CO2-emissions to 18% below the 1990 level, which was only half the US emission level per capita. It's a really subtle ploy, and I haven't figured out how it will do its dirty deed and ruin US economy, but I'm sure I'll work it out soon.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The target is specifically fossil fuels. Biofuels (which includes food) merely recycle existing carbon and do not contribute to the problem.
There are some issues of how to account, but that's part of what the existing treaty does, and what any potential agreement the US might join would also have to do.
mt
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
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."
... 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
My point exactly. We have to start someplace; hemming and hawing over shitty details about who's treated more fairly and who has to bear the burden of the problem are simply holding up the process.
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.
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.
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.
The Bush administrations use of the word moral values is nothing more than a code word for anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, abstinance only sex education, and anti-embrionic stem cell research. It has nothing to do with any kind of substantive debate on real moral and ethical questions. (Such as what kind of environmental responsibility do we have and how does that relate to the stability and sustainability of the economy? Or maybe when is the use of force justified to alter the policies or behavior of soverign states? Nahhhh, lets not talk about that. Shoot first ask questions later.)
So your comment is entirely correct about the Bush administration being hypocritical. No suprises there. Move along, move along.
All your attention are belong to my old internet meme.
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
Oh, are you talking about China, the country that reduced its CO2 output by 17% since 1997? The country that produces a tenth of the amount of pollution per capita compared to the US? We have more modern tech and capital to throw at this problem, surely it we won't lose if we competed under this protocol.
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.
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
Oh no, 20% of the world's population is creating 2% of the world's total CO2 emmisions with coal! The horror! Actually, China has been reducing CO2 emissions from coal a great deal, that's where they're working hard on.
I live in Illinois and I know for a fact that about 80% of my electricity comes from coal power. EPA requires power companies to report these facts. So we can't be like China is coal, coal bad, we're not China, we good. My city doesn't even have a single recycling program, and trash is not separated.
While it might be true that the US is one of the most efficient, i.e. lowest pollution per GDP, US is by far not the smallest offender, esp. when you look at pollution per capita, they are ten times worse off than China.
Why should we expect China to be subject to the same levels of pollution restriction that the US didn't have to back when US GDP levels were the same as China's? Cities don't go from no electricity to efficient nuclear power -- there are gonna be growing pains, where there may be undesireable levels of pollution, because they don't have the capital or the advanced technology that the US has. If US is so confident about its ability to be efficient, Bush should go ahead and sign the protocol already.
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.
Nuclear design and theory has come a long way since the 50s. I don't believe that nuke plants and environmental responsibility are mutually exclusive. I am not in the least for cutting down all the forests and befouling our water and air. That said, fuck hippies.
It's clear that oil isn't "running out" anytime soon but it will only get more expensive. The majority of the US coal supply is high sulfer bituminous coal and that can only be made to burn so cleanly. Products from it can largely substitute for oil but that isn't cheap either. Bring on the pebble bed and sodium reactors. Oh, and in case it was missed the first time....fuck hippies.
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
You're entitled to think what you like. Being right is a different matter entirely.
In response to your points:
1. The US population is a fraction under 300 million people (source: CIA World Factbook). The world population is around 6.3 billion people (source: CIA World Factbook). The US population is therefore around 3% of the world population which, in my book at least, makes it a relatively small fraction - consider that India and China between them account for 2.3 billion people - over a third of the worlds population!
2. You are right, it is not only the US. If you look at the figures for CO2 emissions, you will find that the US accounts for around 36% of all emissions (source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) - far higher than their 3% of the population would attest to. In fact, it is double what the next largest polluting nation (Russia) emits. You will find that the figures for other pollutants are similar.
3. The US currently has a huge budget deficit. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the deficit for goods (i.e. tangible things rather than services) was:$150.8 billion (source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis). Contrary to your comment, this would suggest that the US imports far more than it exports.
Factoids:
Not a single senator 99-0 signed up for Kyoto as it stands. Bush and Kerry both have said they would not sign it as it stood, both said they would sign it if changes were made.
The US is decreasing it's per-capita emissions at a faster rate than Canada has since signing the treaty.
So if the entire government refused to move forward with it and the US is reducing it faster than nations who signed up for it... what good would it be?
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.
No need, the US is doing a good enough job as it is. Who needs climate regulating ice when you have jobs?
Oh, and here's an interesting piece of information, people do live near the North pole, or rather, in the arctic circle.You may know them as Inuits, or Eskimos, and they're very pissed off with the industrialised world's disregard towards their very existence.
This article describes some of the hardships currently being indured by these people, and the Bush administration "acknowledging for the first time that climate change is real and unavoidable". Here's another story from Boing Boing.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
Intriguingly, China actually has a better record in the last five years on following their treaties than the US does.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
But since neither are Annex I countries, they have no targets to meet until 2012. Its like all those countries in Bush's "coalition" in Iraq, they signed up for the coalition without having to actually *do* anything, whether provide money or troops. China and India are effectively still bystanders.
But at least we'll have jobs until we fall down choking from fumes and heat.
China has one great advantage that makes it easier for them to accept Kyoto. Since they don't have the existing infrastructure for petrol (except around major cities), it's a lot more palateable for them to make the investment in alternative fuels -now-. We in the US, however, have billions (if not trillions) of dollars worth of infrastructure to maintain as we try to move to alternative fuels at the same time. Economically, the Chinese leaders have made a difficult but smart choice-- agree to Kyoto & put the money in to developing the infrastructure to support their economy in the future, rather than investing in dinosaur-blood tech that (we ALL hope) is going the way of the dinosaur.
Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
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.
Jesus...
Kyoto doesn't apply to developing nations like India and China.
Maybe you could start learning about the subject before you form an opinion?
All's true that is mistrusted
If greenhouse gas emissions are really causing global warming, the obvious solution is nuclear power. It has other massive environmental and health benefits to boot. Read why Ignorance About Nuclear Power is Killing Us (literally).
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Me and my wife are both university graduates. I work as a programmer (although currently self-employed) and my wife is a highschool teacher. We are in our thirties. We have a family. We should be really well off... but we are not. We are examples of the gradual elimination of the middle-class.
Meh.
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.
Of course India and China ratified it. It doesn't put any restrictions on them. The Kyoto accord only applies to developed countries, so enforcing it around the world drives industry into developing countries, such as China and India.
The Kyoto protocol is just bad. The U.S. ambassador who helped write the thing was Al Gore.
Direct away from face when opening.
He wants to have a monopoly on losing American jobs.
> 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.
You forgot conservation and efficiency.
evil is as evil does
...there are gonna be growing pains...
So why should the US pay for those growing pains? Many enviro nuts are big hypocrites. They, just like all the rest of us expect the lights to come on when they flick the switch on the wall, fill up their one of three or four cars per family with fuel and commute for 2 hours with one person in the car.
Besides, everybody is assuming that global warming is bad. The earth was once warm enough to grow tropical plants in the arctic and at the same time the oceans were lower. A warmer Earth is very different from today, but not necessarily bad. Where do you think all the carbon was originally, that living things converted into fossil fuels?
All theory is gray
>It might be bad business for America, but every year,
>every GOD DAMNED YEAR, a new member of my family is
>stricken with cancer because of American pollution that
>wanders north.
>Heavy metals are found everywhere in Greenland now,
>and there's no way of avoiding ingestion of it.
Canadian, are you? Rest assured you are getting your revenge from the Cominco smelter in Trail, BC that has been dumping lead waste into the Columbia River 5 miles north of the border, and has by now laid down a layer of said toxic sludge all the way down to Grand Coulee Dam.
And if you check the wind patterns, you will see much of that Greenland metal dust comes from Sudbury, Ontario.
You talk a good line, but Canada has no "holier than thou" buttons to push.
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?
No, it's not a start. I wish it were. Think it through. If the treaty puts first-world countries, which pollute less by any reasonable measure than developing countries, at even more of an economic disadvantage than they already are with respect to manufacturing and other high-energy-usage industries, then what exactly do you think is going to happen? Right: pollution in the first world goes down, but pollution in the third world goes up by at least as much, because even more (environmentally unrestricted) economic production will happen in China and the other countries which aren't restricted in the same way than would happen without the treaty. Hence, at least as much global pollution for the amount of economic output as we already have, if not more. In other words, at best no net win for the world, and quite possibly a net loss for the world, but a definite economic loss for the U.S. and other first world countries.
So the reason for not signing it is that it probably doesn't represent a net improvement but a net loss.
Because the nature of the problem is global and the economic interactions are similarly global, it doesn't make sense to enforce such a treaty except globally -- either all countries with any real industrial capacity or potential sign it, or none do. Otherwise the source of the pollution will just move around, rather than being quenched, and you won't end up with a net pollution decrease, but a net increase.
Now, all of this makes one big assumption: that it's more expensive per unit of production to produce less pollution. That isn't necessarily true, of course, but any method of production which is more economically efficient and which produces less pollution will be adopted anyway, no treaty required.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Of course, all this assumes that those countries which are subject to third-world limits in the treaty don't suddenly get subjected to first-world limits prior to taking on the industrial production burden described in the above message. It also depends on whether or not the first-world countries are already under the third-world limits, since if they're not then a first-world country signing the treaty will probably yield a net win even if the economic activity goes to a third-world country that has also signed it.
So whether or not it really ends up being a net win versus a net loss depends greatly on how the rules get applied and, of course, whether or not the signatories play by the rules of the treaty. It also depends on how the third-world countries are developing. If they skip coal and oil-powered plants and go directly for nuclear, then clearly their emissions per economic output unit will likely be much less than that of the U.S. despite their third-world status.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Frankly, at this point I've got no more sympathy for the US. We deserve everything that's coming to us. An inflamed sense of grievance, whether merited or not, is no reason to abandon basic common sense.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
...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
Kyoto is a sham. China's economy right now is only 1/2 that of the USA but is growing at 10% a year. By the end of the decade, China will probably surpass the US economy, but will still be considered a developing nation under Kyoto. So under Kyoto the USA could conceivably wind up paying billions of dollars in emissions credits to China, but China would actually be emitting more CO2. It's a bogus treaty.
The way to get rid of greenhouse gasses is to build many nuclear power plants, which the left opposses. To that end, the Bush Administration has opened up the NRC to license new reactor designs for a tentative construction around 20/20. If the USA retires all of its coal, natural gas, and oil electric plants, and replace them with nuclear plants, then we would effectively meet Kyoto targets.
This is my sig.
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.
Not really. Kyoto pretty much just shifts greenhouse gas production from the US and EU to China, Russia, and third world countries. (Not just by setting no limits or ridiculously lenient limits for these countries, but by simple supply-and-demand economics: decreasing demand in the US and EU for fossil fuels simply drops the price so it becomes by far the most economical option for new development elsewhere, while otherwise those places should be more likely in some ways to adopt other energy sources than places where existing infrastructure has to be scrapped or retooled). The net difference in greenhouse gases from the Kyoto protocol isn't anywhere near enough; it's like the people in the car speeding down the track agreeing to slow down 5mph when what they need to do is get out of the way of the oncoming train. Instead the US and EU need to use their reduction of greenhouse gases as a bargaining chip to get others to do likewise, and Kyoto just throws away that bargaining chip. But the trouble with the Bush and Clinton administrations is that instead of working hard and fast to get a better treaty they've let the whole thing slide.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like that rather than what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves?
:)
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves rather than their personal welfare?
Kyoto is in the best interests of the US, just not within the next 10 years. Besides sometimes what's in the best interest of a country isn't so easy to judge. For instance ratifying Kyoto would give a lot of people a warm fuzzy feeling, isn't that in the best interest of the country? What about the warm fuzzy feelings from other countries, isn't that beneficial?
I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.
You know I think I have a counter example to your point, governments! If everyone was only looking out for #1 then no one would be looking out for eachother and everyone would suffer, people figured this out a long time ago which is why we have governments. In fact it's so simple a concept that even governments have figured it out, which is why we have NATO, the UN, and other treaties. The fact is that sometimes ensuring your survival requires taking a short term hit for a long term gain, like Kyoto.
Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.
This analogy is far fetched enough that I haev to think you were trying to invoke a Godwin reference
I stole this Sig
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.
Consider where they'll be in the next 50 years, not where they are now. According the the CIA World Factbook, China's current electricity consumption is 1.3 trillion kWh, oil consumption is 4.57 million bbl/day, and natural gas consumption is a paltry 27.4 billion m^3. By comparison, the US is consuming 3.6 trillion kWh of electricity, 19.65 million bbl/day of oil, and a whopping 640.9 billion m^3 of natural gas (although I will guess that this figure is necessitated due to the majority of the US population living the northeast to upper midwestern parts of the country, thus increasing the need for gas heat in the winter, while China's population base is mainly coastal and temperate and therefore winter heat needs are much less).
The difference is the growth rate of the industrial sectors of the two countries. The US is just barely expanding at a 0.3% growth rate, while China is massively expanding at a 30.4% yearly clip. IOW, China's energy needs for just the industrial sector are doubling just over every 3 years. Now couple this growth in industry with the subsequent growth in quality of life, and you'll have a similar growth in energy demands for the residential sector as well, meaning that there will be a massively increasing need for energy in China over the next 10-20 years.
Now unless they plan to tap some huge clean power source in the very near future, the Chinese are going to have to start doing the same things that the US currently must do in order to feed the energy needs of the country, and probably moreso in their case. But given the Kyoto accords, they will not be held accountable for the ensuing black cloud that will result from this huge and necessary increase of energy production if the industrial machine they are creating is to continue to progress.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Think it is called the "Ronald Regan method of dealing with AIDS".
M0571y H@rml355.
If you have ever seen that "entire earth at night" image, compounded from several hundred night satellite photos I understand, you'd probably agree with my first impression: We look like fungal growth, clinging first and strongest to the damp edges of the earth but essentially still covering it.
To my mind, "intelligence" isn't a gift, it's a responsibility. Helping to maintain the balance is MUCH more important. More important than your mortgage rates, more important than your particular kids. WAY more important than the drivel that'll get replied to this msg.
Not a troll.
Ahh, now the truth comes out. This isn't about a better enviroment. This is about making america pay for it's success.
Thats why i write to the president and congress telling them not to endorse the treaty. Remeber in america even if the president does sign it, it doesn't mean anything untill the congress aproves of it.
From the start the Kyoto protocal was seen as a punish or steal from the americans and give to the rest of the world. Your post kind of echos that with a but if "take that" This treaty is just the wrong one.
Even if we do ignore all the people thats saying global warming isn't happening or that the cause is somethign other then what is popularly being claimed, we cannot support the kyoto treaty as it is writen. We can however create a fair plan of action that deals with it. Going back to president clinton, our leaders in america knew that kyoto protocal was bad news. It doesn't measn they are out to destroy the world, it means they aren't stupid. Our quality of air is better today then 30 years ago. This has been achived by inovation that lead to regulation not some other countries trying to punish america.
BTW, the capitolist way of using natural resorces and poluting is being used right now. To force another step in the process designed to funnel money into somone elses hads while the rest of the process remains the same is just absurd. People like you really make me think about what a bunch of ass munches the tree huggers must be. To think that it isn't ok to polute the air unless you pay someone else that isn't poluting. And you even hold that other person to a more open or less severe standard for the amount of polution. What a joke. This treaty isn't about making the world a better place. It is about taking money from one place and putting it in another. It is about making more successfule econemies less productive while rewarding the loosers.
Make a reasonable treaty and we will sign it. Keep this shit up and we will continue to laugh at the stupidity. America or americas leaders aren't against helping the enviroment. They are however against redistibuting the wealth of the nation because some poorly drafted treaty that is designed to work outside the best interest of america. If you get a chance read about all the exceptions the other countries that signed on get. Look at the countries that have only signed on because they needed to for some trade arangment. It isn't really all that popular as it is made out. Hell it doesn't even take effect until a certain amount of countries sign on so all that have signed already don't even know the effects of it.
I'll further point out that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo put (according to USGS estimates) nearly 30 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. By comparison, humanity injects 7.7 billion tons per year. Global climatic effects of the eruption were net reductions in global temperatures, although arguably these were the result of airborne ash and not anything to do with CO2. Still, the point is clear: the global temp depends on a lot of things other than CO2. I'll also point out this study paper concludes that a 1% fluctuation in solar output can be equal to all CO2 emissions worldwide -- manmade or otherwise! In the grand scheme of things, C02 is actually a relatively small player when it comes to global weather, at least as far as we understand it now.
NASA research indicates that if all countries implemented all facets of the Kyoto accords, global temps would be affected by about 0.7C by the year 2050 -- almost too small to measure! I can provide source links if you like, but if you google for it, you'll find it. I didn't even have to look hard.
The point of all this is simple: we don't know enough to make any decisions at this point, certianly not ones that have deleterious effects to large numbers of people (be they Americans, Ukranians, or Belgians, it doesn't matter -- nobody likes losing their job). The U.S. is not being selfish by refusing to sign the treaty, it is being sensible. Other countries signing it have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. Politically, it's great for them, and I doubt the environmental side of it comes into play very much. After all, some of the dirtiest, unhealthiest air on the planet can be found in India, China, and Russia. Do they care about the environment? I doubt it. Do they care about damaging the U.S. economically? Absolutely.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I am a hindu, and although I rarely let religion come into any of my discussions, one point you made up is somethign that my religion preaches, which I think is a very good common sense point.
Intelligence is not a gift, it is a responsibility. Those with greater intelligence also carry a greater burden. It is up to us to care for those with less intelligence animals and other humans alike.
Unfortunately this message keeps getting lost in our current "me me" society.
Have a nice day!
> find it funny that foreiners liked clinton and
> he didn't sign any of those treaties either
As others have pointed out, he was probably more diplomatic about it.
GWB's reasoning was slightly more polite than "STFU".
> Would you like it if america started just
> walking
> inot other countries and aresting thier citizens
> and bringing them to trial for laws not even
> passed in thier country?
Sounds like Guantanamo Bay to me.
Also, CIA and friends is deporting prisoners into 3rd-party countries where "other questioning methods" are allowed.
Additionally, several American citizens are held "incommunicado" in undisclosed location in the US.
So much for your constitution.
You are really diverting the discussion: the point of the ICC was to make sure, things like in Bosnia would never happen again - and if they happen again, the *leaders* could be properly prosecuted.
So, if you think about it, had the US signed the ICC-treaty, someone might have brought Donald Rumsfeld to the ICC over Abu Ghraib, not some poor underling like England or Graner !
The Bush-administration knew fully what they were doing, even back then.
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
"The good news is that now we'll all find out who is right. Are those who warn of the dire consequences of unilateralism, pre-emptive war, environmental destruction etc etc. just being whiny, or not?"
That's reasonable thinking, therefor not applicable to the situation. Take for instance Iraq. Right, Iraq.
The consequences of an invasion had been foretold many times before. By players from all colours and religions, so this is not some "Liberal whining".
We are there now, a region that's less stable, and less viable, more fundamentalist, and strangely with less liberty for its inhabitants. Yes, a puzzler, but suddenly women and girls who like to live are finding they will have to wear shrowds and hide everything.
Also, a region that introduces more weapons to the general population and its neighbours, most of US manufacture, but also lots of old stockpiles.
Also between here and twenty years a region that most likely will go through a very violent reshuffeling of its borders.
All in all, a risky business, the right spot for diplomacy, the wrong spot for war, especially pre-emtive, illegal war, especially when it also redraws former alliances and puts a divide in "the west".
Any mention of this by US citizens are suspect. They must be unpatriotic or not realistic.
Any mention of this by non US citizens are also suspect, and slightly vulgar. We must have no backbone, no gratitude, we must love Saddam (remember? the CIA's pet for many years) and worse, we must be French (remember? the first and for a long time only nation that helped the US to its independence and even gave it the fucking statue of liberty?)
And of course, very much underestimated by us non US citizens: there's not a thing Americans won't do in the name of God (like training murderers to put machine-guns through hospitals and pregnant women and calling it "Foreign Aid") TO SUPPORT A WAR-TIME PRESIDENT.
So to come back to your point: no, at least we won't find out who's right. Most people in the know already know, but nobody at the rudder now will ever acknowledge anything, and the general population will keep fighting for its right to be ignorant, god bless.
Everybody knows Kyoto is too little too late, slightly unfair and open to debate. That's not the point. The US is not open to debate, end of story. Every scientist on the subject also knows that human influence now puts the earth through something that could "possibly" have dire consequences. This is not really contested anymore, the fight goes on in the fringes and the political arena, but the last five years things have changed, most "unbelievers" have come around. That doesn't mean dick to a crowd that thinks it's not accountable. People will never find out, imo that's a very naive way of looking at things. We already know more than enough to draw some conclusions, and scientists will undoubtably keep score. But "the people"?
I think, therefore I am...I think.
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.
Back shortly - I'm sneaking off next door to get dinner from my neighbour's fridge.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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.
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.
what balance? Just show me one instance in earths history where there every existed something that can reasonably be called 'balanced'. Live and our ecosystem are in continual motion towards a balance and every so much missing it. Balance is static, it is death. Move to mercury if you would like to life on a 'balanced' world.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
>> Sounds like Guantanamo Bay to me.
> yes it does sound like it. with an exception of
> the prisoners at guantanamo were captured
> durring a war or war like situations were
That in itself is grotesque: they should be treated according to the Geneva convention.
Instead, state-departement has coined the "enemy combatant" terminus, to weasel the US out of granting them basic rights.
The sheer existance of these camps is - IMO - unforgiveable and has damaged the reputation of all Americans like nothing else (except for Abu Ghraib), just like the Nazi-concentration camps have damaged the reputation of all Germans upto today - and that was 60 years ago.
> The ICC could effectivly legislate laws into our
> own country by making somethign we do completly
> illegal
I've got a big surprise for you: it's already happening. The US does comply to forgeign-imposed legislation/descicions, through the WTO.
The European Union (the monopolies and mergers office) can (and has in the past) denied clearance to some US-based mergers when the EU is also involved.
A nationalistic rally is great and fun - while it lasts. But from our very own history I can tell you that from the moment it's over you will painfully realize that you can't eat nationalism...
cheers,
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin