Posted by
michael
on from the take-a-deep-breath dept.
geek42 writes "Looks like Russia has picked up where the U.S. failed: they've ratified Kyoto, and now it's going to be law (on Feb 16). The BBC has coverage. 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.'"
1,146 comments
Consequences?
by
October_30th
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions
Or what?
-- The owls are not what they seem
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Or what?
Or the skiing season will never be the same.
PS: The weather here sucks. It's been 15 degrees on average lately, which really sucks for playing outdoor hockey.
Based on UN response to immediate crises around the world (Sudan Rwanda Iraq) I sispect consequences will be studies into why the offender was not able to comply, how it might make him feel, how other nations feel about it, maybe a letter of reprimand and a 10 year extension. The UN is very sensitive when it comes to "the peoples". So why didn't the US sign? If you're not gonna trip, why fake taking the acid?
UN: Or we'll sanction you for the next 20 years and then you can kick your own @ss when we don't enforce it.
Re:Consequences?
by
salvorHardin
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Perhaps one day there will be significant consequences. For example - nations who fail their Kyoto obligations will find their exports subjected to higher taxation in the rest of the countries which have signed up to the son-of-kyoto.
Hmmm... ol maybe, Ashen, I'rr feed you to my shalks! HAHAHAHAH!
-- I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Considering how much of the UN the US pays for, I don't even think they write a letter for fear of antagonizing an already overtly hostile Republican congress.
So why didn't the US sign? If you're not gonna trip, why fake taking the acid?
It's more like if you're going to take the steroids, why volunteer to for the test.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They bear greater responsibility for the inevitable global warming.
Perhaps reparations will be owed 100 years down the line?
Re:Consequences?
by
RancidBeef
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The UN is going to be angrier than they already are at us. Kofi will be angrier than he already is for killing off his oil-for-food scam money. The UN will be angrier at the US even though the US pays for the lion's share of its operation.
Screw the UN.
Re:Consequences?
by
letxa2000
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The U.S. failed to ratify Kyoto? Do I see a little bias shining through?
Kyoto is a sham and the U.S. didn't fail to do anything. We succeeded at recognizing an unfair treaty that would not be in our interest to ratify. I salute the Senate that in 1998 (I believe) voted 98-0 to dump it like last week's garbage and also salute President Bush for sticking a dagger in its heart, twisting it, and making sure it was dead.
Or Kofi Annan and the good old boys at the UN will send inspectors for the next 12 years, demanding that we de-industrialize. When we refuse to do so they'll look the other way in exchange for a couple billion US greenbacks.
-- "The Borba"
Re:Consequences?
by
david.gilbert
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For example - nations who fail their Kyoto obligations will find their exports subjected to higher taxation in the rest of the countries which have signed up to the son-of-kyoto.
Why wait for your government to act for you? Why not avoid buying products from countries that prefer to disregard Kyoto - sort of like "freedom fries" in reverse.
Re:Consequences?
by
dreamchaser
·
· Score: 1, Informative
No, it is unfair because it's not a uniform standard for all signatory nations. Read it and read some analysis of it before you shoot your text off.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Age old response of what the UN says:
If you do not halt We shall be forced to ask you to halt a second time.
Re:Consequences?
by
pe1rxq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So basicly the big bully (US) is complaining that it is unfair that they get punished (for being a bully) while some of the other kids are being allowed to be a little bit more assertive (but not even near the behaviour of the bully)?
That would be like how the lottery money goes into the school fund, sure it does, after they cut the general fund contribution an equal amount. The fact is we're to dependent on foriegn oil import from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is to dependant on US Oil money and foriegn aid for anything real to happen.
Or they'll ask the U.S. to intervene military, occupy Washington, and overthrow the evil dictatorship of GWB.
Re:Consequences?
by
dreamchaser
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The US is complaining about it? I think not, we just aren't participating. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the vote against it was 98-0 in our Senate, so it wasn't even a partisan political matter.
Re:Consequences?
by
El+Cabri
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Well apparently it's not dead since it's about to start being applied. Yet another domain where the supposedly hegemonic US failed to twist the arm of other nations.
And then blue-rinse the whole stinking mess - hand it off the the UN, and blame them when they somehow fali to conjure a health democracy out of thin air. Worked ok with Haita and Somalia anyway.
Anyway, what's with all this talk of the UN as if it were an independant organisation? It does what the security council tells it to.
Re:Consequences?
by
salvorHardin
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why wait for your government to act for you? Why not avoid buying products from countries that prefer to disregard Kyoto..
Because such gestures are meaningless unless they have the weight of numbers behind them. If, for example.. I dislike Elbonia, because they're refusing to give up nukes/hunting whales/stealing our jobs/polluting lots/(possibly)funding terrorism/speaking with annoying accents/etc/et cetera.. and I decide I'm not going to buy anything they export, it probably means nothing to them. The same goes if 1,000 people do the same. If, however, Elbonian products were suddenly taxed 25% more than another foreign rival's products across a population of hundreds of millions, then their revenues are going to fall very short.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well apparently it's not dead since it's about to start being applied. Yet another domain where the supposedly hegemonic US failed to twist the arm of other nations.
It'll be applied to those countries stupid enough to ratify it. We didn't ratify it and we will not be subject to it. If other countries want to reduce their competitivity that's their business.
You might want to consider the relative rate of increase in emmissions since 1990 for the nations involved, along with an extrapolation of that rate to 2012. You'll find the US is doing very well in reducing greenhouse gasses. You might also consider how the US responded to the problem of freon and upper atmospheric ozone depletion. In this light the acid analogy is appropriate.
Or what, you ask? Well, France just might have a hissy and not invite you to suck up to them.:)
Law? What law binds non-signing coutries to an internantional treaty?
Re:Consequences?
by
commodoresloat
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
First, it's not dead, that's the whole point of this story. Second, what is unfair about the treaty? It's only "not in our interest" because we are the world's biggest polluter. When another country out-pollutes us, then it will not be in *their* interest to ratify it. It's also not in a theif's interest to have laws against stealing -- that doesn't make the laws "unfair."
It's amazing you can get +5 insightful for empty posturing about the treaty without even giving a reason to back it up.
So we get to blame the US when we all die horridly under a sunless sky.
Re:Consequences?
by
fitten
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well... if history serves, they can write 16 nasty/angry letters over 12 years and have the violator laugh at them because they can do nothing.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Isn't that fact widely known by everyone? Look here.
Re:Consequences?
by
Yokaze
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and steal bread." - Anatole France
-- "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I would just like to point out that in the U.S. 15 degrees F works real well for playing outdoor hockey. Since you didn't specify, I will assume you are referring to 15 degrees C.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Are these the same people who voted in a similar way about WMD's in Iraq?
I love how the sheep fall into line "Well there billy-bob-joe-gus, I recon sien as how an edumacated 90 odd amuricuns voted again' such a treaty, that the treaty mustn bin bad"
Had nothing to do with being a bad treaty, had a lot more to do with being shit assed affraid of having to force your biggest campaign contributors to stop poisoning the earth.
One day you will get it. And I hope I am there to sell you drinking water by the tanker full. Well, after letting half your country die from thirst and starvation first. That should concentrate the wealth, and justify the 7$ a cup I plan on charging to keep your sorry asses alive. Oh, I changed my mind, I'll make that 7 Euros, they spend better, hold their value better, and are more widely accepted these days. Better save your pennies!
How does making fun of the UN count as "Score:5, Informative"? The person didn't actually discuss the Kyoto Protocol. So, let me.
Consequences are under Article 18. Due to general agreement during the founding of the protocol, Article 18 merely a framework, for which specific consequences are to be established at the first COP/MOP meeting, held after the Kyoto Protocol is ratified (which it just was).
The protocol will not enter into force until 3/4 of the parties submit their notices of acceptance and ratification, and will only bind parties which ratify the amendment. I.e., not the US. However, US companies with overseas branches will be affected.
Japan, Australia, and Russia were insistant that consequences not be legally binding; the US used to be the party insisting the strongest that they be binding (how ironic...). However, COP/MOP was given the "perogative to decide on the legal form of the procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance."
Another interesting thing about the Kyoto Protocol is that it tracks your emissions like a national debt. I.e., if you miss your targets for one year, it cuts into your allotance for the next year. So, if a member blows off the protocol, their emissions rack up; if an environmentally friendly leader ever takes over, it offers all the more incentive to try and catch up to the rest of the world, even ignoring any Article 18 consequences that may be added in at a later date.
-- The *special* hell.
Re:Consequences?
by
letxa2000
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First, it's not dead, that's the whole point of this story.
It is dead as far as the United States is concerned.
Just because Kyoto is "taking effect" that doesn't mean that non-signers are bound by it. They are not. This is not like an amendment to the U.S. Constitution where a cetain % of support from the Congress and state governments forces the amendment on the entire country. Those that signed Kyoto will be bound by Kyoto. Those that didn't aren't bound by it.
The U.S. didn't ratify Kyoto. Other countries are free to go ahead if they want but at least it won't harm us.
Second, what is unfair about the treaty? It's only "not in our interest" because we are the world's biggest polluter.
No, it's unfair because it applies different terms to different countries. Some of the upcoming largest polluters (China, India, etc.) are exempt. Why in the world should the U.S. (or any other country) willingly give up competitivity to other countries?
I think Kyoto is a bad idea regardless but if the same rules applied to all countries I would at least be willing to consider it (as would the U.S. Senate). But as long as certain countries are given a "free pass" there is absolutely no way this treaty will ever be passed by the U.S. And it shouldn't.
Really? See, my country has a crap load of oil. We do a crap load of trade with the US. We could actually turn around and sell MORE oil at a higher price to CHINA. I think we will still get our money, although you may not get any oil. Enjoy riding that donkey to work in the dark. Oh, and I'll give 27.50 for that SUV in the driveway, that you can't buy fuel for.
The Kyoto Treaty is not dead, actually most countries will ratify it and follow it. Even if we don't succeed this will boost research on new energies.
The rest of the world doesn't need the US, especially now since its government is becoming more and more arrogant and stupid.
Keep your "save the economic growth" crap and continue printing dollars as fast as you can and burn fat oil from the middle east. Keep your coal power plants because they suck, poison you and look like 1800's technology.
This way your country will finally die. A lot of people around the world are waiting just for that.
Do you think the americans have the god given right to pollute the planet... Wake up, there is more at stake than short term profits.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
According to Kyoto, countries have a limited number of "carbon credits". A country can pollute so long as its pollution doesn't exceed what's allowed by its credits. (There are only so many credits in circulation around the globe, and there are actual private banks managing those, which makes carbon credits a new form of international currency.)
Exceeding your credit limit means you do not get more credits, and all further pollution is subject to a hefty fine. Economic sanctions will also likely be levied against an offending country.
Actually you forgot that first they will warn the offending country about the UN's desire to look into the possibility of writing a letter. Next, they will send a notice of intent to send a letter. Finally, if, and only if, diplomacy completely and catestrophically breaks down, will the letter be sent. In extreme cases it will be followed up by a "Hrumpf" from Kofi Anan.
At the end of the day French politicians and UN beuraucrats will get some sweet sweet graft out of the deal, and really, isn't that what diplomacy is all about?
-- common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Funny how you can talk out your mouth and your butt at the same time.
The US is _not_ the world's largest polluter, though it may be the largest of the industrialized nations. There's a large gap between those two.
Kyoto is as economic as it is environmental, and the US is rather loath (sensibly) to join institutions that could tank the U.S. economy.
Re:Consequences?
by
tepples
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why in the world should the U.S. (or any other country) willingly give up competitivity to other countries?
Trade sanctions. Watch some country with a big market impose import tariffs on products from non-Kyoto countries.
That is FALSE. Have you read the Kyoto protocol? Do you see the word "China" even mentioned? Countries are categorized by how much they pollute, not by whether or not they are Chinese. When China out-pollutes the US, they will move to the "Annex I" country list, and will no longer be "exempt."
A lot of this discussion would be cleared up if people actually read about the Kyoto protocol rather than repeating Rush Limbaugh's summary of it.
By what measure do you find greater polluters (in terms of CO2)? The US contributes 1/4 of the world's greenhouse gases; that is more than anyone else. Someone else posted a list in the discussion below. Who do you think the largest polluter is?
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
That would be illegal if that "big market" country is also a WTO member. Which it would be.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How about you read it? Developing countries are held to much more liberal standards. China is considered to be a developing country. So yes, they are held to different standards just because they are chinese.
Beats me and I wrote the friggin thing. My response to your, " How does making fun of the UN count as "Score:5, Informative"? The person didn't actually discuss the Kyoto Protocol. So, let me." The post wasn't about the Kyoto protocol, it was about the politics of signing the Kyoto ptrotocol. My point was the acid analogy. The treaty is a joke without enforcement. The UN, while a political palyer, is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to responsibility to "the peoples" referenced in their charter. Genocide isn't humerous but the UN's handling of it is high black comedy.
It might carry more force than you suspect. I'm not sure but I suspect that a majority of the EU nations have ratified it, to such an extent that it might be expected that the EU will enforce it through sanctions and other economic incentives.
You have to realize that last year when Bush changed to laws on Steel production and export/import it wasn't because he wanted to, it was because the EU forced him to change the laws of the US. And they knew and that is exactly what they intended on doing.
The consolidation of the EU has resulted in their becoming the new Super Power. While they do not have the military forces to claim the title, they have greater economic and representative influences on the World economies, organizations, and the UN.
The consequences, if we refuse to do anything because it might harm our economy, could be much more damaging to our economy if the rest of the world decides to exercise Trade Sanctions against us. After all, we import just about everything.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Well, according to President Bush, he doesn't want to loose even a single american job because of the Kyoto. He made this statement in one of his debates. On otherhand, he is very happy to loose a whole bunch of jobs for India and China. Sounds interesting...Isn't it?
When China out-pollutes the US, they will move to the "Annex I" country list, and will no longer be "exempt."
In the meantime companies will pick up and leave the United States to countries with more liberal environmental regulations which, today, is China and India. By the time they crank out as much pollution as we do and are subject to the same rules we are then the exodus will slow down or stop.
At that point we will all be equally miserable. Sorry, I still don't see the benefit.
Sure - but I didn't say do one OR the other, just "why wait?". The reason such gestures don't have the weight of numbers behind them is precisely because the majority of people throw up their hands and say "what's the point", just like you.
Please indicate where in the treaty you see anything like this. China will enter "Annex I" in a few years and will be considered along with the rest of the big polluters. So, no, they are not exempt for being Chinese.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
How did the parent score a 5 insightful on the post when it's obviously a troll? How is cutting down on pollution unfair? Would someone please explain this to me? Corporations are going to have to spend some of their billions to impliment new, less damaging equipment... UNFIARR!!
This is like the old Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney calling Reagan when the states had a submarine under our territory up north. We did not have any vehicle to investigate so the conversations went like this:
Mulroney: "I don't like you guys playing in our backyard. I want you to leave."
Reagan: "well, I can't do that Brian."
Mulroney: "I don't like you guys playing in our backyard. I want you to leave."
Reagan: "well, I can't do that Brian. Sorry, it's in the interest of National Security."
Mulroney: "Look, if you don't take your submaries from our territory... I'm just gonna have to call you again... and next time I'm gonna call COLLECT!"
Nope... we're the US, the "big bad bully". They'll immediately start sanctions and the like. While asking for us to pony up more money.
I wish I could find the article that said why Russia signed - essentially, they get U.N. money while they get up to speed (because they're not polluting as much as the cap, mostly because they're still trying to get back on their feet after switching from communism), and can drop out before it affects them.
But some links for everyone to read and enjoy: http://www.libertarian.org.au/discussionPa pers/kyo toPetition.jsp http://www.techcentralstation.com/ 043002B.html http://www.libertarianthought.com/te xts/kyoto.html
-- "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Re:Consequences?
by
Sentry21
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The US historically has not 'paid for the lion's share of its operation'. They are supposed to, but they rarely did and never on time.
In fact, the UN Accounting department in 1998 held that the UN was suffering in terms of what it is able to do, in large part because a large number of members, most notably the US, do not pay their dues on time and in full. Since 1983, the US only paid in October, even though dues are due January 1st, and since 1986, it withheld part of those dues until certain conditions were met.
The report issued by Accounting 'also notes that of the countries in considerable arrears to the U.N., "according to a State Department official, only the United States has not paid its arrears because of policy reasons."'
What it comes down to is that the UN has been incapable of doing 'the lion's share of its operation' because of the US's inability or unwillingness to pay its dues when it is supposed to. In 1998, it was in danger of losing its vote in the General Assembly because of its arrears. As of 1998, the US owed $1.8 billion in back dues.
Now, bear in mind the US has actually started to pay its dues, perhaps because of the possibility of losing its influence (though it is obvious now that they don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks anyway), but I don't see that lasting. Abandon the world and the way the world works and see how pleasant it is to live without any friends. Unless things change with the way the US does buisiness, it's going to find itself alone when bad things start to happen.
Re:Consequences?
by
KarmaMB84
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
They would never write a letter about Kyoto to the US since the US never ratified it.
Some will, yes. The smarter companies will develop alternative energy resources and clean-burning fuel solutions, knowing that they will outlast the companies that jump from country to country making a quick buck on a dying business model. As someone else in this discussion pointed out, there are BILLIONS of dollars here, and many companies (esp in European countries) are already investing heavily in that direction. True, those who cling to creating massive amounts of pollution as their way of producing energy will be hurt economically by this in the short term. Things change, and this is a change that has been far too long in coming. Kyoto is not the answer - but it does give one good incentive to companies to find alternative energy sources faster. Transitions take time, and they will be painful for some. But if we want to survive as a species on this planet for longer, we will have to deal with this transition sooner or later.
Re:Consequences?
by
sparlitup
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Its so ironic to hear people, usualy Americans, ranting about how crap the UN is. The whole purpose of the UN is to act as a forum to represent the collective concerns of its member nations. Its is not an enforcer, unless mandated to do so by its members, nor is it a law-maker, unless again in the case of a consensus of members to implement in their local laws the collective will of the member states
The power of the UN derives from the degree to which nations (and the most powerful ones at that) participate in its institutions. If the UN is weak it is precisely because the more powerful members, such as the US have chosen to make it so. In this case, the US is in no position to criticise the power, or lack there of, of the UN.
Re:Consequences?
by
farble1670
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
what % of the world must disagree with the US before we start doing some self examination to see if we've gone wrong somewhere?
this reminds of a person that goes around claiming everyone is an asshole. what's more likely? everyone he meets is an asshole, or that he's the asshole?
there are real, concrete reasons americans are hated thoughout the world. most of them stem from our unfair use of power, and our unfair consumption of the world's (no, not just those on american soil) resources.
even if none of this appeals to your sense of fairness, it should appeal to your sense of self-preservation. being the most despised nation in the world does not bode well for our longevity. sure we can womp on iraq. but what if we had to deal with korea at the same time? and maybe throw in iran?
Speaking of the UN, shouldn't the EU be reduced to a single vote since they are functioning as a single unit these days?
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"First, it's not dead, that's the whole point of this story. Second, what is unfair about the treaty? It's only "not in our interest" because we are the world's biggest polluter."
The world needs to make up its mind. The world wants the United States to do everything in its power to improve the world economy because the United States is the economic engine for world economic growth. On the other hand, the world tends to be jealous of the economic power of the United States and then wants us to cut out the pollution that has been cited to have been caused by, yep, you guessed it, our economic system.
Re:Consequences?
by
letxa2000
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Some will, yes. The smarter companies will develop alternative energy resources and clean-burning fuel solutions, knowing that they will outlast the companies that jump from country to country making a quick buck on a dying business model.
Again, that's pie in the sky thinking. If a company--who is not in the business of developing alternative energy resources--has the option of spending 20 billion to update their U.S. factory and spending 5 billion/year on labor when they can spend 1 billion to build a new factory in India and subsequently spend 500 million/year on labor, why do you think that company would stay? Why not move to India and save $19 billion now and 4.5 billion/year in labor until the price of new clean technology comes down. By the time it is required in India perhaps it will only cost $5 billion (instead of $20 billion). So you'll have spent $6 billion in a couple of decades instead of $20 billion now and, the whole time, your labor costs are 90% less.
Tell me again why the "smarter" company is going to stay in the U.S.?
Transitions take time, and they will be painful for some. But if we want to survive as a species on this planet for longer, we will have to deal with this transition sooner or later.
Technology moves fast and the last 100 years has shown us that we can't possibly know where technology will be 100, 50, 20, or even 10 years from now. I would rather wait for clean technologies to become mature at which time they will be adopted because it makes economic sense. And don't worry, the day will come when it does make economic sense and companies and individuals will move to clean technology all by themselves.
Why must there always be an "or what" with some people?
What about just doing something that makes sense because its the best course of action for everyone and won't actually harm anyone or anything? Why must there be an "or what" in this case, what possible good can come of polluting our atmosphere?
A: You believe that the people of the world are capable of governing one-another better than the US is at governing itself.
OR
B: You believe that the US is more capable of governing itself than the people of the world are of governing one-another.
The issue, in its most elemental form, is WHO DO YOU TRUST? Yes, it's GROSSLY reductionist, but with the current state of national (US) and global (UN) politics, it's not a simple question... except for the occasional constitutional libertarian.
-- "The Borba"
Re:Consequences?
by
RancidBeef
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not true. Look at the wikipedia link someone posted above. The US has been paying its "debt", but not all of the 22% to 25% the UN wants.
'Course, I wish we'd get the hell out of the UN. It could move its headquarters to France.
Ignoring all the corruption and other current problems in the UN, I have a real problem with an organization that is ostensibly for human rights, freedom, etc., yet gives equal voice to dictatorships and authoritarian governments with horrible human rights records.
In a wonderful statement of hypocrisy, the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" spells out many things that are human rights (and several things it says are but are not), but then sneaks this little nugget into Article 29: "(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, you don't have any rights to oppose the UN. Sweet.
"Superficially true or appealing; specious: Don't trust his fair promises."
-- A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Consequences?
by
letxa2000
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm not sure but I suspect that a majority of the EU nations have ratified it, to such an extent that it might be expected that the EU will enforce it through sanctions and other economic incentives.
That would be against the rules of the WTO. Just like Europe used the WTO when it came to the steel tarrifs Bush imposed, the U.S. would use the WTO to get those tarrifs axed.
You have to realize that last year when Bush changed to laws on Steel production and export/import it wasn't because he wanted to, it was because the EU forced him to change the laws of the US. And they knew and that is exactly what they intended on doing.
It wasn't Europe. It was the WTO. And Bush didn't really want to impose the tarrifs and he knew it was wrong going in. He knew they would be opposed in the WTO and he knew we would lose. It was a purely political move to try to gain political support in the steel industry. The tarrifs were overturned by the WTO, the tarrifs were removed, but Bush was able to tell the steel industry, "Well, I tried."
The consolidation of the EU has resulted in their becoming the new Super Power. While they do not have the military forces to claim the title, they have greater economic and representative influences on the World economies, organizations, and the UN.
Nope. The EU is not a super power. Everything it accomplishes is via the WTO and the UN. Like I said, Bush knew he would lose the tarrifs on steel. It was purely political. And just like the WTO declared those tarrifs illegal, so would the WTO declare any EU tarrifs on the U.S. based on Kyoto acceptance illegal.
The consequences, if we refuse to do anything because it might harm our economy, could be much more damaging to our economy if the rest of the world decides to exercise Trade Sanctions against us. After all, we import just about everything.
Like I said, such sanctions would be illegal and declared invalid by the WTO. And, if anything, the fact that we import just about everything gives us leverage, not the exporter. If Europe wants to try to put sanctions on us, fine, we'd just reciprocate and put sanctions on them. Who gets hurt more? The U.S. that doesn't export that much anyway or the rest of the world that exports so much to the U.S.? It would harm the rest of the world.
Don't worry, the U.S. is still the economic superpower and even though we are often criticized for it, we are the #1 consumer. And he who is buying has the power. And that'd be us.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Ofcourse, since that's what the rest of the world uses.
As long as it's per capita GDP, fine. If you base it on per capita then you come up with idiotic conclusions such as "The U.S. can produce only 3 times as much CO2 as Mexico" even though the U.S. economy is about 12 times larger.
The only way to factor in efficiency is to look at CO2 compared to per capita GDP. Otherwise you are punishing those that most efficiently use energy.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
AND, no matter what you do, comply or ignore, the Sun will go through its normal cycle of heating the Earth to variing degrees. BUT, Yes, we should be mindful of what we do to our environment. Don't shit in your own yard so to speak.
Lose. Lose. LOSE! Nowhere have I seen this mistake made this frequently but Slashdot. WTF?! Look at the word. Sound it out. "Loose." As in not tight. (Insert "your mom" jokes here.) Surely you've come across the word "loose" before? Surely you notice that it is not pronounced the same as the word "lose," ie. cease to have or control, misplace. What is the damn confusion about this simple, simple word?
-- Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
Re:Consequences?
by
sageman
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Its unfair because it hurts our economy more than any other countries. I believe there is even a part in the Kyoto treaty to basically ignore the pollution of "developing" countries to give them enough time to develop, while bigger countries (especially the US) are forced to cut emissions.
Additionally, it is a silly treaty, because, as far as global warming, it doesn't accomplish anything. If emissions were cut, and kept that low for the next 100 years, computer simulations show that it would have a miniscule effect, slowing down global warming by 6 years out of the 100. Of course, to do that much it has to seriously hurt the economies of a lot of countries, especially the US.
Yes, we need to change, we need to look at the pollution problems and we need to do it now, but the Kyoto treaty just doesn't address them in an adequete way. Too bad, because we really need a change.
-- ---
"To iterate is human, to recurse divine." -- Robert Heller
i don't understand. this does nothing other than allow the rich to remain rich. clearly not fair, good luck getting the rest of the world to agree to that obviously.
The only way to factor in efficiency is to look at CO2 compared to per capita GDP. Otherwise you are punishing those that most efficiently use energy.
i don't understand. per capita emmisions encourages efficiency, because you get more production per allowed pollutant output. anything that allows some to pollute more than others simply because they are making more money in the process of polluting only encourages inefficiency.
If memmory serves, Kofi was installed to please the US, who didn't like his predecsessor (Boutros Boutros-Ghali) enough. Now the US (who pretty much owns the UN as far as the rest of the world is concerned) whines about Kofi. Well, don't meddle so much next time then! (Disclaimer: I'm of the same nationality as Kofi's wife, Nanne Annan.)
Also, you say "screw the UN". Do you mean that as in "screw the rest of the world", or do you mean that as in "screw a system where the veto-power-of-the-strong handicaps most efforts". If the former, you sound like a child. If the latter, I agree - I'd be a lot happier with binding majority votes.
-- Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
Actually, if you just look at the total estimated greenhouse gas production (what the Kyoto Treaty is about) per country, China is the worst polluter.
If you use per capita data, becaue of China's giant
population, China heads down the list. I think that on a per capita basis, the US is probably still highest.
15 degrees Kelvin would suck pretty bad for outdoor hockey too i'd guess....
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Its unfair because it hurts our economy more than any other countries.
Your economy is unfair because it exploits the planet's resources more than any other (on a per capita basis). Kyoto attempts to balance this out. Not that it would work, anyway -- Kyoto is too little too late.
Yeah right. It's much better to ignore problems completely - instead of getting started somewhere.
The Kyoto treaty was negotiated. The US was represented. Guess what? If you had a problem with the treaty you should have said so in Kyoto.
But you decided it hurts your precious industry, so you backstabbed it instead - so that you won't have to do anything at all. Nice job.
Now, in all fairness. The treaty does tax industrial countries higher (not just the US - but all industrial countries). This was not a question of fairness, but a question of what is possible. In developing countries, there is a larger need to put food on the table, get health care working, build infrastructures etc. The industrial countries have resources to spare, then why the fuck should we not take that responsibility?
If you want to speak in terms of fairness, these countries are way behind our industrialized countries in pollution. They have a lot to catch up on. (Moral: There will always be a kid who's shouting "unfair". The only reason to listen to you is the amount of guns you have.)
-- Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
Re:Consequences?
by
letxa2000
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
i don't understand. this does nothing other than allow the rich to remain rich. clearly not fair, good luck getting the rest of the world to agree to that obviously.
No. It allows the efficient to continue producing efficiently while pushing the inefficient to produce more value for the amount of pollution they create.
Let me put this in perspective. The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2. So the U.S. produces 1.58 times as much CO2 but our economy is 1.71 times larger. From a pollution perspective we're doing more economic activity with relatively less pollution.
So who needs to adjust their habits? The U.S.? Buzzzz. Wrong answer. Currently China and the U.S. together produce 2,364,774 kilotons of CO2 per year with total economic activity of $17.449 trillion. Let's say you arbitrarily say that we need to reduce our emissions by 10% from 1,446,777 to 1,302,099. Let's just say that means our economy will drop 10% to $9.9 trillion. Let's say that that lost $1.1 trillion goes to China so their economy increases by 17% to $7.549 trillion and that that means a 17% increase in their economy means a 17% increase in their emissions to 1,074,056 kilotons per year.
The result? The total economic activity of China and the U.S. hasn't changed but now CO2 output has increased from 2,364,774 kilotons to 2,376,155 kilotons and jobs have been lost in the United States as economic activity moved to China. And that's not even realistic--in reality there would also be a loss of economic activity because the movement to China wouldn't be 100% efficient. So you will have lower worldwide economic activity and higher pollution.
No, punishing the United States isn't the answer. There are two possible solutions that will help the environment: 1) Move more production to the United States where we are better at producing goods at a lower rate of CO2 production. This would generate more employment in the U.S. and lower employment in China but it would lower total CO2 production. 2) Improve the efficiency of China's economy so it can produce more goods with the same or lower CO2 production. If China were as efficienct as the U.S. they would be able to generate the same amount of economic activity and produce less CO2.
I personally think the solution is making inefficient countries more efficient so they pollute less. But any way you analyze it it makes no sense to have a treaty like Kyoto that actually discourages activity in the countries that produce the least pollution for a unit of economic activity and encourage it in those countries that pollute more per unit of economic activity.
It's FALSE that some of the largest up-and-coming poluters are exempt?
Countries are categorized by how much they pollute
Oh, so countries that don't polute much now, but will in 10 years, are given a free pass, afterall. So what was FALSE?
You really need to go back to English class and learn what parantheses mean. The grandparent was listing China and India as two examples of countries in the class he had previously mentioned, not that those two specifically are exempt.
-- God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Actually, let's turn that around, and insist on UN seats for every US state, and every Indian nation. That should get us about 200 seats in the General Assembly.;)
-- God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Big polluting countries like China and India are exempt from the Kyoto protocol (even though they sign). Please have some clue about what you are posting about before throwing accusations.
Re:Consequences?
by
RancidBeef
·
· Score: 2, Informative
(I think you got that "former" and "latter" thing reversed. I assume you mean "screw the rest of the world" is childish.)
I don't know why Kofi is the SG. We (the US) used to like Osama bin Laden at one time too, so it's a fact we sometimes don't seem to know who to back. Does the US meddle in others' affairs too much? Yes, and it's come back to haunt us. Much of that was because of the global chess game we unfortunately had to play with the Soviet Union where the rest of the nations of the world were (unfortunately) just pawns in the game.
I said "screw the UN" and that's what I mean. I say screw a system where some irrelevant country like France can veto removing a sadistic and dangerous dictator from power because they are getting paid off by the very same dictator. Screw a system that then slams the US for acting "unilaterally" because it didn't want to remove that dictator. ("Unilateral" must mean having 30'ish countries with you or less, now.)
I think it's benificial for the US and the rest of the world to work together to make the world a free and prosperous place. The US and a few other places in the world realize that civilization itself is under threat from a bunch of fanatics that want to drag the world back 1000+ years.
The US is a sovereign nation with the right to protect itself from threats just as any other nation does. Screw anyone who thinks it does not have that right.
This is a very unique war we're in right now. With others you could point to an area of the map and say "here is the enemy". You can't do that this time. However, for that enemy to be dangerous it must have money and other resources. Those are supplied mostly by various countries and dictators like Saddam. Even if Saddam didn't *currently* have large stockpiles of WMD's (although some *have* been found -- and he could have ramped up production again as soon as UN sanctions were lifted, which would have happened soon because of those payoffs), I think Saddam was *himself* a weapon of mass destruction.
It's FALSE that some of the largest up-and-coming poluters are exempt?
Yes. They are limited by how much they can increase their emissions by. They are not exempt from the terms of the treaty, so the statement was false.
Oh, so countries that don't polute much now, but will in 10 years, are given a free pass, afterall.
No. The aim is to stop developing countries from reaching the pollution levels of industrialised countries, which would likely be the result of not implementing the treaty.
You really need to go back to English class
Hahahaha. Learn how to spell "pollute" (see text in bold above).
Actually, if you look at the data rather than pulling facts out of your arse, you will see that the USA is the world's worst polluter (approx 5.4 million tons of CO2/year), producing almost twice as much CO2 as China (2.9 million).
Per capita it's 20.1 tons to 2.3 tons.
Feel stupid?
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There's really no point in continuing an argument with someone that can't even spell tariffs or ridiculous.
It's because of ignorant buffons not unlike yourself that the world has the preconceived, stereotypical image of the average american citizen as ignorant, bullheaded and arrogant. Fortunately, at least 49% of all americans aren't like you, which is very reassuring.
So, have a nice life, sir. Hope you choke on your damn pollution. It's just a pity that the rest of us have to choke on it too.
The world's biggest polluter? Dude, have you ever been to India? My god, you cannot BREATHE the air in Bombay. Give me Los Angeles, give me New York, any day before Bombay. -russ
There's really no point in continuing an argument with someone that can't even spell tariffs or ridiculous.
Ahhhh, I see. That makes all the difference right? I'm far more concerned about your lack of understanding of the difference between the UN, WTO, and Europe. I'm far more concerned about you opining on Bush's political decisions when you clearly don't have a clue as to his motivations. Yeah, misspelling two words is far more relevant and reveals just how little I know, right?
Would it make any difference if I told you that I'm bilingual and the reason I sometimes make spelling mistakes in English is because I've lived outside the United States for the last 9 years and, believe it or not, your native language does get rusty when you are pretty much only using your second language? Nah, that wouldn't coincide with your stereotype of an American not knowing anything about the rest of the world, only speaking English, and basically being unlightened.
If your sole contribution to this discussion is reenforcing your own stereotype of Americans then I don't think this discussion will lose anything by you withdrawling. It is clear you have very little information relevant to the real topics being discussed and your views are based more on your stereotypes than on knowledge of the topics or anything resembling reality.
Sit down, anonymous troll, and let the adults discuss this.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That joke's much funnier south of the border I guess. It shows to what extent the US has become a rogue nation, which is fine if you're up front about it. What's insufferable, and what I wager is the root cause for much of the world's contempt towards the nation, is combining that complete disregard for others with such high moral arrogance and platitudes, which you believe! It's astounding and history will judge you rightly as you continue in your slide.
Re:Consequences?
by
SilentOne
·
· Score: 2, Informative
How about backing up some of this with links to news articles that aren't from Foxnews?
Ever think maybe the US did bitch and no one listened?
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So the US is back to the eras of the 1920's. Think about it (pretty much isolationists until the depression due to no involvement in the world economy), which forced the US into WWII.
Re:Consequences?
by
St.+Arbirix
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
So the U.S. creates an organization open to all countries in order to fight Communism, the Cold War ends, that organization (which no longer has a "lion's share of its operation" needing to be done) gets stacked with anti-U.S. nations, and now it's shame on the U.S.?
I understand what you mean though. The U.N. has done a good bit of adapting since its primary purpose fell apart. One part you didn't quite get right though: "Unless things change with the way the US does business, it's going to find itself alone when bad things start to happen." That "alone" you speak of isn't going to be economic, we're just too loaded with resources. No, it's likely going to be if the U.S. removes all the other countries.
-- Direct away from face when opening.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sorry for not biting at your troll... unfortunately I happen to agree with you. A pseudo-assumed-government which the left has equated with a functional world government and its 'global tests' does no equate to real government. I'm all for world government, but at the very base, it must represent people, not dictators and mullahs. Down with the UN, may its demise be marked as 1989, not 2005.
Re:Consequences?
by
nursedave
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
My, aren't we in a grumpy mood tonight! I think somebody needs a nap!
--
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I say screw unilateral action that slams the rest of the world for trying to prevent sadistic and dangerous terrorists from running amok in Iraq.
I think it's benefitial for the US and the rest of the world had inspections continued. It's been proven that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction and the US acted illegally by UN standards.
The war on terrorism has been fought in the wrong manner. "Axis of Evil" and you get Iran and North Korea working like crazy to become nuclear nations. "Bring 'em on" and you get beheadings, beheadings, and more behadings, followed by more beheadings. That's what you get when you put the rest of the world as enemies -- be careful of what you ask for.
If you can't convince the majority, then you don't act upon it. THAT'S democracy.
The U.N.s sole reason for existence is so less fortunate countries can band together to control and drain the U.S. and much other lesser but nasty crap. Whenever I get to feeling like I've misjudged the U.N. I just go here: http://www.liddyshow.us/unfacts.php and take a reality check. Finally I am left with the solution:Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S. cause we can always use that building to house the homeless.
-- *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Freon and the Ozone hole were alarmist and bad science. Also, the "global warming" that we are "observing" could just as easily be due to increased urbanization skewing the measurements, since they are in the middle of cities, which are hotspots.
-- That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
The reason why the US was a leading force to reduce ozone-depleting substances was that it had companies which had a considerable interest in alternative technologies. Corporations like Dupont stood to gain a lot from these measures.
The same cannot be said for Kyoto and CO2 emissions. US industries are dirtier than those in many other developed nations, and besides nuclear power there are not many US companies big enough to influence government with an interest in cleaner industries. Conversely, oil and coal companies have massive influence over government policy.
Hahahaha. Learn how to spell "pollute" (see text in bold above).
Um, that wasn't bad speling, that was a broken keyboard. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. See, it just happened again with 'speling', so I must be teling the truth.
-- God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I'm canadian. I think this was during the cold war and the states were making sure the russians weren't up there in the far north. Canada didn't have a single submarine capable of patrolling our own territory.
I guess my point was the pitiful state of the canadian armed forces. We don't have an army but like to pretend otherwise. We also have a bunch of loud mouth liberals who like to bash america, but guess who they go running to if we get into trouble?
"What's insufferable, and what I wager is the root cause for much of the world's contempt towards the nation, is combining that complete disregard for others with such high moral arrogance and platitudes, which you believe! It's astounding and history will judge you rightly as you continue in your slide."
There are some of us who feel otherwise. Take the day that planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, for example. I do not dispute that the events were horrible, especially ones against civilians, but this should be a wakeup call to the US to re-evaluate its policies. People do not just kill themselves to do something like that for no reason, and people do not convince others to do that without either having real points or else very well presented fallacy that fits the perceptions of the listener. That attack required months, if not years of planning by the people who perpetuated the attacks, which could easily have led to people backing out if they saw any glimmer of wrongness in the idea of attacking or in the logic presented to convince them to do it.
The US is required to go after the organization that came up with and implemented the attack, that's a given. You threaten someone with real injury and they will fight back, especially when they're used to being the baddest one on the block. However, a smart 'victim' will consider why such an attack happened, and if there is anything that they can do within reason to keep it from happening again. This is what the US has failed to do, since we've invaded a country not involved under pretense of securing America from terror. We haven't tried to make nice with nations that have had mixed relations with us, we haven't considered relationships that bring our companies into third world nations to exploit labor, and we haven't stepped back to remove the Crusade/Jihad appearance of the situation, which plays right into the hands of those who would do us ill. It probably wouldn't be hard for the US to change some policies to make less of an impact on other nations without really making a severe impact on ourselves. It definitely would be in our best interests to take the moral high-ground in all our World affairs, which would help our position with legitimacy that we currently lack. Instead out government does what it does, further deepening the hole that we're already in.
I was there in 1999 during the taxi drivers strike, and lo and behold, with no taxis on the road, the smog was gone and the air was clear. No, it's not just the smell, although the smell is, whoa, makes you wonder how a hotel can get a five-star rating. -russ
Re:Consequences?
by
jpowers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, you need to consider that the UN can't really pass anything without the US getting a chance to veto it. The Security Council members can block anything, not just military stuff.
Kyoto, right or wrong, is the kind of thing the UN was made for, to oversee the interaction between nations when it affects third parties. These days even conversations between companies require teams of lawyers on both sides, negotiations on the part of 100+ countries is requires armies of lawyers and an organized language translation system that borders on miraculous.
All the people there do is talk out these accords which are used to set a precedent for actual treaties and handshake agreements between leaders to create similar laws so international organizations can't skirt them, and so the behavior of countries is kept in the open where the 1930s and 1940s in Europe can hopefully be avoided. It seems to have worked for the larger countries involved, though clearly the power gap between first and third world nations is still pretty broad.
wake up and smell the roses......the U.N. is full
of dictators and tyrants........
We need to kick their arses out of the US and tell them to go screw themselves..........
-- ===
'Kernel Panic' no sig found:
Re:Consequences?
by
timeOday
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions
Or what?
Or global warming will be worse than if they had.
Participating nations signed the agreement voluntarily. Why should there be a threat to noncompliance when there was no threat to not signing in the first place? Can't you grasp the concept of doing something for a good reason, even if nobody puts a gun to your head?
"No. It allows the efficient to continue producing efficiently while pushing the inefficient to produce more value for the amount of pollution they create."
It does nothing of the sort. One of the most efficient Western nations in terms of GDP production per unit of CO2 produced is Italy, but Italy has a significantly lower GDP per capita than the USA.
"The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2"
Only if you measure the economies in terms of dollar value. If you use PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) the difference isn't so obvious. So the question is do you measure GDP in terms of dollar value, which is subject to currency fluctuations, or based on the level of actual economic activity?
"1) Move more production to the United States where we are better at producing goods at a lower rate of CO2 production."
Certainly moving production to a location where the total person-industry CO2 production per unit of economic activity is better makes a lot of sense. I am not sure if this is necessarily the USA as you have to take into account both the CO2 cost of the good and the CO2 cost of the worker and their consumption. If you have an inefficient industrial process but poor workers who produce little CO2 in their daily consumption it might be more efficient overall in terms of CO2 than a very efficient industrial process with workers that are rich and consume a larger amount of resources and conequent CO2 production. You'd have to look per country and per industry on this. The most efficient (in terms of CO2 production), though is to have efficient factories and poor workers that can't consume many material goods.
However the analysis above is assuming that the consumption of goods is based on traditional models. There is a great opportunity for the USA to fund modes of living that are efficient in terms of energy, consumption, and production which might allow a good standard of living while consuming relatively few natural resources. This would effectively transform the footprint of the affluent worker into that of the currently poor worker. This would be the best of both worlds.
(sorry response was a bit rushed as I have to go out).
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
really? are you talking about "the mark of the beast"?
I assume you're referring to the excerpt from Kerry's response to a debate question. If you had watched the debate and seen the quote in context you'd know that it was Kerry's way of saying "does it make sense" or "do the rest of my countrymen think this is right". He wasn't speaking literally about asking the world if it was ok. He was saying "does this make sense for our country" or on an issue that affects other entities besides the US, "does this make sense for the world".
Don't try to pin this on the left because you don't understand ONE democrat's poorly extracted quote. I know plenty of people "on the left" who haven't equated the UN with a functional goverment, but at least it's a good place to start.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Slashdot never fails to show how Americans can be infect brainless morons.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It seems granted in the American minds that the UN is irrelevant.
Tell me guys, what kind of brainwashing has nailed this idea in your mind. Rush "Goering" Limbaugh ?
When one sees how the US deal with international affairs, like the Iraqi laughable suxxess, it is extremely clear that the US "diplomacy" is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY irrelevant to the rest of the world.
BTW, you probably forgot the meaning of diplomacy. Oh yes : "Be with us or against us." That sounds like a terrorist motto.
Open your eyes, after communism, the USA are the real new threat in this world.
Slashdot never fails to show how Europeans trust an organization that puts Libya at the head of the Human Rights Committee. All of the UN's relavence went out the door that day.
I say screw the system where a bullish country like the US can veto resolutions against Israel for not following already accepted resolutions. Screw the system where the US was a major force of influence when it was created.
You say it is a "war" because your current president, who ain't got a clue to how the world works, says so. The civilization is under no more of a threat from terrorism today that it was 10 years ago. Well, actually that's not quite true. Terrorism is a bigger threat today than it was before the invasion of Iraq. Now you have people that would never consider joining terrorists before joining them!
You fail to realise that terrorists (as well as GW Bush) cannot stop the passing of the time or the advancement of civilisation. The only threat to civilisation is humanity as a whole, not a small group of people with ass-backwards ideas (this bunch includes the current leadership in the US as well as terrorists). THe current US policy have killed a lot more innocent people (of course this excludes the guilty ones) than was killed 9/11.
What i really find hilarious is that you still fail to realise that most of the terrorits money comes from Saudi Arabia where there already is a large US force present and which is also, by coincidence(?), a non-free dictator ruled country. It is also interresting that we are now fighting wars over "ifs" and "could-be's" instead of facts.
NO WMDs have been found (FOX News ain't got 1c of credibility) and I guess none will be found either. WMDs must be maintained and there have been no such materials brought into the Iraq since the Gulf-war due to the sanctions. Ask yourself this. If he had WMDs, why would he not use then against the US troops? We know he had VX-gas cos he used it on the kurds. What would seem like Saddam trying to prevent the discovery of WMDs could just as likely (even more likely perhaps) be a attemt to prevent the rest of the world from finding out that he actually had nothing at all and thereby preventing the opposing groups within Iraq from rising up against him. Saddam was/is a megalomaniac and such people always make big mistakes in the end.
Now, the Kyoto-treaty is trying to prevent events which really could drag the world back 1000 years so of course the US will not join in that struggle. Just keep driving your SUVs and sleep well knowing that the world is safer because someone else it trying to fix it.
--
Life is what happened when Good Intentions met Harsh Reality (the brother of the more infamous Chaos).
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Fair? Fair is where you go on rides, step in horse shit, and eat cotton candy. The Kyoto Treaty is where the have-nots try and play catchup with the haves. Kind of like NAFTA.
Saddam was not a threat to anybody except Iraqi citizens. That's bad enough, but guess what? The US has killed a lot more civilians than Saddam has lately. I don't take the cruelty of this former dictator lightly, my country hosts a lot of refugees from Iraq.
However, I can't see how such an offtopic post can be modded "informative".
As for Kofi, the problem with the US is that you believe that you have the right to make and unmake SG at will. The rest of us are tired of that.
As for the UN, other countries thought it modest to at least continue inspections a while longer. Colin Powell thought it modest to wait a bit, to get more allies for the invasion. And I still have not heard of a single shred of evidence of WMD (except for republican pre-election spin) You say such evidence exists, then provide a link to impartial media reporting such findings - else shut up.
Back to the Kyoto treaty: You haven't adressed it at all. US'ians were there negotiating the treaty, why didn't they talk then? A treaty that anybody had thought the US didn't back would have been stillborn. The treaty is not imposed from the UN, it was negotiated among the countries in the UN - of which the US is the most influential.
Last things last: I haven't heard anything about Kofi trying to wage war on the US. Comparing him to Usama shows you for the troll you are. Who do you think the UN is? It is an assembly where the US is without a doubt the strongest player. Any future alternative will not be situated in the US, and will not allow the US to veto anything and everything.
-- Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
you realize that not all posters on slashdot are native english speakers? Considering the proficiency that is mostly displayed this is quite a miracle. I guess you couldn't even order breakfast in any other language...
a majority vote in the UN? Are you out of your mind? The 'free' countries are actually the minority in the world which is full of authoritarians from all creeds. I'm sorry, but I'm not ready for seeing blue helments that want to prevent the elections in my country because democracy just went out of style in the general assembly.
There are many who are geniunely afraid that if we continue down the current road, the US will be the only free country.
The US has a long record of supporting dictators of non-free countries. I'm not sure I see that changing. Please prove me wrong. (Afghanistan and Iraq is not looking very encouraging right now.)
-- Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
+5 informative for this bunch of twaddle? some of you mods need to put down the opium (crops in Afghanistan are now booming) pipe.
Re: Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow your link point to some heavy stuff.
The facts presented at liddysshow seem to be correct. The problem is their interpretation!
* comparing the voting influence soly based on economic power - yes China pays less, but I would consider it equaly important in world politics * failing to - at least try to - analyse why many countries frequently vote against the US * the effects of voting against the US; are those important votes(I doubt) or just another internal statement...
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Who do you think gets hit hardest?
The developing nations who aren't allowed to manage their own industrial revolution because we've now realised that pollution is an international issue. By forcing third-world nations to build clean efficient systems from day one we hobble their economy at a time when our own was booming.
I'm not saying that it's wrong -- I'd hate to see Africa producing killer smog at the same rate that Britain did -- but they are going to be hurt by this far more than the US is.
Whenever force is required, the US military is the main part of any UN force.
No. The bulk of forces is almost always from places like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zambia and so on. Countries eager to curry favour with the west basically. Countries that don't, as you put it, run away when the going gets tough (as the US did in Somalia).
If you're genuinely interested in the subject you might want to read "We Did Nothing" by Linda Polman.
ok, i now see that the degree was dropped off in 1967, you can see how long it is since i did physics...
still the original post refered to just "15 degrees" hence the ambiguity of scales, my suggestion of Kelvin was purely for comic value... and I would have got away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!
As long as it's per capita GDP, fine. If you base it on per capita then you come up with idiotic conclusions such as "The U.S. can produce only 3 times as much CO2 as Mexico" even though the U.S. economy is about 12 times larger.
'Idiotic' is a bit steep. The atmosphere and its capacity to absorb pollutants belongs just as much to an African as an American. To say 'I deserve to be allowed to use up a greater proportion of that capacity than an African because I live in a rich country' is an argument based on self-interest alone. If the US wishes to use up part of Africa's share of this capacity then the US should be prepared to buy it.
As it is the US government is intent on free-riding on others efforts to improve the global environment and is acting in a much more arrogant, selfish, myopic and reckless way than many other governments. In my opinion, the rest of the world should eventually start moving toward sanctions on the US if it doesn't improve its behaviour. Enforcing quotas on oil exports would be a particularly good one - though I can't imagine it being easy to convince middle eastern government to comply. More plausible would be, say, EU import duties on imported goods which aren't subject to as stringent environment regulation as domestically produced goods.
It does nothing of the sort. One of the most efficient Western nations in terms of GDP production per unit of CO2 produced is Italy, but Italy has a significantly lower GDP per capita than the USA.
So? GDP per capita has nothing to do with GDP production per unit of CO2 produced. I'm not saying that the most pollution efficient countries will necessarily be the richest. I'm saying that production should occur in countries that most efficiently generated GDP with low CO2--or less efficient countries should be made more efficient.
If what you say about Italy is true (I haven't checked but I'll take your word on it) then just as it makes more sense (from a pollution standpoint) to produce economic activity in the U.S. over China, it would also make more sense to produce economic activity in Italy over the United States.
Me: "The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2"
You: Only if you measure the economies in terms of dollar value. If you use PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) the difference isn't so obvious. So the question is do you measure GDP in terms of dollar value, which is subject to currency fluctuations, or based on the level of actual economic activity?
GDP measures economic activity in absolute terms. PPP does not. If you're comparing worldwide economic activity and the contribution of each country to that worldwide economic activity the GDP is a better choice of measurement.
Certainly moving production to a location where the total person-industry CO2 production per unit of economic activity is better makes a lot of sense. I am not sure if this is necessarily the USA as you have to take into account both the CO2 cost of the good and the CO2 cost of the worker and their consumption.
Whatever. I'm not trying to make the case that the U.S. is the #1 most efficient country in regards to CO2 production compared to economic activity. I am making the case the Kyoto--which currently exempts the most inefficient countries--should be focused on making those inefficient countries more efficient rather than limiting the output of relatively efficient countries like the United States (and Italy and whatever other countries are relatively efficient).
If you have an inefficient industrial process but poor workers who produce little CO2 in their daily consumption it might be more efficient overall in terms of CO2 than a very efficient industrial process with workers that are rich and consume a larger amount of resources and conequent CO2 production. You'd have to look per country and per industry on this. The most efficient (in terms of CO2 production), though is to have efficient factories and poor workers that can't consume many material goods.
You're getting into hypotheticals. Which is fine. But I don't think we have CO2 production broken out on a consumer and industrial basis. We have totals for each country which somtimes are divided by population to get per capita production of CO2--but that doesn't necessarily mean the consumers consume more CO2... it may simply mean they live in countries with industries that produce a lot of CO2.
However the analysis above is assuming that the consumption of goods is based on traditional models. There is a great opportunity for the USA to fund modes of living that are efficient in terms of energy, consumption, and production which might allow a good standard of living while consuming relatively few natural resources. This would effectively transform the footprint of the affluent worker into that of the currently poor worker. This would be the best of both worlds.
I agree. I fully support research and eventual deployment of alternative energies such as solar, wind power, nuclear, etc. What I don't support is arbitrary draconian cuts in CO2 production that don't apply equally to all countries before we have alternative energy sources available. That's what Kyoto does. Once we have alternative energy sources I fully support moving to those energy sources and, as a result, automatically reducing CO2 production--with or without Kyoto.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Everything is a doomsday scenario with you types. Barking your incessant drivel about how the sky is falling is the only way for you to add meaning to your otherwise meaningless life. Give it up.
Don't miss the main idea. We(U.S.)have our own business handled and don't need those who have their and not our best interests in mind to: add further unconstitutional taxes to our burden. dictate social policy to us. dictate legislation to us. assume any governing authority over us. tell us we owe them for their own faux passe and then tell us how much. No,I think I remember the main sentiment is "Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S. We could use the building for homeless shelter,food storage,charity administration or something REALLY useful
-- *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
"So? GDP per capita has nothing to do with GDP production per unit of CO2 produced."
The latter measure is better than the former. However using GDP itself is flawed since GDP also includes a measure of the value of the currency, not necessarily the intrinsic value of the item produced. For example China's currency is effectively devalued compared to the dollar and so its GDP per unit of CO2 produced looks worse than it should because of this.
" I'm saying that production should occur in countries that most efficiently generated GDP with low CO2--or less efficient countries should be made more efficient."
Totally agree. In terms of spreading decent quality of life around the globe the latter is a good aim.
"GDP measures economic activity in absolute terms. PPP does not."
Agreed, I am just pointing out the two extremes of measures of economic acitivity. However it is wrong to assume that GDP measures economic activity per se as it measures a combination of economic activity and currency fluctuatons. However looking at CO2 production per unit of GDP (as PPP) is useful in the sense that allows you to get some measure of the amount of CO2 produced for a given standard of living. There are many measures you can use, though. The old lies, damned lies, and statistics issue.
" I am making the case the Kyoto--which currently exempts the most inefficient countries--should be focused on making those inefficient countries more efficient rather than limiting the output of relatively efficient countries like the United States (and Italy and whatever other countries are relatively efficient)."
It's difficult, as if you impose that now you may have the side effect of saying that rich countries should be able to stay rich. If Kyoto included those terms right now those countries wouldn't sign it. So it wouldn't help matters. Instead those countries will be bound by Kyoto in the future. As it is, per capita, those countries produce a smaller amount of CO2. All countries, though, as oil prices are likely to steadily climb due to demand increasingly outstripping supply, have an interest in becoming more energy efficient. Placing stringent controls on the third world now, while desirable in some senses, would throw the baby out with the bath water. It's a matter of politicking and getting people to come along with you gradually.
"We have totals for each country which somtimes are divided by population to get per capita production of CO2--but that doesn't necessarily mean the consumers consume more CO2... it may simply mean they live in countries with industries that produce a lot of CO2."
Given that several countries have created a CO2 credit trading scheme based on industrial CO2 production several countries do have figures for industrial CO2 production, and quite fine grained ones at that (e.g. Spain). What these figures don't include, however, is the addition of the CO2 budget of the workers. It isn't too hard to add in some compensation factor for this as well, and I don't think it is hypothetical, but more a case of comparing like-with-like.
I fully support research and eventual deployment of alternative energies such as solar, wind power, nuclear, etc.
We don't need to wait for this. The real contribution might be in terms of things which don't need technologies which might be decades in the future, although this will help. There are things which can be done now which will help. For example currently around 45% of US CO2 production is from private motor vehicles excluding long haul transport. Working on relatively modest improvements in fuel efficiency of cars (even just moving away from SUVs to Mini Vans) could have quite a significant impact on this. Given that it also means people paying less per week at the gas pump it shouldn't be too arduous. On top of this iprovements in zoning and the way make journeys to decrease the number of miles travelled will also have an effect. In addition improving traffic flows (the start-stop cycle produce
The latter measure is better than the former. However using GDP itself is flawed since GDP also includes a measure of the value of the currency, not necessarily the intrinsic value of the item produced. For example China's currency is effectively devalued compared to the dollar and so its GDP per unit of CO2 produced looks worse than it should because of this.
Perhaps, but GDP is the only way to accurately measure its potential contribution to the world economy. That is, even if China's GDP is devalued due to its devaluated currency then any contribution China can make to the world economy is also depressed. If they want to invest or purchase foreign goods they will be limited by the same depressed GDP. So GDP is the best measure to compare global economic activity.
Agreed, I am just pointing out the two extremes of measures of economic acitivity. However it is wrong to assume that GDP measures economic activity per se as it measures a combination of economic activity and currency fluctuatons.
True, but again currency fluctuations do impact how much their economy can invest or purchase from the rest of the world so it is valid to use a measure that takes that into account.
However looking at CO2 production per unit of GDP (as PPP) is useful in the sense that allows you to get some measure of the amount of CO2 produced for a given standard of living. There are many measures you can use, though. The old lies, damned lies, and statistics issue.
Agreed on the issue of statistics. But I'm not talking about the amount of CO2 produced for a given standard of living. I'm talking about the amount of CO2 produced for a given amount of economic activity--or generation of wealth. I think that the issue of pollution has to be separated completely from the issue of standard of living. They are two very different issues. This is why I think GDP makes a better measure. Granted, we're not determining their standard of living... we're just taking a cold, hard look at how good they are at producing wealth compared to how much pollution they create. If this is truly about the environment then that's all we care about at this time.
Raising the standard of living in developing countries is another issue that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the environment.
It's difficult, as if you impose that now you may have the side effect of saying that rich countries should be able to stay rich. If Kyoto included those terms right now those countries wouldn't sign it.
I think we're getting closer to agreeing on what we're each arguing here.
I agree. If you apply reductions to everyone then developing countries won't like it. But that, to me, suggests they really aren't interested in the environment anyway. Which I still believe is a large factor. As long as there are exceptions--as valid as those exceptions may be for the political reasons you state--the treaty will not achieve CO2 reductions. It will move the production of CO2 from where there are strict limits to areas where there are not. Jobs will go with it. But the CO2 production hasn't been reduced at all, just moved elsewhere in the world. Net effect on the environment: None.
The best chance at improving the environment is to make sure that developing countries that are constantly building new plants are building plants with the most CO2-efficient technologies in place. It's cheaper to build a brand new plant with efficient CO2 production in a plant you were going to build anyway than to try to retrofit an already relatively efficient plant to achieve the same reductions. And there are a heck of a lot more people (and thus potential industry) in the developing world. So we must focus on the developing world if our real goal is to reduce worldwide CO2 production. Anything else just doesn't make sense if the goals are truly environmental.
Given that several countries have created a CO2 credit trading sche
I'm going to spare you the Nazi reference for the "leaving the UN" bit.
It says "purposes and principles". Purposes and principles aren't their whim of the day, these are fixed terms and defined in Chapter I of the UN Charter.
-- Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Have you considered that there
mightbea reason
for the rest of the world to distrust the US? Did it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, your presence on the world stage is causing
more harm than good? Here's another reality check: the rest of the world does not want you to intervene in its affairs. We'd love it if you just quit the UN. Really. Only that wouldn't stop you from throwing your weight around, would it? So perhaps the thing to do is to stop being childish, and engage with the rest of the world in a productive way, in the forum designed for this very purpose - the United Nations. Hope springs eternal...
Did you consider that the worlds level of trust doesn't mean piss except to the media? Did it occur to you that the world,country by country is responsible for their own respective situations,by tolerating their governing bodies? Heres a reality check: The world,inasmuch as business is conducted mutually with us,will be intervened in,just like china or any other entity with vested interests anywhere.Is that so fucking hard to figure out? Engage us on our terms,the golden rule. the one with the gold,power,beer,etc. makes the rules.Thats life! Anywhere in the world,any time in existence. Get over your dime store idealism.
-- *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The UN was not created to fight Communism. It would have been a bit silly to give the Soviet Union a veto in the Security Council, if that were so. Instead, it was founded to promote world peace, as a League of Nations with teeth. And if you think it's possible to "stack" a global organisation with anti-US countries, when that organisation has virtually every country in the world as its members, then perhaps you should ask yourself why so many countries are anti-US?
-- The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I
suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
The US is perfectly entitled to take whatever actions it deems necessary, and to be judged on the consequences of those actions. I'm merely explaining why the world is rapidly losing patience with America. If you think you can go it alone, fine - go it alone. The dollar will continue to slide, the deficits will continue to mount, and one of these days, when your president has to approach China hat-in-hand asking for another loan, you'll wonder where you went wrong. That is, if you don't get nuked into oblivion by terrorists who hate you first.
It's not envy that makes the terrorists hate America, as you seem to think. It's moral outrage at what are, by any objective measure, thoroughly despicable actions by your government. I don't believe - unlike GWB, apparently - that moral outrage justifies the initiation of force. However I do believe that those who have been attacked by America have a God-given right to defend themselves. I will therefore find it extremely hard to drum up any sympathy for you when the next 9/11 happens. Idealism, you said? Very well - going by the bronze rule ("he who has the gold makes the rules"), America fully deserved what happened to it on 9/11. After all, the terrorists had the planes, and you had nothing. Sucks, doesn't it?
America's attitude towards the Kyoto treaty is symptomatic of a growing malaise - a deliberate ignorance by Americans of the damage caused by America. Your pollution affects us. Five percent of the world's population (that's you) is producing 25% of its pollution. Europe, with a slightly larger economy, is producing less pollution than its "fair share", going by population. And you have the temerity to call foul when the Kyoto treaty isn't perfectly even-handed?
I agree that Kyoto is flawed, and in particular isn't stringent enough in the requirements it imposes on China. That does not give America an excuse to throw the process out the window, and refuse to play by the rules the rest of the world has agreed to.
The UN is a remnant of Wilsonian idealism, a rediculous idea (that was a restatement of even earlier, equally banal, ideas) when it was proposed and an irrelevent idea now.
-- The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
The UN was founded on the Wilsonian idea that all the evils in the world are caused by unrepresentative government, that everyone will just naturally get along if we all sit down and talk about our differences, and that the best way to make that happen is to promote democratic instituations around the world -- essentially a redo League of Nations but with US membership.
Wilson's ideas were dated when he stole them and promoted them as his own and they are certainly dated now.
-- The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
In every case the US was acting in the interests of it's citizens. How is that wrong? What your comment shows is that the rest of the world doesn't understand the geopolitical realities here.
Veto's on behalf of Israel -- for some strange reason the rest of the world seems to hate Jews. The Israeli's have a right to be there and have a right to have their country recognized. Doing so represented the national intersts of the United States. The situation in that region is as bad as it is primarily because of European greed and anti-semitism. Our European "allies" were slowing driving the region into the welcoming arms of the Soviets. The US prevented that from happening by picking a militarilly strong ally it could rely on.
ICC -- the US believes in due process protections for the accused as well as certain other things we consider essential to our rights and freedoms. We have no interest in forfeiting our Sovernty to an organization with no accountability or transparency who's controlling organization is dominated by anti-American sentiment. When Clinton signed it he stated publicly that he agreed to the principle but not this implementation and recommended that his successor not accept the treaty in it's current form. We want to negoticate and get our concerns addressed. The Europeans are unwilling to, that's not our fault. I also find it really funny that your cited Human Rights Watch, the organization that classifies many Palistinian terrorists as Freedom fighters and has had serveral members prosecuted for aiding and abeting terrorists.
Genocide Conspiricy theory -- The US didn't do anything about Cambodia because the country didn't have the political will to get Americans killed in the name of do-gooding with no national interest at stake. While we feel the pain of what the people over there have been through, it's not our job to go around and fix ever single problem on the planet. In fact, most of our European friends have told us we do it too much. As for acknowledgeing them once they were in power, we didn't have any better alternative. Ignoring them would have been stupid and prevented any political solution, and, as I stated earlier, a military solution just wasn't an option.
-- The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
If he had WMDs, why would he not use then against the US troops?
Just a guess: the same reason he didn't use them on the Israelis, whatever it was? Maybe he didn't want to justify the US invasion. The use of WMD would have been really stupid on his part and bought him nothing. If he had them, he did the smart thing and didn't use them.
My theory: he had production capability but was not stockpilling weapons because it would be too hard to hide them. His plan was probably to outlast the inspections and the sanctions and then restart production.
Your VX example is flawed. VX is inherently unstable, it can't be stockpilled. It must be mixed post-launch by special equipment in the rocket. The principle components are generally harmless materials. The UK found such equipment and such materials in close proximity. That not counting is just semantics.
Your claim that Saddam was nuts and messed up is also silly. It looks to me like he's getting the last laugh right about now. Either way on the WMD question he fooled every intellegence agency in the world, either on his capabilities and stockpiles or on their location. He also seems to have drawn the US into a very dangerous guerilla war that is slowy draining the US resolve and almost caused a premature pullout.
The real problem is not that we went to war, but how Bush justified it. There were plenty of perfectly valid, reasonable, well founded reasons for getting rid of the SoB, that's why so many people from both sides supported it. The other problem is that Bush and his team seemed to have made a few diplomatic miscalculations on how to proceed. There miscalcuations are almost comical as Henry Kissinger wrote and editorial in the run up to the war advising the president of certain dangers and how to prevent them. Everyone of the recomendations that Bush ignored has caused him problems. The real questiong going forward is why Bush failed to prevent problems he had been warned about by someone in his own party.
-- The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
The UN is run by its member nations. As long as US'ians go on with media spin involving henchmen, the rest of the world yawns.
No henchmen dictated the Kyoto treaty. It was negotiated. US was the most listened-to country in these negotiations (it has the most guns after all). Now, US looks like it is ready to screw everybody, including their own henchmen.
-- Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
Damn,you sound like a real Kurt Russell movie script.Proof that t.v. is making the sum of minds everywhere. Yes,a lot like France,the world hate us.A lot like France,we don't give a sh*t either.
I don't buy GWB moral outrage story either,but then he has to justify it to the local socialists.
Let them defend themselves if they can.Terrorism is not defense.If you support terrorism against anyone,why would I support,help,aid you or what you stand for? Why would I care what your judgement is? The world comes to us with their hand out.The world gets their handout. The world complains because we have more and they have less,though they have not worked for it.The world stomps it feet,pounds its fists,unpuckers its sphincter and out drops the U.N. to make sure it can get what it wants under the thin guise of " whirled peas" World peace. And you want me to sign where? ROFLMAO! sheeeeit boy,you ain't gonna sell any used yugos here today! As far as Kyoto goes,well I bet you'd buy that same yugo sight unseen without a test drive. Thanks,I'll drive my big reliable full size chevy truck. BTW FTW got it? good!
-- *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Well using them on the Israelis this time would be an act of agression and that would be the last thing he'd wanna do at that time (during the first Gulf war). When he invaded Kuwait he had already passed the borders into another country, so he attacked Israel in hope of having the other arab countries withdraw their support of the UN-led liberation of Kuwait (he also attacked Saudi as well, but that was more due to the fact that the Saudis hosted the US troops).
Yes, I know VX cannot be stockpiled but then again I only used it as an example that we knew that he at least had had WMDs and was not afraid to use them. At one point he actually had one of the larger military forces in the world but the UN sanctions (and of course the first Gulf war) led to it's destruction. Saddam had barely enough to maintain his regular army material so I think he simply scrapped his WMDs (by lack of maintenance) as his primary goal was to stay in power in Iraq and in order to do so you need ordinary weapons, not WMDs. WMDs are extremely inefficient at keeping a population under oppression. Saddam knew that he would not have any offensive capabilities for many many years, so trying to stay in power was the best he could do.
Saddam was nuts and made miscalculations and did fail. His goal was to stay in power in Iraq. Nothing else mattered to him. He could not care less about the problems the US forces are having in Iraq now. Saddam had the very same issues before and he used force to keep the shiites and the kurds under opression.
Saddam is a lot like Stalin in his quest for power (Stalin was not a communist, he simply used their agenda to put him in power).
Yes the justification for the war was all f**ked up, but that was Bush's only chance of justifying a war. No other reason that would get other countries to join up at the time. Without the support of the UK it would have been diplomatic suicide in the face of the rest of the world. I agree, there were/are other reasons to justify the war but none that would give the "right" (in the UN) to invade during his first term of service (and without it he would not have been re-elected due to the economic state).
--
Life is what happened when Good Intentions met Harsh Reality (the brother of the more infamous Chaos).
Please do then we can stop time being wasted with lies about WMD's and actually take action against the real problems i.e. north Korea, Iran, and Sudan all things the UN are trying to sort out, both Iran and North Korea are bigger threats than Iraq ever was . All these things were delayed by a bunch of liars for no good purpose.
Finally, stop crying that the organisation setup by America to try impose it's view on others has grown a pair and become independent, a bit like the WTO.
-- Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
The world,inasmuch as business is conducted mutually with us,will be intervened in,just like china or any other entity with vested interests anywhere.Is that so fucking hard to figure out?
Engage us on our terms,the golden rule.
Why does america keep trying to break that rule?
-- Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
The world comes to us with their hand out. The world gets their handout. The world complains because we have more and they have less, though they have not worked for it. The world stomps it feet,pounds its fists,unpuckers its sphincter and out drops the U.N. to make sure it can get what it wants under the thin guise of " whirled peas" World peace. And you want me to sign where? ROFLMAO! sheeeeit boy,you ain't gonna sell any used yugos here today! As far as Kyoto goes,well I bet you'd buy that same yugo sight unseen without a test drive. Thanks,I'll drive my big reliable full size chevy truck.
Wake up to the new world it's 2004 not the 1980's most countries will run a mile than get into debt to the US know, they know it's cheaper to find partners who are a bit less free with there money and and lot less restrictive over how the govern themselves. I bet you presume that Chevy is reliable because it's American built, have you ever looked at any consumer surveys about reliability and safety? They show an interesting pattern involving American cars. You won't sell any cars that are unreliable, unstable, have vats of treacle for suspension, and can't get round a corner at speed and pretty dismal off-road performance for off-road vehicles.
The rest of the world and a lot of your countrymen have moved on and improved themselves over the last 24 years, you are a dinosaur living of the glories of the cold war Americas century was the last one not this one.
BTW your Fucked and your fucked for 4 more years LOLOLOL, bend over boy and grip you ankles uncle Bush is here and he's can't contain himself.
-- Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
"He who has the gold,makes the rules" well,if we make the rules,I guess we can break them too.Comparitive to one being in charge calling the shots with the option to change ones mind to suit the situation. Sounds a lot like business,because it is.Separate business from literary mores or you'll be left with sentimental ruin. Perhaps if youknew more about America you would be qualified to make statements that at least "sound" like you know what youre talking about.http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/restore. htm should be a good starting point for Non-u.s. people to get a good idea without popular media interference of what the united states is about and not a word about Bush in it.
-- *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I see by your response,you don't have the life experience to be taken seriously.In fact you sound like a pimply high school kid who got cheesed off because Kerry lost. I've nothing for Bush,but I'm honestly glad Kerry remains the loser he always was and will be. Kid you never went off road in your life. Research government for yourself and quit listening to teachers and media.Then come back and make your silly claims.
-- *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
So next time a cop stops you for running a red, say "You can't book me for failing to stop at the light - I didn't even try to". I bet he'll be so amused he'll only whack you a few times.
-- Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The US created no such thing don't let your jingoism get the better of you just because the signing took place in the US. 50 countries decided to try again (the first attempt being "The League of Nations" established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles)
I understand what you mean though. The U.N. has done a good bit of adapting since its primary purpose fell apart. One part you didn't quite get right though: "Unless things change with the way the US does business, it's going to find itself alone when bad things start to happen." That "alone" you speak of isn't going to be economic, we're just too loaded with resources. No, it's likely going to be if the U.S. removes all the other countries.
Proving you don't understand what he ment - he wasn't talking about resources (most of which are outside your country anyway) but that in the eyes of the majority of the planet the US have been behaving like the neighborhood bully, not listening to anybody, always believing himself to be right and beating up anybody who gets in the way.
-- If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
the discussion was about a future majority vote on all thing considered security though. Which is not the case today.
As far as kyoty goes, don't even get me started on this. It shows of the inherent problems with the UN. Kyoto is basically a global welfare scheme, and yes, the majority in the counsel helped make it so. As far as the climate is concerend, the ozon from printers and copy machines needed to print all necessary kyoto documents probably has a larger impact than the realization of the protocol itself will have.
Heh. "Looks like Russia has picked up where the U.S. failed".
Yeah. Because the US just loves pollution.
Anyone find it extremely ironic that groups of people who really hate Bush chastise Bush about the US losing manufacturing and blue collar jobs - and in fact whole companies - overseas, and that other groups of people who really hate Bush (sometimes the same groups, in fact) chastise Bush for not signing onto Kyoto, when those two positions in this context are essentially diametrically opposed?
We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing". Nations like China. That doesn't exactly level the playing field when we're losing manufacturing jobs to places like China like it's going out of style as it is. Further, the EPA, and the whole of the US government, is committed to the principles of Kyoto, but we will not ratify such an unbalanced agreement.
This isn't a bid to line pockets of corporate officers. This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw caution about potential global warming concerns to the wind. This means the US is trying to stay competitive in a global economy, where we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job. This is a hope to at least keep *some* of these jobs during a long period of economic transition.
Note to the US Kyoto activists: you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we lose jobs and US companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto. Yes, there's a lot of nuance, but I'm afraid that it's that simple.
(Hopefully, as economies equalize, a new industrialized West will manage to emerge from it, instead of being decimated by it in the meantime.)
Wow. Thank you for taking the obvious and stating it with such clarity. I wish I hadn't blown all of my mod points earlier today. I wish more people could look at issues less passionately and more objectively like this.
"Note to the US Kyoto activists: you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we lose jobs and US companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto. Yes, there's a lot of nuance, but I'm afraid that it's that simple."
It IS fact. They Kyoto treaty places HIGH standards on the U.S. (higher than any other country), but NO standards on some others like China. Those are the facts, please sir get YOUR facts straight.
Yes, well the US these days doesn't seem to have a problem ignoring the rest of the world and doing whatever it wants with its fingers in its ears. Most of the rest of us, the industrialized nations of the world are trying to do whats right. The Economy Isn't Everything.
-- This is not a sig.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
"China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade."
From that article you linked to.
China, a developing nation (and don't say it isn't, the average wage three years ago was $300 a year) HAS signed onto the treaty, even though it's likely to hurt China much more than the States. Especially considering China's economic growth is at 8% a year... Climate change is real, and if we don't do something about it, we're all going to be screwed.
50% of all species on the planet will be extinct in the next 50 years - all because of human impact. How the hell can we let that happen? The "mass extinction" of the dinosaurs was ONLY 19% of all species on the planet at that time.
When will people wake up and smell the carbon dioxide?
Then in light of that statement, I propose you and your family be the first to lose their jobs.
What? Don't like that idea?
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Losing manufacturing jobs? You don't know many machinists I take it. The jobs have been gone for a long time. This would happen with or without Kyoto. If any country were actually serious about environmental issues, they'd ban *imports* from polluting countries, so they weren't polluting by proxy. Will you thne be shocked when the Kyoto signees then get together and decide to ban imports from the U.S. (not that we have all that much manufacturing anymore to worry about)?
Dude, "don't confuse the sitution with facts" is a joke. It means don't confuse those poor saps who believe in the Kyoto treaty just because the facts don't support it.
This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw caution about potential global warming concerns to the wind.
Out of curousity, what exactly has the Republican executive branch done in regards to global warming (or as they refer to it "climate change") in the past 4 years and what are they proposing to do in the next 4 years?
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Note that not all US Kyoto activists are crying about the lost jobs. You started your argument out saying "sometimes the same groups" but then at the end lump all the Kyoto activists in with the people crying about lost jobs.
How about this? How about the groups are really separate (sure there is some overlap, but let's just say they're separate). Who are you to say that the cause for keeping jobs in America is any more important than the cause for signing onto Kyoto?
Note to those wanting to keep jobs in the US no matter what the stakes: you can't fuck up the environment and think everything will be hunky-dory down the line.
Tell me that when you don't have a job and have zero dollars (or whatever monetary unit you use) in the bank, are up to your eyeballs in debt and don't have enough money to go to McDonalds to get a Happy Meal. Economy=Jobs.
-- Fly me to the moon
Let me sing among those stars
Let me see what spring is like
On jupiter and mars
so... are you in favor of losing jobs or pollution?
Or maybe there is another option that you ignored in your attempt to somehow admonish "Bush haters" (which are obviously a fungible mass that all hate Bush for the same reason). It isn't like the government can pitch in and subsidize modernizations that lead to a cleaner economy. Also, clearly all expenses related to Kyoto compliance _must_ come directly from what would otherwise be payed as wages. It isn't as if companies would except a low level of profits in order to remain profitable at all (actually, scratch that, I forgot-- companies can just continue to lay off people even until their facilities close with no harmful effect on their bottom line). Oh, and hate to break it to you, but despite all our talk of free market economics, Americans _are_ magically entitled to a 2000% cost-of-living bonus.
How many 'other countries' are giving aid to countries abroad? How many other countries rush in to defend their allies to the death? How many other countries liberate people from dictators? How many other countries lead by innovating? How many other countries allow their people to own property?
And how is 'doing what everyone else is doing' the same as 'doing what's right'?
It's NOTE just the economy, you're right. But I think you're the one with the narrow mind.
I call bullshit. It is easy to say "Kyoto treaty will cause lost jobs" but much tougher to prove it. If anything, initiatives like the Kyoto treaty will create demand for cleaner technologies and upgrades. It is silly to look at the issue from the microeconomic perspective of a particular industry or even one polluting company. Yes, it will reduce job growth in that company but remember that company still must upgrade its technologies to comply with new regulations. This increases our macroeconomic exdendatures which helps us all.
This argument is not new. The same things happened when Nixon signed the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. This same tired argument was made then (as well as corporate threats).
And before somebody hits "reply", no, it is not the fault of the Kyoto treaty that these corporations are threatening to outsource jobs if it is passed. It is a result of Bush's crappy trade policies and lack of concern for outsourcing in general. If you are so worried about outsourcing, then you should be doubly concerned about the "tax reforms" Bush says we need so badly.
I'm Canadian. We ratified Kyoto, we have a healthy economy. We have a social safety net, and a large federal surplus. We have universal health care. Our unemployment rate is a little higher than the US but we are doing extremely well, thank you for asking.
-- This is not a sig.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"This means the US is trying to stay competitive in a global economy, where we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job."
The costs of doing business are a lot more than just labour costs. Perhaps $22/hr. is a little expensive for "turning a bolt"? Trying to prevent the loss of business opportunities because someone else is willing to do the same thing for less isn't called "staying competitive," it's called "protectionism." You know what I find ironic? The fact that most Republicans are proponents of capitalism and the free market system, but only if the capitalists are US citizens.
And you know what? Some nations get away with slavery, and having political prisoners, and torture. Doesn't mean we should do it. It's not practical to enforce western regulations in many nations. While you can argue the exemption for China, it doesn't mean the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. How about sign up for Kyoto, then tell China that their most favored nation trading status is contingent upon their voluntary compliance with the accord?
Instead of trying to work things out, the Fed did the equivalent of quitting and taking their ball home. Well you know what? The rest of the world is going ahead with this anyway. At some point, US exports are going to get tariffs imposed by the WTO because of its overly lax environmental regulation, lack of compliance with international standards etc etc. THEN who will be responsible for the lost jobs?
If you want to really worry about shipping your jobs overseas, look at WalMart and the people who shop there. The place should be called WalMart's Chinese Market. 80% of their goods are manufactured there.
Working towards saving energy could save money in the long run, since energy is scarce. Often old, inefficient businesses just need a kick in the ass to get moving on becoming more green, and end up making more money. Plus, developing all the alternative energy sources plus the energy saving technologies could mean MORE jobs for Americans. Or is technological innovation not one of the strengths of the old US of A?
Real conservatives would want to SAVE our finite resources in case we need them later. Ill informed 'conservatives' are frightened of ANY change, even when it's necessary.
-Greg
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He was commenting on the typo in the sentence. If you read the erroneous sentence, the author mistakenly implied that signing onto the Kyoto treaty would prevent job loss.
I'm Canadian, we ratified the Kyoto Accord and guess what? We're very happy with who we are and do our best to serve as a good example for the rest of the world as much as the US tries to do.
Did you read the paragraph right after the quote from Bush saying the treaty isn't fair because China isn't included? Here it is:
" China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997". "
So why aren't we on board with this? It shouldn't cause us a competative disadvantage to any of these countries who have approved the treaty:
India, China, Russia, Japan, Canada, EU, Israel, etc, etc, etc.
Since the US is the largest contributer of greenhouse gasses, it seems a touch disingenous to defer because "other countries won't have to cut down". No one will have to cut down their emissions of greenhouse gasses as much as the US will, because no one contributes them at the rates we do.
Agreed. A look through my post history would show I'm anti-Bush, pro-environment, basically your typical bleeding heart liberal. But I also try to keep informed, and the thing that just seemed so obvious to me even when I had first started researching it was that the Kyoto treaty is very, very bad for the US economy. Not just the short term costs of trying to meet its demands (which I don't find that unreasonable), but the long term gains of a more environmentally sustainable economy are offset by the handicaps put on the US compared to the vast majority of the rest of the world. I might be on the left, but damnit our country isn't doing so hot right now in the money department, so now is not the proper time. If this were 1998 it would be a different story, but Bush made the right call on this one.
--
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
... we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job.
Exactly, but contradictory to your overall point.
The reason jobs are being lost to overseas has to do entirely with labour costs, and nothing to do to with pollution controls. The factor of 160 in wages (your numbers, not mine) is vastly higher than the few percent losses in efficiency from using cleaner production processes.
Feel free to debate whether developing countries should be exempt based on the enviromental benefits gain in including them (if they would even sign on, which is unlikely) vs the issues of supporting developing economies. However, the "we can't afford to lose jobs" argument is fundamentally flawed.
The attack on China doesn't hold water either. Yes, China is a developing country and you simply can't argue it any other way. Sure, they are the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gases, but they have four times the population of the US. The US produces ten times more CO2 per capita than China (same site you linked to).
Yes, there's a lot of nuance, which you conveniently ignored, and I'm afraid it's NOT that simple.
Out of curousity, what exactly has the Republican executive branch done in regards to global warming (or as they refer to it "climate change") in the past 4 years and what are they proposing to do in the next 4 years?
about as much as the Democrats have done.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then in light of that statement, I propose you and your family be the first to lose their jobs.
What? Don't like that idea?
I suggest you read the post that grandparent was refering to.
Either we lose jobs and US companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto.
Climate change is real, and if we don't do something about it, we're all going to be screwed.
Climate change *is* real. And it was going on waaaay before we got here, and it'll be going on waaaay after we're gone.
Even one of the latest issues of Scientific American had an article talking about how they've discovered periods in geologic history when the climate changed by 5-7 deg C in a decade (remembering roughly).
It's like any other data problem. Our dataset is just too small to provide an accurate picture. Hell, we're just now discovering that the solar cycle might have something to do with climate (duh).
This is what gets me the most, though. Who actually believes that you can make statements about small (0.5%) variations in a system when your dataset only covers 0.0000001% (number not actually calculated) of the lifetime of the system? (300 years of weather data vs 4.5 billion years that the earth has existed)
Given those raw numbers, no scientist would say they could give you any rational data about the "system". Now replace system with weather and they think they know exactly how it works.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That doesn't include the monsterous underground coal fire they started that can't be put out. And in large part is to be expected as the population switches from cooking with coal to electricity!
50% of all species on the planet will be extinct in the next 50 years - all because of human impact. How the hell can we let that happen? The "mass extinction" of the dinosaurs was ONLY 19% of all species on the planet at that time.
On the other hand, the end-Permian (Permian-Triassic) extinction resulted in the extinction of 90-95% of marine organisms and ~70% of terrestrial species. And that was 298(?) million years ago - several hundred million years before humans were around. Not that the extinctions we are seeing now aren't bad (and a very large portion of them probably are the result of human activity), but they are hardly unprecedented.
You raise a number of good points. However the big problem is that the prevailing attitude of the current Republican Party incarnation is that pollution is no big deal.
The fact remains that Kyoto or no, Bush switched back on his initial (2000) campaign promise to put CO2 on a list of gasses that need to be controlled. This combined with his destructive decisions on mercury from powerplants, mountaintop drilling, industrial farming, oil contracts, endangered animal protection, and countless other issues are going to cause major issues.
Now, one can say that being so pro-business is going to create jobs for us. The problem is that they haven't. Not only have they not fulfilled on this (in the case of mountain top mining it's actually cost jobs), but the burden of paying for the ultimate destruction falls on the taxpayers.
As usual, the checkbook is balanced on the backs of those who can't afford to pay it.
There is a direct causal relationship between forcing industry to not pollute and job loss
That the U.S. should not create it own importation tarriffs on those who excessively dump to negate financial benefits of doing so.
The first assumption is completely groundless. There are a miriad of factors involved in a countries economy. Some possible biasing factors which would directly affect your assumption include, but are not limited to:
Rise in medical care costs due to pollution which could result in less discretionary income and possibly a less robust economy
Lost work days due to poor work environment resulting in higher production costs
Destruction of resources which could serve as an aditional means of economic growth (tourist industry)
Lack of incentive for alternate, more efficient production methods
For the second point, the laissez faire and free but not fair market model that we are currently supporting is a significant contributor to job loss and Industry exodus. Though the U.S. is a major producer, what many people forget is that above all the U.S. is a major consumer. If importers were penalized for not adhering to fair labor practices (no slave or child labor, adhering to pollution standards equal to that of the U.S., etc, etc) in such a manner as to put local industry in the same playing field there would be no incentive to migrate except ones more adherent to the principles of true capitilism: equal competition.
Notice that I have not made any bold causal assumptions of my own. Merely pointed out that your assessment is simplistic, ill-informed, poorly supported, and more opinion than any sort of solid assessment to base a decision on.
How many 'other countries' are giving aid to countries abroad?
As a percentage of GDP, the USA gives less in aid than almost all other developed nations.
How many other countries rush in to defend their allies to the death?
Rush in? Tell that to the victims of the Blitz. Where was the USA when Poland was invaded? When the tanks swept into Paris? The USA only got involved in WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed.
How many other countries liberate people from dictators?
The USA helped install General Pinochet, a dictator with a fondness for torture, in the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile. Ironically, the date of the coup was September 11.
How many other countries lead by innovating?
The USA has used the Echelon global surveillance system for the purposes of industrial espionage, to give its failing corporations an unfair advantage over more-competitive foreign operations.
How many other countries allow their people to own property?
"The economy isn't everything."
Actually, it is. The economy gets you the abundant cheap food you eat for every meal. The economy provides the electricity you use to power your computer. It makes your clothes.
To boil it down, you would be dead in a week (probably less) if there was no economy. Do you know how to grow your own food, make your own clothes, heat yourself, protect yourself, and basically do all the little things that keep you alive that you take for granted.
Now, I know it's nice to think that world opinion and big warm fuzzy hugs from our neighbors are the most important thing, but if you ask me, my next meal and making sure the lights stay on trump that any day.
Either we lose jobs and US companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto.
Why is it that simple? Probably because China has MFN trade status. The WTO and similar organizations put us between a rock and a hard place.
So long as there are people willing to do the work we do for 1/100 the price, there are going to be problems. Whenever any business can make an extra buck, you can bet they'll do whatever it takes to make it happen. The key is to make it more expensive to outsource jobs. Of course, the best way to do that is to use protective tariffs or require all those companies who import goods into the US comply with our national labor laws. In this respect, I can have my cake and eat it, too.
Yes, I know tariffs are the worst thing ever. It eliminates choice from the almighty consumer. Here's a wake-up call to those of you with your heads in the ground:
The American lifestyle is not sustainable.
Wish all you want. We live on a planet with finite resources. Unless we develop energy-to-matter conversion devices (replicators) we will have to fall in line and ratchet back our standards of living. Sooner or later, you're going to have to scale back all the luxuries you enjoy now.
As far as China and totalitarian states go, there is a certain corollary about free trade with them. You can't. When one side sets prices and the other doesn't, the other is at a disadvantage.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
about as much as the Democrats have done.
also about as much as the Greens have done.
Re:Irony
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You misread it. He was being funny.
Common misconstruction of a sentence:
Either we loose jobs to places like China, OR we sign on to Kyoto.
Implying if we sign on to Kyoto, that will save jobs.
He was merely pointing out a grammatical misconstruction
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
It is easy to say "Kyoto treaty will cause lost jobs" but much tougher to prove it.
It's only tough for those that don't understand economics and blindly follow the liberal/environmentalist party line.
If anything, initiatives like the Kyoto treaty will create demand for cleaner technologies and upgrades.
This is the old theory that if we demand cleaner technologies it will not hurt the economy because we'll be spending money to invent and deploy those technologies. That's a short-sighted interpretation.
Let's say you have an energy plant that employs 10,000 people and generates power for 100,000 consumers at a cost of $100B (all made up numbers). Now let's say they are subject to certain environmental restrictions to become "cleaner." They are forced to raise the price of their product to, say, $120B and $20B is being spent on cleaner technology which employs, say, 2,000 people.
So how has the economy been improved? Instead of 10,000 people being employed by $100B of electric bills, 12,000 people and $120B are now required. More people and more money is required to produce the same amount of electricity. And the 2,000 people that were added are not doing something else that could have a useful contribution to the economy. The industry and ecomomy have become less efficient and the 2000 additional people to pull it off may have been able to do something that would have materially helped the economy.
Feel free to say "It's worth it to save the environment" but please don't pretend that implementing environmental regulations will help the economy because that is B.S.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What a typical american answer.
When I reade all these fanatical posts, I feel so happy that I live in Europe.
The USA helped install General Pinochet, a dictator with a fondness for torture, in the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile. Ironically, the date of the coup was September 11.
Not to mention that US did back up both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw
They don't hate it, they just don't care. The Republicans are controlled by fundie philosophy right now, because Bush himself is a fundie. If you're a fundie, you believe THE END TIMES ARE COMING (bush has publically stated he thinks the end times will occur within his lifetime) -- so why bother not polluting? They believe they're leaving the earth to be with god, so they don't care if they fuck it up.
--
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're stating that reducing greenhouse emissions means losing manufacturing jobs (and other unspecified "blue collar" jobs). This is simply untrue.
Yes, some manufacturers would need to spend money on new technology to reduce emissions but this does not mean that lay-offs would result (it could actually create jobs) or that the companies would become uncompetitive (the retrofitting would be a tiny fraction of overall costs for the plant).
As for powerplants, most power is not used by manufacturers, it is used directly by consumers. Again, power is usually a tiny fraction of overall costs and an increase in electricity costs would represent a tiny percentage increase in overall costs (exceptions to this such as aluminium production take place where power is cheap, and generally use hydroelectric power).
So where's the argument against Kyoto exactly? It would cost tax-payers money, because the government would need to come up with solutions. It would mean more regulation of industry. Those are two things Republicans generally don't want. It's not about jobs.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We haven't even found every species on this planet, so how can we expect data that estimates the percentage left alive in 50 years from something no one even understands are accurate?
Everything about global warming is politics, on both sides. Neither side actually has a 100% legitimate stake in fact. The same people whining about global warming today were whining about global cooling 50 years ago. Who knows about the species killed off since then?
Oh yeah, oh yeah, well "I" say that 98% of all species in the GALAXY will be extinct in the next 5.3 years, all because of, uhm, lessee, that-guy-down-the-street's impact! Yeah, that's the ticket! I can make up cool numbers too!
I just know I'm going to get moderated -23 Lugubrious for this informative post!
It's only tough for those that don't understand economics and blindly follow the liberal/environmentalist party line.
Then prove it. I don't follow the liberal/environmentalist party-line so I will read it with an open mind. I have taken macro/micro econ as well as environmental science and policy as an undergrad. I am pretty sure I could follow your argument so make it.
I am not going to break-down your anecdote. The problem with it is that you completely disregard factors such as improved efficiency. When a company is forced to reinvest into cleaner technologies, they do not go out willy-nilly and purchase more expensive versions of the same technologies they are using. They usually purchase more efficient technologies. This creates a demand for such technologies and markets open up to satiate that demand. Consider what has happened in the "Bubble Policy" where the government made it profitable for business to clean themselves up. It has generated new industries to help businesses become more profitable by becoming cleaner. Kyoto could be implemented nationally any many forms and not all of them would cause the little story you described.
Ya OK, we'll deindustrialize the US, just because you say so, in order to make things "fair" for the so-called developing nations; are you happy now? That is what this treaty is about afterall; wealth redistribution, not cleaning up the environment. Why else would they have this pollution credit bullshit and exemptions for the most-polluting country (China)?
Per dollar GDP, China is by far the worst polluter in the world.
By the way -
0% of all species on the planet will be extinct in the next 50 years - all because of human impact. How the hell can we let that happen? The "mass extinction" of the dinosaurs was ONLY 19% of all species on the planet at that time.
This is a non-sequitur. If you're talking about deforestation and destruction of wetlands, fine, but we're talking about greenhouse gases here.
And I'm very grateful that the canadian authorities now tell us when chemical valley plants in Sarnia spill hundreds of gallons toxic chemicals into Our drinking water; it sure beats looking across the river for fire trucks.
eh, and how would signing Kyoto directly affect this? I mean, we are talking about using less thermal power, to support green and clean energy, to change for more efficient anti-pollution systems, to put more emphasis on the public transport, to ask people to recycle more (instead of incinerate everything), to develop new clean technologies, cleaner engines, cleaner processes, etc..
And, if I am not wrong, all theses activities require jobs, new jobs, new businesses, no?
And don't say that Kyoto is what is needed to lose jobs to cheaper countries, just look on how much jobs USA lost in the 5 last years, and Kyoto was not involve.
Market is changing, what all countries like USA, Canada and Western Europe are victims are called globalization. Kyoto or not, we will still lose jobs to those "not-as-developed-as-our countries". Markets are changing, and countries like us need to adapt and develop new economies with new markets, specialized jobs; we can't live in the economy of 20 years ago...
Saying that the environment is less important than manufacturing job is just retarded, sorry. We are talking about not only yourself, or myself but about our children, their children, which disease will kill me, our civilization, our home, our earth.. If you are saying that all those greenhouse gas are natural, won't make any difference to us, won't change the temperature of the earth, well, I hope that, at least, you are a scientific or you studied and read all the papers that went out on the subject. Else way, it's like theses presidents of tobacco companies swearing in the 80-90 that cigarette was not dangerous and that there was nothing that could addict you..
Anyone find it extremely ironic that groups of people who really hate Bush chastise Bush about the US losing manufacturing and blue collar jobs - and in fact whole companies - overseas, and that other groups of people who really hate Bush (sometimes the same groups, in fact) chastise Bush for not signing onto Kyoto, when those two positions in this context are essentially diametrically opposed?
They are not diametrically opposed positions. They are ultimately the same position. Anti-free trade.
If there were no free trade then companies would not be able to move overseas. The PEOPLE would be able to impose environmental protection laws.
(we have no free migration. why have free trade?)
Putting all the blaim on Bush however is naive. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blaim for selling out the "people" in favour of private corporate interests.
All Bush has done is taken the gloves off and made it blatantly obvious. Corporate values are the only thing which are important in American politics. (oh and making sure the public is focused either on non-economic issues (which corporations could care less about) such as gay marriage or abortion, or focused on profit making issues such as the war on drugs.
Note to the US Kyoto activists: you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we lose jobs and US companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto. Yes, there's a lot of nuance, but I'm afraid that it's that simple.
Who exactly is going to pay for cleaning up the atmosphere after corporations destroy it? Corporations?
Not likely! It is the poor and the middle class who will foot the bill. Not just Americans however. We have a global economy now. And the poor and middle class accross the planet are the ones who will be paying to correct the atmosphere, as the powerful elite minority continue to enjoy seemingly ever increasing profits.
Why bother upgrading a factory by 2012, when you are planning on closing it (taking your loss as a tax deduction) and moving production to malaysia anyway?
Kyoto didn't outsource americans their jobs. That was free trade.
You are right about 1 thing.
You *can't* have your cake and eat it to. Either you are living in a democracy or you are nothing more than disposable labour for private corporate interests. So which is it?
BTW: The american government has just decided to put each and every single american another $2k+ in debt. hooray for corporate tax relief.
Who does the american government work for?
That's a trick question.
The american government has no power to work anymore because it is owned by private corporate interests and the people are too scared of losing their jobs to exercise democracy.
Unless the people do something about it, the sole remaining task of the American government is to facilitate the efficient explotation of the labour pool and natural resources. And in case you don't know what that means, it means: provide the minimum possible education to enable people to labour without aspiring to anything higher, and assisting corporations to pay the minimum possible wages and exploit every last square inch of the natural environment as fast as technologically possible for the benefit of the 2% minority who own 80% of the earth.
-- No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
That happens if you spend your tax money on warfare around the globe (like the U.S.) instead of social security. In most other countries you have at least enough money for food and a place to live even if you are unemployed.
There is a difference between "Economy isn't everything" and "The Economy is bad". You have to weigh your priorities. Economy is an important priority but it sure isn't the only one.
I have taken macro/micro econ as well as environmental science and policy as an undergrad. I am pretty sure I could follow your argument so make it.
So have I. But that doesn't make either one of us experts. I already provided an approximate description of why it is so and that doesn't even take into account the "Kyoto Effect" where many industries would just move to Kyoto-exempt developing countries rather than trying to make their processes cleaner.
The problem with it is that you completely disregard factors such as improved efficiency. When a company is forced to reinvest into cleaner technologies, they do not go out willy-nilly and purchase more expensive versions of the same technologies they are using. They usually purchase more efficient technologies. This creates a demand for such technologies and markets open up to satiate that demand.
I'm sorry, that sounds like more "pie in the sky" wishful thinking. Cleaner technologies are solar power, wind, etc. But you're not going to invest in clear technologies and expect to save money because the new process is more efficient. If that were the case the companies would make those investments anyway on a purely economic basis.
No, the reason why you "need" things like Kyoto is because certain people are trying to force businesses to do things that wouldn't otherwise make economic sense.
Consider what has happened in the "Bubble Policy" where the government made it profitable for business to clean themselves up. It has generated new industries to help businesses become more profitable by becoming cleaner.
Anything the government does comes out of our pockets. Just because government makes it "profitable" with tax incentives doesn't mean there was no cost. The companies see it as a profit because instead of charging the customer the price of the "profit" on the sale of products, the additional profit comes out of the taxes collected by all taxpayers (not just their customers).
You can't get something for nothing. Environmental regulations require investment and workforce dedicated to those regulations. That is money and manpower that is not producing anything productive to the economy. Like I said, you can try to make the argument that it's worth it to "save" our environment. But don't pretend it isn't a cost. It most definitely is a cost that will be a drag on our economy just like any other cost--be it taxes, the cost of petroleum, or the cost of manpower.
you also do not spend on national defense because the US protects you. you dont have any borders to patrol. you have a relatively small population and most of your country in uninhabited or frozen over...
-- The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Who says Kyoto would cost jobs? Perhaps it would create jobs, e.g. researchers developing new, pollution-free cars/machines/planes/ships/factories and the engineers building those. Perhaps the U.S. could start exporting these things, but who knows if you don't try.
Out of curousity, what exactly has the Republican executive branch done in regards to global warming (or as they refer to it "climate change") in the past 4 years and what are they proposing to do in the next 4 years?
What makes you think anything needs done with regard to global warming? Do you seriously believe that the Earth's climate was completely steady and unchanging until we started polluting the air?
Why do we have to stop the climate from changing if the climate wants to change?
The argument goes (and I'm not saying I agree with it, in fact I don't) like this: If you upgrade a plant to new technology, it will become more efficient than it was. So along with the pollution controls, which are a waste from an economy point of view, you also get better efficiency to offset this. So the new plant would NOT cost $120B per 100,000 consumers served (100 as before, plus 20 in wasted overhead) to serve 100,000 consumers. It would cost about $100 still (80 or so for improved efficiency, plus 20 in wasted overhead). (Again, just like yours, these numbers of mine are made up.)
If you are going to criticize a point, you really should criticize the actual point being made, not an invented strawman of it. In this case the right way to critisize it would be to shoot down the premise that the newer plants would be efficient enough to have that effect.
My problem with Kyoto is that it measures pollution produced but doesn't compare it to products produced. When a Canadian buys an automobile made in Detroit, he is contributing just as much to the US industrial pollution figures by doing so as a US citizen buying an automobile made in Detroit is.
I do think an environmental treaty was needed, but Kyoto wasn't it. By being punative toward countries with large pollution, it is simultaneously punative toward countries with large economies. What would be better would be if the punative measures were based on the RATIO of pollution to economic benefit produced. If one small factory only outputs $100,000 into the economy, and yet it pollutes just as much as a factory that outputs $5,000,000 into the economy, then its pollution is less justifiable. We should be looking at pollution as being like a cash payment - how much benefit will this pollution buy us? If it is a large enough benefit, it becomes more justifiable.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Wish all you want. We live on a planet with finite resources. Unless we develop energy-to-matter conversion devices (replicators) we will have to fall in line and ratchet back our standards of living. Sooner or later, you're going to have to scale back all the luxuries you enjoy now.
If you (your country) wouldn't wage war around the world permanently perhaps you had the money.
On the other hand there is no nation I know off (except Monaco and other city states) that have money to spare so I guess in your interpretation the right time will be never.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
How many 'other countries' are giving aid to countries abroad?
As a percentage of GDP, the USA gives less in aid than almost all other developed nations.
As a real number rather than a percentage the amount makes your reply look stupid as it probably exceeds the GDP of your own country.
How many other countries rush in to defend their allies to the death?
Rush in? Tell that to the victims of the Blitz. Where was the USA when Poland was invaded? When the tanks swept into Paris? The USA only got involved in WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Yes, rush in. If the Germans hadn't been so silly as to declare war after the Japanese made their cowardly attack then you might have got to play with them all by yourselves. In case you've forgotten (or never knew in the first place) there was a strong isolationinst movement in the United States during this period since we had just come through a massive depression. A lot of the American people didn't want any part of the problems they percieved to be as "someone else's problems." They just wanted to mind their own business and get on with their lives. Sort of like Europe now.
How many other countries liberate people from dictators?
The USA helped install General Pinochet, a dictator with a fondness for torture, in the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile. Ironically, the date of the coup was September 11.
Doesn't mean we don't still do the occasional liberation from dictators. And besides, if the dictator is our dictator or plays nice with us what's the problem? Especially if he gives us nice kickbacks from illegal oil sales... WAIT A MINUTE!!! He was our dictator and giving you guys kickbacks not us!!! That SOB!!! Time for him to go.
How many other countries lead by innovating?
The USA has used the Echelon global surveillance system for the purposes of industrial espionage, to give its failing corporations an unfair advantage over more-competitive foreign operations.
Of course we know the French and Germans have never, ever, ever even harboured the slightly remotest possibility of a suggestion of the merest hint of a thought about doing such a thing.
How many other countries allow their people to own property?
Most of them, in fact, Russia included.
Seems to me this is a rather recent innovation on Russia's part. Hopefully one they will continue to endorse for the foreseeable future. But if they decide it is no longer desireable and seek to isolate themselves from the West once more I'd strongly reccommend their buffer zone extend a bit closer to the Atlantic this time, perhaps up to the ocean itself.
I love how no one has read any of the plans from the Bush Administration to curtail emissions in the USA. Just read a little bit on http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/.
As well as this page http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/cl earskies.html "The Clear Skies Initiative will cut air pollution 70 percent...save American consumers millions of dollars.
* Cut sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 73 percent, from current emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.
* Cut emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 67 percent, from current emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
* Cutting mercury emissions by 69 percent, - the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.
The US does have policies in effect to perform the same function as the Kyoto Accord, but they are more in line with our Economic needs and actualities. So there are 3 different emissions that we are curtailing...instead of 7, but it is a start without putting undue strain on our economy, and whether or not you like it the fact that corporations make money also means that most people in the country are making money, if the corporation doesn't make money people lose jobs and or make less.
We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing".
Great, so who's giving the developing nations the means to clean their pollution? It's DEVELOPED nations' technology that they're using after all.
Who invented the steam machine powered by coal? Who invented the internal combustion engine? Who invented the CFC's which destroy the ozone layer? Who invented the non-biodegradable plastic wrap which created gigantic garbage dumps? Who began to anihilate species on masse just to get economical advantage? Who invented the dangerous chemicals that are poured onto rivers and oceans?
Well the developed nations, of course. DOH! So if a nation can reduce its levels of pollution, it's the developed nations alright. If you put the obligation on ALL countries, the developed nations will OBVIOUSLY have an economical advantage, because they'll be the first to comply with the standards. Why? Because they got the MONEY in the first place.
The developed nations started this whole pollution mess.
So this is my message to the developed nations (specially the US) on behalf of the Kyoto protocol.
Don't forget that Socialist paradise formerly known as the Soviet Block. You want to see some environmental carnage, go take a look at any industrial site in the old Soviet controled nations. Hell, as much as people bitch about "big oil" and how dirty they are take a gander at a place like Baku some time. That place makes the worst Superfund site in the States look like a meadow full of daffodils.
The reason China looks so good per capita is because most of China is still an agrarian, third world backwater. Scale up China's current "modern" infrastructure to cover the entire population and China would disappear under a cloud of smog.
The difference being that these days there are humans around, and we'd quite like to survive.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmm - not quite sure how you work out how making industry more carbon efficient is going to lead to a WORSE economic position.
One would have thought that a market economy for carbon would be right up the US's steet. If you make yourself more efficient, you can trade your carbon with other nations.
At least one corporation (BP) are finding that a free carbon market makes them a profit on this score.
Anyway, like Russia, if America is losing lots of jobs in the industrial sector, they would find the Kyoto agreement benefical: less industry = less carbon emission = a better carbon trading position.
The reason China looks so good per capita is because most of China is still an agrarian, third world backwater. Scale up China's current "modern" infrastructure to cover the entire population and China would disappear under a cloud of smog.
China is exempt to protect jobs in Europe and the US for the long term but too many people are too stupid to see the end game the diplomats are playing. The idea is to get developed countries into this while letting the developing countries continue to copy the older manufacturing systems and then in 2015 or so, force places like China to meet the 2012 requirements for the developed. This will result in a higher operating costs for China and bring them in line with Western Europe's pollution and equipment costs.
It is easy to say "Kyoto treaty will cause lost jobs" but much tougher to prove it.
It's only tough for those that don't understand economics and blindly follow the liberal/environmentalist party line.
Economic forecasts are just theory, and are not known for being overwhelmingly accurate. The fact is that economies rise and fall with or without treaties like Kyoto. Jobs are lost. Jobs are gained. It happens all the time.
Now maybe, in theory, a treaty like Kyoto might cause some job loss, but there is no hard scientific evidence that it would cause any significant job loss compared to the natural rise and fall of the economy.
You darn Canadians. Quit telling us how wonderful socialism is. We don't have to go up there to know that you are all dieing to come to America and that most of the people there are starving to death in the streets. At least, that's what our Republican masters have told us, and who am I to doubt?
I made no claims that we are Utopic, certainly we have our problems, we aren't perfect but we are doing very well for ourselves anyway, Kyoto protocol and everything.
Why did Quebec try to separate? Well, it starts from the fact that we created a nation by binding together two different cultures that had been at war on-and-off for a few hundred years. The history of the seperatists is a long one, and requires someone of a more political disposition than I to explain well. But nevertheless, aside from a few incidents (very famous ones inside Canada) we held ourselves together in peace, if not exactly harmony. Today we are closer than ever to accepting who we are, but its been a long road.
I will point out however, that we have not come anywhere close to an all-out conflict as occurred in the United States during the civil war, which did literally rip the country to pieces. And both sides in that war shared the same heritage no less!
We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing". Nations like China. That doesn't exactly level the playing field when we're losing manufacturing jobs to places like China like it's going out of style as it is.
So what you are saying is that the US is not willing to sign an environment based treaty because of economic reasons?
Further, the EPA, and the whole of the US government, is committed to the principles of Kyoto
You sure as hell fooled the rest of the world on that one. 7 of the G8 countries signed. Europe, as much of an economic power as the US signed. Even Russia, the source of all (your invented) evil signed a treat that will on the long run improved the world environment. Do you have any idea how alone you are in this? Doesn't that give you at least some sense of 'doubt' about the motivation your governament has fed you about this topic? If Bush askes you to jump, do you...oh nevermind.
And not to forget that Prescott Bush was tried and convicted after WW2 for massively funding Adolf Hitler. I found it's not popular or even widely known among Americans, but interesing nevertheless. It's quite probable that Hitler wouldn't have been as successful at getting absolute power without Bush. I like to tell to Americans when they accuse me of being a Nazi just because I'm German. (And yes, I realize those people are dumb and not representative.)
-- Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
Rapid climate change exacerbates environmental stress, as ecosystems experience conditions increasingly different from the one they evolved into. This is exacerbated by the increasing fragmentation of ecologically complex zones, preventing continuous migration oif species ranges.
Climate change is definitely germane to biodiversity issues.
Yes, yes... you're right. I am the one to attack here.
If YOU weren't so pigheaded to believe that everyone in the country thought going to war was a good idea, maybe I wouldn't think you're a pighead.
I'm anti-war. I'm pro-environment. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro equal rights for gays. By definition, these all make me anti-Bush. Just because I happen to think that giving the rest of the world a leg up on the US is something that will negatively effect me, as a citizen living in the US dealing with the effects of a shitty economy, does not even give you the right to jump on your high horse to say that I am the cause of problems around the globe. Christ.
--
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
Show me eveidnce that Kyoto will make the US lose jobs, looks like Bush is much more effctive at doing that. And no the current US gov't and the EPA are not committed to the principles of the Kyoto treaty as most of them wont even agree that climate change is caused by human industry in fear of pissing of donors.
On the other hand, the end-Permian (Permian-Triassic) extinction resulted in the extinction of 90-95% of marine organisms and ~70% of terrestrial species. And that was 298(?) million years ago - several hundred million years before humans were around. Not that the extinctions we are seeing now aren't bad (and a very large portion of them probably are the result of human activity), but they are hardly unprecedented.
Those were "natural". Here we're talking about extinction due to human influence.
-- --
You're on a first name basis with Lucidity. I have to call it Mr. Lucidity, and that's no good in a pinch.
Paleoclimatology is a well-developed field. We have essentially direct measurements of atmospheric composition and total ice volume going back 800,000 years and proxy evidence of various kinds for about the last half billion.
Also we have some pretty solid physics that indicates that rapid greenhouse gas accumulation is a problem.
Climate is not weather. Weather is the part of atmospheric conditions that is not predictable beyond a few weeks. Climate is the rest of it.
Will it snow on Christmas? Nobody can say. It's a weather question. WIll Christmas be colder than the Fourth of July? Well, yeah, at least here in Chicago. That's a climate question.
I really don't think the job loss would be as great as those who are funded by the polluters (bush) always spout. It could actually bring in more jobs, and high tech jobs at that. There will need to be high tech retrofits on smokestacks, coal will invest more R&D jobs into clean coal, cleaner techs will get incentives that will allow them to be more competitve with the over-subsidized dirty power producers.
Getting companies not to switch from 22$/hour americans to 22$/month chinese isn't a matter of allowing businesses to pollute as much as they want. There are ways of taxing companies that move their business offshore (or conversely giving incentives to those who are onshore) that will make it less profitable to do so.
The real problem is even deeper though, because it really doesn't make sense to pay someone 22/hour when you can pay 22/month for someone else and a nominal transport/tarrif. Robotics is making it easier for unskilled/uneducated people to do all the hard work. That's progress. In the long run this can lead to a utopia where robots handle all the hard work and we can just lounge about (until the robots rise up and kill us all, that's another story) that's the future I hope to bring my grandchildren into, but if we don't cut down on pollution my grandchildren may not have the nice habitable planet we're now losing.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You said Bush "did the right thing." If Bush had done the right thing- and not gone on various crusades around the world (by the way- Iran is next) then we would have some damned money. If Bush had not cut taxes _AND_ increased spending we would have money right now. Bush took a 400+ billion per year surplus and has turned it into a 4 trillion deficit over 10 years. He has already increased the US debt by 2.4 TRILLION dollars.- Quite frankly, FUCK BUSH. We need clean air.
All we need to do to meet Kyoto would be to improve vehicle fuel economy. Are you seriosuly so deluded as to think that simply requiring better gas mileage would destroy our economy? Should we really allow Ford to sell the Excursion which gets 8 miles to the gallon? Honestly.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Rush?
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you also do not spend on national defense because the US protects you. you dont have any borders to patrol. you have a relatively small population and most of your country in uninhabited or frozen over...
Wow, tax freedom day in Canada doesn't come until June or July? Geez. Tax freedom day in the US will be in April next year.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
Which is why most other industrialized nations (Sweden and France come to mind) are even -MORE- in debt than the US. Social Security == ponzi scheme And it's damned time for it to be deleted from our collective memories. Forcing those of us that have jobs to support those that don't because they're either too incompetent, or too lazy, to start their own businesses is complete and utter tripe. Smoke it, Commie.
The argument goes (and I'm not saying I agree with it, in fact I don't) like this: If you upgrade a plant to new technology, it will become more efficient than it was. So along with the pollution controls, which are a waste from an economy point of view, you also get better efficiency to offset this. So the new plant would NOT cost $120B per 100,000 consumers served (100 as before, plus 20 in wasted overhead) to serve 100,000 consumers. It would cost about $100 still (80 or so for improved efficiency, plus 20 in wasted overhead). (Again, just like yours, these numbers of mine are made up.)
But that's not reasonable. If that were true then the company would do that now with no environmental incentive. They'd like to keep charging $100B but see they could achieve it with only $80B in costs. So they'd do that now from a strictly economic perspective. The fact that they don't is plenty of evidence that this argument doesn't work out for the environmentalists.
In this case the right way to critisize it would be to shoot down the premise that the newer plants would be efficient enough to have that effect.
That's a given. Like I said, if that were the case then the companies would make the investments in newer plants just to gain that additional efficiency and increase profits. The fact that they don't do this is virtually conclusive evidence that the environmentalists are dreaming. The only other explanation is that these big bad businesses are just so evil that they won't make an investment that would increase their profits by 20% in 5 years. I know companies work for the next quarter results but if the efficiency is really there then this is still a no brainer, especially with accounting tricks that would let them distribute the cost over 5 years (or more).
What would be better would be if the punative measures were based on the RATIO of pollution to economic benefit produced. If one small factory only outputs $100,000 into the economy, and yet it pollutes just as much as a factory that outputs $5,000,000 into the economy, then its pollution is less justifiable.
Absolutely! I agree 100%. If we are going to presume that pollution and CO2 production is the problem it supposedly is then the way you describe is the only logical way to address it.
Slashdot puts spaces in long words to avoid the uneccessarily-long-page-widening-trolls, who used to love to come along in a story and post a word such as "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", meaning every poor sod who doesn't have a widescreen monitor to scroll to follow a thread in that story.
And that is why I laugh when the Canadians tell us that we're all fucked up down here in the US. 50% taxes? Not in my lifetime. 110k/yr = 54k/yr in taxes. Go to hell.
rate per 100,000 population (2003) Canada vs US All: 8884.8 vs 8126.8 Violence: 962.8 vs 475.0 Homicide: 1.7 vs 5.7 Attempted homicide: 2.2 vs ? Assaults: 746.5 vs 327.1 Sexual assault: 74.1 vs 32.1 Robbery: 89.6 vs 142.2 Property crimes: 4121.4 vs 3588.4 Auto Theft: 540.7 vs 433.4 Theft over $5000: 63.6 vs ? Traffic offences: 366.3 vs ?
Homicide by method Canada vs US Per 100,000 (all): 1.7 vs 5.7 All: 548 vs 14408 Shooting: 161 (29.4%) vs 9638 (66.9%) Stabbing: 142 (25.9%) vs 1816 (12.6%) Beating: 120 (21.9%) vs 1597 (11.1%) Strangulation: 63 (11.5%) vs 184 (1.3%) Fire: 12 (2.2%) vs 163 (1.1%) Other: 27 (4.9%) vs 182 (1.3%) Unknown: 23 (4.2%) vs 828 (5.7%)
There are you actual statistics. I couldn't find some for the US, but I think this gives an accurate enough impression. All statistics are for the year 2003, taken from Statistics Canada Crime and Justice Reports http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/justic.htm and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm
I agree that Kyoto has problems, and I agree that we shouldn't be agreeing to it as it stands now.
I take exception, however, when the President just walks away. The problem is real. While the current proposed solution ain't perfect, that doesn't mean we walk away from the table. We need to offer a counter solution.
He hasn't done that. That is what I fault him for.
> The American lifestyle is not sustainable.
> >Wish all you want. We live on a planet with finite resources. Unless we develop energy-to-matter conversion devices (replicators) we will have to fall in line and ratchet back our standards of living. Sooner or later, you're going to have to scale back all the luxuries you enjoy now.
It's a free country. You can live like a third-worlder if you want to. Me? I'm choosing "later".
Ok Ok, they are both a bunch of losers. So stop fighting and work for a 3rd party that would actually be empowered to change something if it won.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wrong.
US support of Saddam was primarily limited to satellite intelligence data during the Iran/Iraq war. His military equipment was almost all purchased from the USSR, China, and France, US contributionw as minimal, about as much as that of Brazil.
We also gave him some Anthrax slants - which we give to a lot of countries, so they make can manufacture vaccines - and pesticides and crop-dusting helicopters which he converted to use as chemical weapons. Complain about that if you want, but the fact is, those are all dual-use items, and if we located exactly the same equipment in a warehouse in Iraq today, the anti-war left would shrug them off and say "SO? Those are dual use, no WMDs, Bushitler lied!!!".
As for OBL, during the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, we provided aid to the native Afghani resistance, which later became the Northern Alliance; not to the Arabs who went over to fight a "holy war", which included OBL and which later became the Taliban. Despite the various accusations from some quarters - including the clearly absurd line I see occasionally describing him as a "rogue CIA agent" - the truth is, there's never been any evidence that the CIA had any contact with OBL.
"you also do not spend on national defense because the US protects you."
Canada has never requested the United States to "protect" it. Canada simply has no designs on world domination or interfering with global markets with threats of violence. The USA has military might which far exceeds the needs of defense alone. The US military is offensive. In fact the US military expenditure exceeds the next 3 biggest spenders combined.
The US would not need to spend so much money on military if it wasn't so determined to artificially depress the cost of OIL and interfere with world economies.
The United States is not "defending" Canada out of altruism. The USA is defending Canada in the same way it defends Saudi Arabia and Iraq. To defend the oil. Which Americans buys from canadian based (corporations) in order to fuel the huge SUV's you have been tricked into believing you must all drive.
Fortunately the "people" of Canada had enough sense to put some taxation on oil rather than simply allow corporations to steal it for free. This is probably more to the Crown's credit rather than the people of Canada, as traditionally the "Crown" reserves all mineral rights.
If military expenditure is a great way to transfer public weath into private corporate hands.... well that serves american corporate interests as well.
"America" is doing very well. It is only the american people who are feeling the pinch.
"you dont have any borders to patrol."
Were you expecting to be attacked by Mexico? You already mentioned that Canada has no military.
"you have a relatively small population and most of your country in uninhabited or frozen over..."
You make being frozen over and uninhabited sound like an advantage.
-- No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997"
i.e., nuclear power.
So why aren't we on board with this?
Because we have political controls on nuclear power that keep us from using it to its fullest extent; because fossil fuel companies need to completely deplete the fossil fuel reserves before switching to a cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient energy source; and because some parts of the country (like California) are run by brainless loobies who don't know anything about actual nuclear power, and so they've regulated it out of possibility.
It shouldn't cause us a competative disadvantage to any of these countries who have approved the treaty:
India, China, Russia, Japan, Canada, EU, Israel, etc, etc, etc.
The treaty treats the USA differently than any of these because we put out more pollution. The USA is in deep economic shit already; hobbling us and burdening everybody else isn't going to help the USA in either the long or short run.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
LEARN TO READ, fuckwad. When wibs said "Bush did the right thing", he was talking about REJECTING KYOTO. And from the rest of his posts, he makes it clear that's ALL wibs believes Bush did right.
> Who invented the steam machine powered by coal? >
Who invented the internal combustion engine? >Who invented the CFC's which destroy the ozone layer? >
Who invented the non-biodegradable plastic wrap which created gigantic garbage dumps? >
Who began to anihilate species on masse just to get economical advantage? >
Who invented the dangerous chemicals that are poured onto rivers and oceans? > >Well the developed nations, of course. DOH!
Who invented the power source that made slavery no longer economically viable when compared with industrialism?
Who invented the internal combustion engine, without which our streets would now be chest-deep in horseshit?
Who invented the CFCs which made refrigeration safe and affordable to the middle class?
Who invented the plastics which made deforestation for wood pulp no longer necessary?
Who began to use newfound advantages to expand into new ecological niches, I mean, aside from what every other species on this ball of rock has done for the past 4.5 billion years?
Who invented the dangerous chemicals that fight disease and doubled the human lifespan relative to where it was just 500 years ago?
Well, the developed nations, of course. DOH!
And therefore, I think the developed nations are pretty cool, and forcing them to deindustrialize back to third-world shithole standards of living would make life suck for the rest of humanity as well.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
At least they have never had a tax for each window in a building or for having dogs. linky
bush has publically stated he thinks the end times will occur within his lifetime
Please provide links / information to this. Interesting.
-- /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, we're far from understanding the way climate works. Yes, we don't even know if the global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses. BUT! it's the fate of entire planet what we're discussing here. So you're willing to assume that our model of climate is wrong, and you're willing to take the risk. Well, guess what? I DON'T! So stop polluting your, but MINE AS WELL, planet! I don't f-ing care - you're free to do anything as long as it has no negative imact on me - you can eat asbestos, and bathe in mercury for all I care, but you're NOT allowed to subject MY house to the risk of being submerged when the icecaps melt, just because you want to gain easy buck!
>re we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job.
hmm.. does that just give us a hint as to why we are losing jobs?
btw, both groups can get what they want if the US government can sign onto Kyoto but put tariff on countries that don't.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Anyone find it extremely ironic that groups of people who really hate Bush chastise Bush about the US losing manufacturing and blue collar jobs - and in fact whole companies - overseas, and that other groups of people who really hate Bush (sometimes the same groups, in fact) chastise Bush for not signing onto Kyoto, when those two positions in this context are essentially diametrically opposed?
Not at all - the commonality is HATING BUSH. Great post - I was surprised to find it a highly moderated first post on Slashdot where knee-jerk US/Bush bashers dominate.
By being punative toward countries with large pollution, it is simultaneously punative toward countries with large economies.
The point is that it is not punative towards countries with large pollution, but punative towards countries with increasing pollution. According to the treaty you have to reduce your CO2 output by a certain percentage compared to earlier values. You do not have to lower it to a certain absolute number.
What would be better would be if the punative measures were based on the RATIO of pollution to economic benefit produced
This would not make much sense. OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia are making billions of dollars with pumping oil out of the ground, which produces hardly any CO2. Other countries have a steel industry with similar economic value that produces lots of CO2. As a result, your pollution/benefit ratio would be extremely unfair. The way it is handled in the Kyoto treaty makes sure everyone will have to contribute.
Don't forget that Socialist paradise formerly known as the Soviet Block. You want to see some environmental carnage, go take a look at any industrial site in the old Soviet controled nations.
Which is why those countries have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions since 1990 by a staggering 40%, so the world as a whole is currently on target for the Kyoto reductions despite the US having increased output by 13%.
I love how we don't class human influence as natural. Since when did 'man made' become the opposite of natural, rather than just a specialisation of it?
You're thinking of Welfare, not Social Security. Most people who get social security checks did work. Unfortunately, it's a pay as we go system and those working won't be able to support those not working when those not working anymore becomes much higher than those working:|
I'm Canadian. We ratified Kyoto, we have a healthy economy.
You're also one of three Western countries that has increased its CO2 emissions since 1990 by even more than the US. With over 20% increase in emissions between 1990 and 2002, Canada is not a good example to follow.
Economic forecasts are just theory, and are not known for being overwhelmingly accurate. The fact is that economies rise and fall with or without treaties like Kyoto. Jobs are lost. Jobs are gained. It happens all the time.
It's already happening now without Kyoto. Are you suggesting that if U.S. companies are restricted in CO2 production and the same company can operate in India with lower labor costs and no CO2 restrictions that that company isn't going to pick up and move? Come on... Economic forecasts are one thing. Obvious business decisions are another.
This is a no-brainer. The companies would move to India. No question. That's why a bipartisan U.S. Senate voted 98-0 to dump Kyoto 6 years ago.
Now maybe, in theory, a treaty like Kyoto might cause some job loss, but there is no hard scientific evidence that it would cause any significant job loss compared to the natural rise and fall of the economy.
That's nonsense, sir. This is not about theory. All you have to do is see that U.S. companies are already flocking to India just to take advantage of lower labor costs. If they're suddenly forced to spend billions to update their U.S. plants do you really think they're going to think twice about moving to India? They'll do it in a heartbeat.
Anyone that denies this is either deceiving themselves or deceiving you. In either case you shouldn't trust them. This is not vague economic theory. It's just capitalism at work and it's as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow. And the current outsourcing trend gives us plenty of evidence to see just how little motivation companies need to make those kinds of moves.
Saddam Hussein was a lesser evil the new Islamic State created in Iran. So, we chose to help him destroy them. He failed, and was evil himself. So, now he is gone. Iran is becoming the problem that Rumsfield and his ilk foresaw over 20 years ago.
The brand of Islam held by Iran calls for either conversion of all Infidels to strict Islamic ways or their destruction (worldwide).
Don't you feel good knowing they will soon (probably already do) have a nuke or three or four? Don't you feel good knowing that the U.N. gave them a clean bill of nuclear health, as usual? Don't you think the top Islamic cleric in Iran telling his followers that if they fail to have a nuke by 2005, then, they are not Muslims is a strong motivator?
Iraq had WMD's. They had plenty of time to hide them and move them elsewhere. The UN failed there and they will fail on Iran as well.
Yeah, as the other replyer said, please provide some sort of link.
I believe that these are the "last days" spoken of in the New Testament. But I also believe that when it says God created that it took him 7 days to create the world, it took him quite longer than 168 hours. Lot of symbollic stuff and the majority of Christians realize that. There's not a whole lot of people I know who believe that Christ will come in this generation. Sorry buddy.
After every level of Government, Health Insurance, Prescriptions, etc are accounted for, how much of your income do you get to take home? What if you lost your job because of an illness? Would your medical coverage continue?
Climate change *is* real. And it was going on waaaay before we got here, and it'll be going on waaaay after we're gone.
Sure, the kicker is in figuring out if humankind was the primary cause of the climate change or not. Merely finding correlations doesn't imply causation, but adequate scientific studies can help decrease the effective error bars of such hypotheses.
Consider, for example, theoretical studies of carbon dioxide emissions. The effect of the greenhouse effect on Earth is well known, without it IIRC water would barely be able to melt on earth. It is essential factor for our biosphere.
Now for the moment forget all about the environmentalists and petroleumists trying to claim or refute cause and effect by looking at graphs of climates vs emissions, etc.
Instead look at careful predictions of how the excessive volumes of CO2 produced through human development will impact the greenhouse effect. I actually don't know how well such studies have been done. But suppose climatologists adequately integrated the excess CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Also suppose they properly accounting for equilibrium effects (eg possible increased foliage) that might reduce volumeof CO2, as well as model the effects these equilibriation factors would produce.
If such a study could be done (perhaps it has, I don't know) and could show clearly within error bars that human's increased CO2 emissions should have increased the atmosphere temperature by X degrees. Would you believe such a study? How about if such a study now did plot against atmospheric temperatures for the past few decades and showed a correlation and correctly accounted for it's order of magnitude or better. You're saying such a correlation does not imply causation. But do you at least acknowledge that if such a study was done, it would be more 'fuel' for the global warming argument?
Now take it a step further. If the climatologists were able to demonstrate that projected CO2 emissions over the next 50 years would contribute to further global temperature changes or other effects that could be disastrous, would that be any cause to worry? Should we be smug in our historical knowledge that climate changed in the past, and hence this climate change shouldn't be important? Or should we take steps to reduce emissions if they can be adequately shown to be fairly disruptive of Earth's ecological balance?
Given those raw numbers, no scientist would say they could give you any rational data about the "system".
Absolutely, science is about induction and deduction. One tries to find a theory that matches observation, and then use that theory to predict future observations. All within the properly quoted error bars and uncertainty levels, of course. Your post relies only upon refuting correlation patterns between weather and CO2 emissions. But it entirely ignores the importance of numerically correlating weather patterns to predicted CO2 emissions. I have no idea to what extent such studies have been done or how closely they match the data. But if they do sufficiently match the data, that would give much harder evidence of global warming.
Considering the extremely low results Cobb got, I think the Democrat slogan of "Fuck your Conscience, Vote for Kerry" resonated quite well with most Greens.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
50% of all species on the planet will be extinct in the next 50 years
People have been predicting similar catastrophes for decades... perhaps hundreds of years.
When I was in school, the teachers told us the Earth couldn't support more than 5 billion people. Well, we've beaten that by a billion.
In the 70's, there was all this talk of global famine wiping out entire continents by the 1990's. Didn't happen.
In the 80's, we were supposed to pollute ourselves to death by the turn of the century. Again -- didn't happen.
I'm not saying the 50%/50 figure you mention won't happen. But I'd like to see an authoritative source on it, not just some person rambling on Slashdot.
Let's imagine for two seconds that you bought the latest and greatest car in the world. It did cost you $20,000. What happens in the US (and Canada)? You get some very bad fees and taxes to pay. You need to pay some very bad ass insurance fees. You save on gas and you save on repairs.
Let's imagine you kept your old oil-burning car from the 70's. You got nothing to pay on it, it's crap anyways. You got half insurance to pay, and even that, it's really cheap. You got about no taxes to pay. You repair with jobber's pieces and you drink 3x as much gas.
Which one is to your advantage? The old car of course.
Now let's go to Japan. Strangely enough, you get everything upside down there. The beautiful car you are buying is _expected_ to be changed after 5 years. Why? Because at that point, there kicks in all the very bad fees. In fact, the more your car pollutes, the more expensive it is. And the more your car is old, the more expensive it is. Then, the car's materials are recycled and the loop starts again.
So instead of having taxes on _new_ cars, why not do an incentive to change the _old_ cars? Then we'd reduce whatever pollution there is in here. It's the world upside down, I know. But it's so much more environmentally sound it's almost an abomination to let it go.
--
And as far as being an "abomination" to keep 5 billion dollars because of pollution, I strongly urge you to reconsider. By your ideas, we should just cut all the forest raw in the entire planet to make lumber and paper. THAT would make some money! Your argument is as shallow as the goal of NOT entering Kyoto.
Money is a creation of Humans, it is as virtual as possible on this planet. My dollar can buy two dozen tomatos and a big bag of rice in many countries. In here, it is merely possible for me to buy half a dozen tomatoes, even if we got more productivity and tools to produce than ever. Weird huh?
Environment is NOT the creation of Humans. It is our RESPONSIBILITY to keep it. It is not a ratio in some lame equation, it's a requirement if we want to survive as a specie. Hence the Kyoto treaty. They targeted the worst polluters of the planet and the one with the proper means to change something... which means us... and they said "well, you got the means, you got the responsibility, you should be the ones doing something".
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Awesome tu quoue fallacy. I'm glad this is insightful around here.
Actually, due to my mortgage interest and credits for having two children (ohmygawd! a geek that spawned!) my tax rate is closer to 25%.
Of course, I -do- agree with you - We pay entirely too much in taxes. Both in the US, and globally. It's past time that people took responsibility for themselves and their own decisions, and stopped trying to fix everyone, and everything.
Fix yourselves first. That goes for everyone, including the shortsighted fuckwads who ratified Kyoto.
In the event that a foreign country invades Canada, I now support allowing them to proceed and fire bombing the entire U.S./Canadian border (from the line to 50km north) and mining the whole damned thing.
Your government only answers to its corporate overlords and not the people. Hence, no one cares what you support.
-- No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
And the Kuweity government (which is not democratic at all) and Saudi Arabia. Which does not even have regular prisons and is very high on the amnesty international lists (you can guess what kind of lists).
Luckily the US is doing a better job in Afganistan and Iraq. Unfortunately they are doing that to get a pipeline for natural gas and oil in return. The list goes on and on, doesn't it. War is bad, and almost always fought for the wrong reasons. They just put it under a veil of good intentions.
In the end, as in most wars, everybody looses, even concerning the gas and the oil (I hope).
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Having lived and worked in both Canada and USA as well as two European countries, I'd like to point out the following:
In general, Canadians make less money (gross revenue) and pay more taxes. This means Canadians have a lot less money in their pockets, and have to spend more for the same things too. So in the end, Canadians get to buy and own a lot less stuff. Europeans are the same. This doesn't mean they're any less happy or less comfortable, or the other way around. They just fit their lifestyles to make do with what they have. This kind of lifestyle isn't for everyone, if you define happiness by the size of your TV, hot-tub, car, and bank account, countries like Canada aren't for you.
In the end, being a Canadian myself, I don't really don't like it when someone posts a comment here trying to make Canada look like heaven. First because "heaven" is a subjective thing. To most Americans accustomed to having money at the top of their value system, Canada is nothing like heaven, it's actually more like hell. Ditto for level of government, here we want as much government as humanly possible. Second because there's no point taunting Americans who tend to be more patriotic than average, it's actually downright dangerous, seeing that we have no army and they like bombing countries...
So fellow Canadians, please, no more "we are so much better" posts. Let the Americans just forget about us, or at least let them go back to thinking of us as a bunch of hicks, so we can pursue our way of life peacefully. Cheers.
-- How is it that Americans pick their president out of just two people, but get to choose Miss America out of 50?
I find you've got a point, and *gasp* it's making me think about my position that "being an environmentalist can be good for the economy" might not be the way to go.
However, I think there are some additional long-term costs by being more environmentally friendly. (It's the end of the work-week for me, and I'm a little tired to fit this into your "10k workers, 100k consumers, $100B cost" model right now, so bear with me) Consider this lawsuit of IBM, where workers sued because they were believed to have higher cancer rates because of their jobs. (Yeah, I know, IBM won)
If the costs for changing the environmental conditions now is less than the costs for healthcare + the costs of lawsuits + the costs of environmental changes later, isn't that good for business? is that good for the people who work in and around there? why not do it now?
-- "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
By your ideas, we should just cut all the forest raw in the entire planet to make lumber and paper.
I don't live in this alternate universe you are picturing where demand is an infinite quantity. Making as much paper as you possibly can will not maximize economic output. People will stop buying it after their demand is saturated. The goal of a company selling a good is NOT to produce as much of it as they possibly can. It's to produce exactly as much as they think they can sell and NO MORE. Producing more than that wastes money.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
These cuts having little to do with climate change. Sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides both contribute to acid rain and various forms of smog ('London Smog' for sulfur oxides, photochemical smog for nitrogen oxides) and so are pollutants, but they are not the major greenhouse gases. Of those three substances, sulfur oxides and mercury emissions have naught to do with the greenhouse effect, and while nitrogen oxides are greenhouse gases, they only contribute to about 5% of greenhouse gas emissions - source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html So the measures you have listed do nothing for 95% of the problem of climate change.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You forgot something... we also have not done anything to meet Kyoto yet.
50% of all species on the planet will be extinct in the next 50 years - all because of human impact. How the hell can we let that happen? The "mass extinction" of the dinosaurs was ONLY 19% of all species on the planet at that time.
Sorry - I support the Kyoto treaty but where on earth do you get this figure from? I have a very hard time believing it (though I'm happy to be proved wrong....on second thoughts "happy" is probably not the right word!). As for mass extinctions the Permian mass extinction which gave rise to the dinosaurs was more like 80-90% of species. So if your figure is correct humans are just part of the planet's natural cycle of mass extinctions?
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Homicide by method Canada vs US... Shooting: 161 (29.4%) vs 9638 (66.9%)... Beating: 120 (21.9%) vs 1597 (11.1%) Strangulation: 63 (11.5%) vs 184 (1.3%)
So, if you know someone's out to kill you, best is to invite them over to the States where they can just shoot you and get it over it. I mean, one bullet in the head and you're gone, but beating... they might have to beat you for hours before you die, and who wants to spend their last hours suffering, eh?
That happens if you spend your tax money on warfare around the globe (like the U.S.) instead of social security. In most other countries you have at least enough money for food and a place to live even if you are unemployed.
In most other countries, you get the bejeezus taxed out of you. Perhaps that's why they have enough for socialism.
if that were the case then the companies would make the investments in newer plants just to gain that additional efficiency and increase profits.
I don't live in this alternate universe of yours where companies always look several years down the road. For a large number of companies, making money next quarter to keep shareholders happy a little longer is all that matters, and the capacity to make money in the far off future just doesn't matter to them. This is sufficient explanation to show why power companies wouldn't be doing this even if it would be profitable in the long run. That, plus the problem of early adapters always getting the shaft. Even if a technology will eventually be usefully profitable, it won't be to the first few companies that try it, and when you have an industry with a small number of large companies (like the electricity business), nobody wants to be that first innovator that gets hosed. They want the others to try it first.
This would all be rather moot if environmentalists weren't so opposed to building new nuclear power plants. It's the least pollutive, and cheapest, and most efficient electrical production method available. It only creates a pollution disaster under the MOST EXTREME circumstances (bad designs that would never pass the drawing board in a country with public scrutiny (unlike in the former Soviet Union), directors afraid to teach their employees how the technology works, scheduling tests that are known to trigger a meltdown, turning off the safety mechanisms beforehand to allow the test to happen, etc. The one example the world has of a nuclear disaster only happened because ALL of the above were present at the same time. (And that design would never be used on a new plant.) Basically, Nuclear power only pollutes signifigantly if everything goes totally wrong, whereas other techniques pollute constantly, when everything is working RIGHT.
I am an environmentalist, but I fear using that term because most other people who use it are luddites more so than they are environmentalists. Technology creates problems, but it solves more of them than it creates, and should not be viewed as inherently evil.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The Clear Skies Initiative? HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW! Mod this up +5 funny! Next, tell us about the Safe Forests intitative and the clean water thing. Or if you don't mod it up as funny, at least mod it +5, Orwellian for it's doubleplus ungoodness.
According to the treaty you have to reduce your CO2 output by a certain percentage compared to earlier values. You do not have to lower it to a certain absolute number.
That percentage is not constant. It's a graduated scale (like tax brackets). It is thus punative on large outputters.
As to your other point, Industries are fueled by consumer demand. The customers buying that oil and putting it in cars are the cause of the CO2 emissions, so the fact that the output would hit them more than it would hit the suppliers makes perfect sense. (after all, if that oil is used for making plastic, or being a lubricant, then it doesn't cause CO2, so it's not the oil supplier's "fault".)
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If the costs for changing the environmental conditions now is less than the costs for healthcare + the costs of lawsuits + the costs of environmental changes later, isn't that good for business? is that good for the people who work in and around there? why not do it now?
Because there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that CO2 causes higher healthcare costs for employees.
I'm 100% behind eliminating truly toxic substances and reducing smog. That makes sense from a health perspective which in turn helps the economy by people being healthier and missing fewer days of work and spending less money on their own body. It also makes sense because I prefer to see the blue sky rather than some brown cloud hovering over the city. I absolutely condemn any company or individual that dumps toxic chemicals into the sewer or a local stream. They are poisoning the local environment.
But that's not what Kyoto and most environmental efforts are aimed at. It seems most environmentalism is focused on CO2 which is not something that hurts humans or animals and helps plant life. Beyond that human-generated CO2 may or may not have an effect on global warming which may or may not hurt the environment which in turn may or may not harm the economy. Those that presume to know exactly how much impact CO2 has on the environment based on today's models are arrogant and think too highly of very inadequate models. And even if the models predict the right amount of temperature change people are arrogant if they presume to know exactly what effect that will have on the planet or if they presume to know that the effect will actually be a bad thing. There are far too many unknowns and the mantra of "Well if we're right then we have to do it and if we're wrong then it's still the right thing to do" is not an exceptable excuse when you're contemplating policy changes that may literally throw millions of people out of work and drastically change the world economic order. Let's get the facts straight and then make wise policy decisions. Recklessly entering into treaties that will reduce our economic activity (which in turn reduces the amount of money we can devote to clean energy research) is not the answer.
If the environmentalists would drop unfounded "the sky is falling" alarmist nonsense and focus on what really matters (toxic chemicals) I think they'd find a lot more people willing to support them.
WTF is the big deal with long term environmental problems? Eventually, the meek will inherit the earth, and they'll take it and they'll like it if they know what's good for them.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this one, and point to a couple sources to back me up, unlike the parent. Prescott Bush did not have any direct affiliation with the Nazi Party, nor was he a known supporter thereof. He was neither tried nor convicted, although a single share of stock that he held in the UBC was seized by the government. He was even reimbursed the value of his stock by the government following the seizure. See http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush for verification of my counterclaim.
Also we have some pretty solid physics that indicates that rapid greenhouse gas accumulation is a problem.
We also have some really solid physics, in the form of hard measurements, that indicates every volcano eruption throws more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all humanity has generated since the Industrial Revolution.
Any claims about the dangers of greenhouse gasses must explain why all these volcano eruptions aren't a more serious problem, and why our activities are so important by comparison to them.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thanks a lot grandpa. Your whole generation has fucked everyone else to come. Once a month we make a little pilgrimage to the toxic waste sight where your grave is located and piss on it while cursing you bitterly.
However, we do enjoy the irony that you were run over by a SUV as you stepped out of a McDonald's, on the day of Project Rapture, when the entire Bush Administration fled to their orbital base.
I don't deny the logic that some jobs might be lost. That isn't the issue. This is about statistical significance and scientific proof.
Most critics of global warming don't deny the logic that man-made pollutants can affect the climate. But what has been repeatedly called into question by critics is the statistical significance of these changes compared to the climate's natural fluctuations. All I ask is that these dire economic forecasts of yours be held to the same standard of statistical proof as the environmentalist's dire climactic forecasts.
Here is a historical graph of US unemployment rates from 1948 to present. It goes up. It goes down. It's been fairly stable over the past year, and if anything is on a downward slope.
Is there any scientific proof that the unemployment rate has ever been significantly affected by environmental legislation? I didn't think so.
And even if you're right, and jobs are lost, so what? Look at the graph. Half a century of ups and downs. Wars. Assassinations. Natural disasters. Fuel shortages. Recessions. Economic crisis both large and small. And it hasn't been the end of the world. Heck, other countries have gone through a hundred times worse, and they're still kicking.
Whatever economic problems Kyoto might cause, it's nothing we haven't seen before. But with global climate change, we are in unchartered territory, totally in the dark as to what could happen. Right now we could be dancing on the edge of a slippery slope, already feeling gravity's tug, drawing us down into an abyss from which there is no return.
And before you ask me what scientific proof there is of that, remember, I asked for your proof first:-)
I'm making about $50,000, and pay around 30% tax. The thing is, that money doesn't just get thrown away. So I'm paying more in tax, but I'm paying nothing for healthcare (and in fact, Canadians pay less per capita than Americans for healthcare, and everyone is covered). Would you really feel that you were better off if you paid no tax, but personally had to pay for everything that your taxes currently cover (road tolls, police protection fees, 100% private schools, military levy, etc)? What difference does it make how you pay, when you will end up paying either way?
* Cut sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 73 percent, from current emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.
* Cut emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 67 percent, from current emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
* Cutting mercury emissions by 69 percent, - the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.
Ever notice that all of these dates are *after* Bush leaves office? Meaning that he can sit around, drill for oil in the ANWR, roll back emissions controls for auto manufacturers, sell off public forest to the highest bidder, and generally pollute the environment while touting his "Environmental Side". Funny how that works:)
"In most other countries you have at least enough money for food and a place to live even if you are unemployed."
Uh, no. You are referring to "Western" countries with extensive welfare systems: Western Europe, Canada, and (believe it or not)the US. In the other hundered or so countries, you starve and die, and the government (even if their is one) could give a shit.
Yes, homelessness and hunger are problems in the US, but 1. They are only loosely coupled with joblessness, 2. The US has tried an extensive welfare system, and it didn't work out too well for us
-- "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I don't deny the logic that some jobs might be lost. That isn't the issue.
Well you better start making it the issue. As long as environmentalists push draconian environmental regulations on the world in the form of things like Kyoto without considering the fact that jobs will be lost they are bound to encounter resistance.
Most critics of global warming don't deny the logic that man-made pollutants can affect the climate. But what has been repeatedly called into question by critics is the statistical significance of these changes compared to the climate's natural fluctuations. All I ask is that these dire economic forecasts of yours be held to the same standard of statistical proof as the environmentalist's dire climactic forecasts.
So you're saying that even though global warming scaremongers haven't proven a statistically significant change in temperature beyond natural fluctuations that we still have to prove business (not economic!) forecasts are correct? That's bogus. We still don't have a statistically significant proof that climate change is human-induced which means any policy changes are very premature.
If it can be shown that there is a statistically significant movement in temperature above and beyond natural fluctuations and if it can be shown that this higher temperature will actually provoke climate changes that are detrimental to the human race and if it can be shown that these detrimental effects will have an economic cost higher than the economic cost of implementing these regulations then we're good to go. But so far the environmentalists haven't proven any of these points much less all of them.
Is there any scientific proof that the unemployment rate has ever been significantly affected by environmental legislation? I didn't think so.
Huh? That's bogus logic too. Because since 1948 we've never implemented environmental legislation so draconian as what we'd have to do if we implemented Kyoto. And please understand that Kyoto is not environmental legislation. It is a sociological and political document. As long as the same terms don't apply to all countries, industry will move to those countries where both labor is cheap and environmental regulations are lax. That's simply not debateable. It's a fact. We see companies moving overseas just for the cheap labor. If you further push them with draconian and expensive environmental legislation they will leave. They will pick up and move to India and keep producing the exact same amount of pollution but now they'll do it in India instead of the United States. On a worldwide basis the amount of CO2 has not been reduced, it's just been relocated.
If Kyoto is not going to reduce pollution then what in the world do you think it is meant to do? As soon as you come to this realization you find that it is not paranoid to believe that it's real agenda is simply sociopolitical. They want to allocate more wealth and jobs to developing countries and take them away from developed nations. It's that simple. They want to make poor countries richer and rich countries poorer. It's the only explanation for an "environmental" treaty that doesn't actually help the environment but does encourage companies to move overseas.
I won't be surprised if you find this to be a radical point of view, but it's the truth. The sooner people realize that Kyoto is not going to help the worldwide environment the sooner people will recognize it for what it is. If the world wants to engage in a massive transfer of wealth and jobs then they need to propose that kind of treaty as exactly what it is and let the chips fall where they may. But I resent it being proposed under the guise of environmentalism when it is anything but.
Most century scale carbon cycle analyses I've seen don't even mention the volcanic component.
Here's a link which doesn't agree with your claim http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html. In fact it has it the other way around - 150 years of volcanic emissions are roughly equal to one year of human emissions.
Also, if you're right, exactly where is the huge spike in atmospheric carbon coming from, anyway? See http://www.climate.unibe.ch/clim_recon/co2.html. See that orange spike on the right? That look natural to you?
Note that this data is directly measured from well-dated bubbles trapped in ice cores. This is not a speculative reconstruction. It's observational data.
Even assuming Prescott Bush had been massively funding Adolf Hilter, what would be illegal about it? As I see it, he could have funneled gobs of money in up to maybe the late 30's without too much legal grief. Besides the Weimar Republic was toast one way or another. Hitler just turned out to be an incredibly bad way to do it.
In fact the US military expenditure exceeds the next 3 biggest spenders combined.
Actually, we outspend the next 15 biggest spenders combined. One-five. 10 plus 5. More than 14, but less than 16.
The United States is not "defending" Canada out of altruism.
Yeah, it's more like "paternalism." Canada is the big, dumb, drunk, half-brother that we're stuck with. Kinda like Roger Clinton or Billy Carter.
Were you expecting to be attacked by Mexico?
The US-Mexican border has erupted in war at least four times in the last two hundred years (that counts the California-Mexican war and the Texas-Mexican war, since they're both part of the US now). It very likely will again in the near future. Considering how many independent militia members and US Border Patrol agents exchange gunfire across the border with Mexican military and police, especially in Arizona and Texas, it's only a matter of time.
Even leaving that aside, drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and, now, terrorists sneaking across is a huge problem in the US Southwest. Unfortunately, the politicians don't want to do anything about it since they're afraid of losing the Hispanic vote.
-- God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I will point out however, that we have not come anywhere close to an all-out conflict as occurred in the United States during the civil war, which did literally rip the country to pieces. And both sides in that war shared the same heritage no less!
Some friendly advice: don't ever, ever, say that in the South. Them's fightin' words.
-- God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
It's as if the US wants to be able to fight everyone in the world at once. And given the Bush administration's policies that's how it might just pan out!;-)
I don't live in this alternate universe of yours where companies always look several years down the road.
If the efficiency to be gained by installing new plants were as significant as the environmentalists would have us believe, damn right companies would do it. But in reality the gain in efficiency is much less--and probably even a loss of efficiency--which is why they don't do it unless the government forces them to.
For a large number of companies, making money next quarter to keep shareholders happy a little longer is all that matters, and the capacity to make money in the far off future just doesn't matter to them.
That's a typical Slashdot anti-corporate view. Yes, there are short-sighted companies. Yes, they might sometimes make what appear to be decisions based on only short-term benefits. But in the end many of these companies have existed for decades and they didn't accomplish that by consistently being stupid. Slashdot airmchair quarterbacks that normally have little or no experience in business administration and finances second-guessing the moves of multi-billion corporations just seems a little whimpy to me.
That, plus the problem of early adapters always getting the shaft.
Bingo! Wait for the technology to mature! Wait for the technology to be ready! And you're holding this against the companies? Come on, it makes complete sense. The technology will be ready someday and when it makes financial sense to upgrade, they will.
Even if a technology will eventually be usefully profitable, it won't be to the first few companies that try it, and when you have an industry with a small number of large companies (like the electricity business), nobody wants to be that first innovator that gets hosed. They want the others to try it first.
So if this is so important then the government should fund research to mature the technology so no-one takes a risk. It makes no sense to simply mandate that everyone must take a risk on immature technology.
This would all be rather moot if environmentalists weren't so opposed to building new nuclear power plants. It's the least pollutive, and cheapest, and most efficient electrical production method available.
I agree. Which pushes me further towards my belief that environmentalists aren't really concerned about the environment. They're agenda is social and economic reorganization of the world. They just use the environment as a means to an end.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canadian here too - and I pay about 15%-20% tax on 55-65K self-employed income!
How? Simply by: beeing self-employed, split income with wife (declared self-employed as well), avoid employment insurance premiums, deduct what can be deducted (all PC parts - my HTPC in the living room too... that's research:-), 20% of the car expenses, 15% of the house expenses, office expenses like pens/paper, parking and travel... all travel that is - its always business, cellphone and internet costs, 20% of the phone bill, office furniture,...). The I have 2 kids and get deductibles, GST rebates and other support payments. Then add to that: small affordable car with low gas consumption (Echo), no credit card debt, and 1 mile to get to work (walking)... and the money is always enough.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you'd pay about 25-30% on $40,000.. its hard to work out.. you pay about 22% on money up to a certain amount, higher (28%?) on money above that, 3 separate brackets.
Out of curousity, what exactly has the Republican executive branch done in regards to global warming (or as they refer to it "climate change") in the past 4 years and what are they proposing to do in the next 4 years?
about as much as the Democrats have done.
Ah, but which party has had almost complete congressional, executive and judicial control for the past four years? Now your smart-ass remark just sounds juvenile.
...if the corporation doesn't make money people lose jobs and or make less.
Please, no more of that trickle down crap. Let the corps go bust. So what? New ones will spring up. I'm not going to give these poeple a free ride just so I can keep my damn job. I'll find another one or another way to stay alive. They threaten us with this garbage about going bankrupt if they have to clean up their act or pay a descent wage. It's blackmail and they're getting away with it because we're too scared our jobs. Bunch of damn whores...all of us.
-- What?
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, cause that were really reputable and known-to-always-be-factually correct sources.
Can people PLEASE stop citing wikipedia in discussions like this. It's edited by the friggin users themselves, and it's been know to contain VERY inaccurate information in some cases because of that fact...
"Note that this data is directly measured from well-dated bubbles trapped in ice cores. This is not a speculative reconstruction. It's observational data."
That data, unfortunately, is not widely distributed across the world. Which is a problem. Mid-latitude information is rather sparse (L. Thompson has made a rather large push to gather info before it disappears...) There are also a bunch of other assumptions that go into that data (well dated, representative of atmosphere, etc.) that I don't spend much time questioning because the the data distribution is a killer....
The end result of increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere seems to be speculative.... Yes, there are models, they are reasonable (all things considered), but still they are still best guesses. Look, most people don't give a crap about X degrees of warming/cooling in general regions-so what. They need concrete information (it will cause x, y, and z, costing this much vs this much to mitigate NOW). The models can't do that.
In other words, for there to be significant support for change the consequences will have to be pretty well known-that's just the way it is. Of course by then change may not matter....
Finally, part of the problem with the treaty (for the US) is that it was/is seen as unfair. IF excess greenhouse gases are bad then it shouldn't matter who is producing them-industrialized or not. It was easy for Russia to sign the treaty because they are ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE. Don't have to change a thing.
The big deal is that the earth may be inherited after the point of no return on the long term problems. If the meek get it but there's no way to undo what's been done then what?
-- Regards,
Ian
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What difference does it make how you pay, when you will end up paying either way?
Because the difference is guns. People telling you that if you don't pay you'll be dragged away to jail, unless you fight back, in which case you'll be shot. That's half of the product of your labor, taken from you at the point of a gun, and the other half they let you keep.
Yeah, are you going to blames Mars's global warming on humans too? Heh.
Scientists in THAT mystery don't have anybody easy to blame. Maybe we shouldn't be pointing so much at humans as the root of everything.
It's the cows and all their farting.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
no one but everyone who matters.. which isn't you. go back to reading your fantasy.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is is about on the scale you mention.... Yes, there is no doubt that our military forces could, if absolutely necessary, defeat the combined conventional military of the rest of the world. I imagine it wouldn't even end up being a contest. We didn't like getting sucked into WW2, and we're not about to let european asshats do it to us again. We lost so many US soldiers... and for what? The germans weren't going to fuck with us... maybe some day, but an antiwar activist like Kerry could have put off intervening until it was too late. Next time you wonder why America *needs* such a large military, it's because we're the only people out there either without baggage, or refusing to let our baggage color our interpretation of the world.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm making about $50,000, and pay around 30% tax.
wah wah, bleat bleat... cry me a river.
and in fact, Canadians pay less per capita than Americans for healthcare
Amazing, since we have many of your doctors.. and yes, you ARE losing doctors... and I've met some of your citizens down here south of the border paying to get treatment. No joke.
I've always like how Canadians have the illusion that their opinions matter.
It has been seriously suggested that a 5C temperature rise if it lasted long enough would release the stores of methane hydrates in the ocean depths causing another 5C rise. The resulting 10C rise would produce a global crisis, certainly a mass extinction event. Humans might or might not survive, but I'd bet civilisation would not. There are so many people in the world today with access to weapons that a crisis could rapidly go global. And the technology would not protect the advanced nations if all their crops all failed. The disruption might be brief as in a few decades or centuries but don't forget the saying "civilisation is just 3 meals away from anarchy".
-- Bitter and proud of it.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
such help has not been requested, because the world knows not to attempt to mess around on the borders o f the US... you don't *have* to ask for it... you got it, stability... whether you like it or not. On the other hand, if you want us to clean out those frogs on yer eastern front... let us know. We need practice assault the french, assuming they really insist on a 'multipolar' world... because I can tell you one thing... the US isn't going to be the 'bad guy'... and 'multi-polar' requires bad guys.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm Canadian, we ratified the Kyoto Accord and guess what? We're very happy with who we are and do our best to serve as a good example for the rest of the world as much as the US tries to do.
Well, why don't you and the rest of the nutless wonders from above the border and do something worthwhile.
I hear Darfur is in trouble. Canada? Canada? Is anybody there? Loads of people getting slaughtered, and you cannot move without the USA to do a fucking thing. Whoah.. you guys are a bit like.. the EU!!!
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My point was: Dont blame anyone else as long as you're not doing better yourself.
Pffft.. we're not BLAMING anybody else.. we're just not playing ball with you people.
And of course, there's not a fucking thing you can do about it.
Uh, we've been pushing to get the UN into Sudan for a month... but guess what? The government and the rebels just signed a peace agreement this evening that ends their 21-year old civil war in front of the UN Security Council who was holding a special meeting in Africa!
I personally believe troops should have been sent in, but the government of Sudan a couple weeks ago outright refused ANY foreign troops to intervene.
Next time you wonder why America *needs* such a large military, it's because we're the only people out there either without baggage, or refusing to let our baggage color our interpretation of the world.
You seem to be confusing this matter with some other red herring that someone has cooked up.
These are air bubbles whose composition is measured directly to obtain the CO2 spike.
Some of the points you are trying to repeat have some validity and cannot be dismissed so easily, but we're talking about the CO2 itself here. The human casued increase of greenhouse gases is not any more speculative than, oh, gravity. Your statement that "The end result of increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere seems to be speculative" is absolutely incorrect.
I love how we don't class human influence as natural.
There's always a balance between precision and accessibility in public communication.
There is an important distinction being made for which the strictly correct words are "anthropogenic" and "non-anthropogenic", but just cutting corners and saying "artificial" and "natural" is easier to read and clear enough. Nobody is saying that human activity is supernatural or unnatural.
If you have better words to express this distinction, then go ahead and use them. Please understand, though, that there is something important and unprecedented being discussed here. It's more important to communicate the important ideas effectively than to choose the poetically perfect phrase.
Either we lose jobs and US companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto. Yes, there's a lot of nuance, but I'm afraid that it's that simple.
No, it's not that simple. If the Bush administration doesn't like the Kyoto Treaty -- fine. But where is their alternate plan for dealing with global warming? Right now their only plan is to deny that it exists for as long as possible. This is a problem that isn't going to go away, a problem that needs to be solved decades before it gets to the crisis stage -- and they simply refuse to acknowledge that it exists at all. It's the height of irresponsibility and short-sightedness.
--
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The reason that firms found it profitable to upgrade into less polluting technologies under the bubble policy was an economic condition specifically created by the bubble policy. Without that policy, there would be no incentive.
In case you don't know about the policy, it is essentially a government regulated cap on the amount of specifiv polluting effluents in a particular region. That means, when this is reched, which it was, then no new industries can be introduced into that zone. What happens is that a demand is created for pollution capacities. When the cap was set in place, if your firm produced X amount of a pollutant, then that firm is given X shares of a pollution "stock". If the company upgrades their capacity, and thus reduces their impact on the environment, they can sell that stock on the market. It actually works. That is what I am talking about.
Of course, I -do- agree with you - We pay entirely too much in taxes. Both in the US, and globally. It's past time that people took responsibility for themselves and their own decisions, and stopped trying to fix everyone, and everything
Isn't that just another way of saying "let the fuckwads (and their children) die preventable deaths, if they don't have the money to pay for private healthcare"?
Maybe you are okay with that -- I'm not.
--
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's as if the US wants to be able to fight everyone in the world at once. And given the Bush administration's policies that's how it might just pan out!;-)
I'm sure its occured to you that it might be because US soldiers are fairly well paid in the all volunteer US Army, and opposed to the "paid next to nothing" drafted soldiers in small economy 3rd world nations. We could really cut our defense budget if we used conscription and paid them $50/month too.
you also do not spend on national defense because the US protects you.
Now, that's funny, because (similarly to Italian-American Businessmen offering you "protection") the only country Canada would need protection from is US. And US will have good reason for "Operation Canada Freedom" very soon -- Canada has world's largest deposits of oil. It is not economically viable at the moment to mine[1] them, but as soon as easy Middle East oil runs out we will see some developments in those areas[2].
Robert
[1] yes, it is mining, stripmining to be exact, because tar sands are more or less solid. [2] that is in the areas of mining them, and liberating Canada by US.
The USA has used the Echelon global surveillance system for the purposes of industrial espionage, to give its failing corporations an unfair advantage over more-competitive foreign operations.
Oh, cut the crap you French/Israeli hypocrite! Its documented how your nations use its national intelligence collection agencies to benefit national industries.
At least produce some proof echelon is being used to extract economic intelligence for non-gov't corporations.
(No argument with the other statements...)
-- There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How many other countries lead by innovating?
I know that one! Is it the People's Republic of Microsoft?
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh, cut the crap you French/Israeli hypocrite! Its documented how your nations use its national intelligence collection agencies to benefit national industries.
Yes, but in France's case that's not so much of a concern because it pales into insignificance compared to their documented tendency to use their intelligence agencies to attack civilian protestors.
To get anything done in washington a simple majority is never enough to do anything that is even the least bit controversial. Just look at all of the problems Bush has had getting judges apointed in the Senate. The republicans have been unable to stop the filibuster on some of those reviews for months/years. And its not too hard to keep bills off of the floor all you have to do is tie the bill up in comities. If happens all of the time.
I would buy your arrgument if the Republicans ( or Democrats ) had a supper majority of both the House and Senate and controlled most of the comities. But until that happens; and I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you; you can't just say that one party or the other can do whatever they want.
Out of curousity, what exactly has the Republican executive branch done in regards to global warming
Moved industry overseas and increased the debt enormously. Crafty
Devils! They are going for the third world country exemptions, and in a few years everything will go well when India starts outsourcing to the USA!
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't you feel good knowing they will soon (probably already do) have a nuke or three or four?
I feel about as good as knowing that you (supposing you are from usa) guys have them. You are, after all, the only country in the world that has ever used nukes to kill people (twice).
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Reading that sole list of questions confirms how ignorant you are.
Oh please, don't just repeat the propaganda. None of those will have any measurable impact on climate change, and besides, those aren't cuts in a relative sense, since the existing regulations intended to cut those gases a lot more, and the bush administration screwed back the cuts.
The US government has no plans to cut back greenhouse gas production to any measurable degree (they raised the existing CO2 limits beyond what the predictions for the industry production of it were), and this because the energy industry makes too much profit from the existing energy waste and inefficient energy production. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Having said that, the EU is all talk as well. They may have ratified kyoto, but they're way off target. They're still putting out a lot more greenhouse gases than they're allowed to, and have no credible plans to hit the target.
That economic line is BS as well. Those cost figures that were cited over and over for the US were hyperinflated, because they assumed america would be buying its permissions to pollute instead of cleaning up industry. If you look at the cost of reducing greenhouse gas production in america through decreased energy use and cleaner energy production, it is actually very palatable (some studies show negative cost), because america is the most energy-wasteful nation in the world. Ofcourse it's politically unpopular to do something like that because it would mean decreased profits for the energy industry, but hey.
Actually, we outspend the next 15 biggest spenders combined. One-five. 10 plus 5. More than 14, but less than 16
Even better the whole world spends about 900 billions/yr for the military. Of that 900 the US spends 400 and other countries the US won't be fighting against in the next 100 years (basically the old core of NATO, Japan, Australia etc) around 300. That means the US has military expenditures twice as high as those of all potential targets *combined* and nevertheless fails to get a 20 million people country under control.
-- Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
That's bullshit. The Congress (if motivated by the pres administration sufficiently strongly) can easily pass a law, obliging US companies to enforce strict labour and environmental standards in their subsidiaries and subcontractors abroad. That would immediately: 1) Stop sweatshops, turning them from vehicles of exploitation into seeds of economic growth. 2) Make it possible for US companies to compete by reducing (though not diminishing) the cost advantage of undeveloped countries. 3) Solve a bunch of environmental problems. 4) Create loads of good PR for the USA.
Why isn't this done? Because corporations enjoy moving jobs overseas to earn bigger profits. And at the same time they enjoy polluting the USA (and the world) to earn bigger profits. Both positions are consistent with bigger profits for corporations.
-- Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
the fact that corporations make money also means that most people in the country are making money
The problem is that this isn't true. Salaries (in real terms) were not growing in the past decades, while corporate profits were. What fool would give the money to the workers? Capitalism is not about it, it's about exploitation. That's why corporations choose to pay 3 cents/hour to workers abroad when they can manage it. They don't want to share the wealth with workers and they never do, unless they have no other choice.
The principle of "good for corporations - good for people" is blatantly wrong. Watch The Corporation or read the book, or something similar to counteract the traditional corporate sponsored PR.
-- Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Hang on a moment. Where have I given any indication of my nationality? Furthermore, why should my nationality have any bearing on the validity of my accusation? What if I'm actually from a nation that is part of Echelon?
-- Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, there is no doubt that our military forces could, if absolutely necessary, defeat the combined conventional military of the rest of the world. I imagine it wouldn't even end up being a contest.
Is that so? You've done so well in places likes Iraq, Somalia, and Vietnam after all. Go ahead, and pat yourself on the back.
Where's the responsibility of the governments in question? No, not us, the governments of the countries where the facility is actually operating and employing people. Why do they have absolutely no responsibility?
Also, here's a little more accurate rendition of how your plan would go:
1. Pass a law requiring US companies to do uphold strict labor and environmental standards for operations that aren't even in the US. (You do realize while some of these corporations started in the US, and have their primary "headquarters" in the US, that they are no longer exclusively "US companies" once they start operating on other countries.)
2. Instead of these companies keeping their incorporation in the US, they'll move it elsewhere. Great plan!
So when what do you do then? Make laws saying you can only SELL things in the US if you uphold said standards? Cut the US off from the global economy?
Sorry, but while I believe that US corporations and the US government have some responsibility here because of our position, most of the responsibility, in our current world order, rests on the governments of the nations. We should work to press these nations to adopt reasonable standards, and empowering workers with good wages and conditions with our own companies operating there is a start (and frankly, we already do that to an extent), but ultimately the responsibility is not with the US.
Re:Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah you know those Mexican drug dealers and thier world class army, ready to invade America at a moment's notice and force everyone to smoke pot and snort coke instead of just selling it to us.
You are hopelessly naive. The real world is very different from what you may believe about it. There is so much written about the real world, start with reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man for example.
It goes like this: US government, through organisations it openly controls like CIA and those it controls (to a large extent, not absolutely) indirectly (World Bank, WTO, etc.) pressures developing countries into opening the economy, privatizing state enterprises, allowing American corporations to operate there outside American laws and prevents the local governments from interfering too much.
Consider how the US government pressed Bolivian government through the World Bank to privatise even the water supplies and what that led to.
Most of the damage done to the world is done in the name of US interests and either by US directly, US corporate machine or US-sponsored puppets.
What you know is just the public consumption version of "How world economy works". This version was prepared by countless PR specialists serving their corporate masters (and corporate-controlled US government). This isn't paranoia on my part, it's just harsh reality. Read/watch/listen to anything created by "dissidents", open your mind, eyes and ears and try to dig a bit deeper into their concerns. I guarantee, when you learn the facts, you would no longer accept the standard-issue rose-colored glasses you were given.
-- Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
It's not that simple - you missed one thing: companies can stay in the US, AND cut down on emissions. They're not mutually exclusive. Don't you think people thought of that when they drew up the agreement? If it's going to cripple industry in the countries who are adopting it, they would have canned it before it even left the table.
Oh. My. God. Do people like you still think that way??
I can see other people have pointed out how dense your perceptions of America are. Instead of getting information about your country from movies, read a history book. You'll see America only honours things like friends, democracy, freedom, and liberty when it benefits. If they're going to harm it, America throws them out the window and shits on them.
Congratulations on the the coldest two sentences I've read in a long time.
Perhaps, those sentences were "cold", but I think rather you are mistaken. People seem to have this fantasy about how Hitler came to power. Ie, he came to power in a nice little democracy, scared the foolish herd into giving him absolute power, and then ran wild with it. The problem with this little story is that opposition to the existence of the Weimar Republic was widespread. For example, both the German military and German industry were actively undermining it. I think there was widespread public distrust of the Republic due to the fact that it was imposed by the victors of the First World War (who also imposed a crushing reparations and many humiliating conditions at the Treaty of Versailles).
I imagine that in the early 30's (perhaps even in the late 20's) the various powers undermining the Republic were probably looking for a figurehead that could return Germany to the military and industrial power it used to be. Hitler probably didn't look so bad. He engaged in minor criminal activity, had some aggressive, nasty racist vitrol, and his followers were pretty brutal, but he was very intelligent, charming, and charismatic. He was a decorated war veteran.
Also, the alternatives appeared worse (particularly to their narrow vision). I imagine that fear of the communists help drive them to support Hitler. Perhaps Hitler had even assisted with German intelligence efforts against the communists as well. That would have provided more comfort to these kingmakers.
France (in the form of the Third Republic) had the same trouble during this time. IMHO part of the reason France was so ineffectual in protecting its national interest leading up to the invasion by Germany was because people were more concerned with fighting the other side than defending France. It's notable that Vichy France (what occupied France was called) as a government was more cooperative than most with the terrible goals of the Third Reich. I think this is because many Frenchmen had come to view the invasion by German to be a way to remove their failing Republic.
Thus, this leads to my thesis. The Weimar Republic was doomed from its start. To maintain such a government requires the cooperation and support of most of society to survive.
Who invented the CFC's which destroy the ozone layer?
Dupont, in the US, 1928.
Who invented the non-biodegradable plastic wrap which created gigantic garbage dumps?
Germany.
Who began to anihilate species on masse just to get economical advantage?
Humanity, pretty much unilaterally. Every color, every culture, every time period. "But the buddhists!" Bullshit: they just didn't eat them. "But the native americans!" *cough* etc.
"Economic," by the way.
Who invented the dangerous chemicals that are poured onto rivers and oceans?
Arguably China in ~500bc, when it was discovered that very early large-scale boar effluent ferilization built up toxic levels of what weren't understood for thousands of years to be chemical toxins. The cases for Macchu Picchu, Carthage, Rome and Londinium can also be made.
Well the developed nations, of course. DOH!
You're one for six. I can see that you watch a lot of history channel.
So if a nation can reduce its levels of pollution, it's the developed nations alright.
Bzzt. As many other people have pointed out, agricultural and population pollution are significant long before the industrial age, and with the right geography (as LA is famous for) simple wood fires caused smog long before coal was even a common fuel, let alone the internal combustion engine that we now blame everything upon.
Whereas the US' pollution output is the highest on earth, our pollution per production is near the lowest. Yes, we can do a lot to improve. So can China.
If you put the obligation on ALL countries, the developed nations will OBVIOUSLY have an economical advantage, because they'll be the first to comply with the standards.
Whereas if you ask the developed nations to foot the bill for the undeveloped nations, the economic burden is supposedly spread out, because obviously the fact that it's on taxable income doesn't matter when Americans already make orders of magnitude more money than the rest of the world, so clearly they need a few more orders of magnitude to stack on top.
You're misunderstanding the resistance. We don't want Uganda to kick in their fair share; we'd get more money from the guy with the nice house on the corner. The problem is the way in which the exceptions are doled out. China is treated as a developing nation, when their economy is already nearly as large as ours, and faces incredible development due to a potential for infrastructure layout for a good fifty years or more. You want Jamaica to skip their bill? Morocco? Siam? Great, fine, foot them all, no big deal.
But China? There's no country on earth which is looking at as bountiful a future century as China. If anything (and god am I going to get flamed/modded into the ground for saying this,) China should be footing our bill. We're doing the bulk of both their raw material and fine manufacturing, providing the bulk of their resources other than oil, copper and stone, and even doing a decent job of feeding them. The reason the US is crapping out all the world's dirt is that we're the people with the facilities to turn coal into coke, pig into steel, bauxite into aluminum. We're sucking the world's electricity because almost all the world's electricity goes into manufacturing or materials catalysis (notably aluminum and hydrogen.) We lead radioactive detritus because we have the resources, the processing facilities, the reactors and the waste storage.
Why? Because they got the MONEY in the first place.
And exactly how do you think we got that money? Through the very industrial output that you're now blaming the world's problems on us for.
Yes, we create a lot of problems, but a hell of a lot of
* Cutting mercury emissions by 69 percent, - the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.
Well, if he enforces these, or if his successor is able to reduce mercury emissions from 48 tons or whatever they'll be in 2008 to 26 tons within two years, it will be an improvement. But remember that mercury is cumulative. How does this timeframe compare with how long before fish from the natural environment won't be edible for the average person?
I say average person, because there are already limits on certain types of fish consumption for pregnant women, children, etc. because of mercury. And that's assuming those levels only factor in what's needed to minimize adverse effects on fetal and child development; if they're balanced with industry interests, then it may be that children and pregnant women should be following even stricter guidelines.
So fellow Canadians, please, no more "we are so much better" posts. Let the Americans just forget about us, or at least let them go back to thinking of us as a bunch of hicks, so we can pursue our way of life peacefully. Cheers.
I'm an American, and a nominally conservative one at that. That said, I love your nation and I don't want to forget about it. Canada was a great friend to the United States during the Cold War. If not for the joint NORAD command and the DEW line, who knows whether or not my nation would have been nuked into oblivion by Soviet bombers.
Most of us down here remember our traditional allies, even when they choose to go a different path than ours. We really do realize that you are our good friends. We really do realize that your soldiers (and those of our other allies like the French, the Germans, the Brits, the Aussies, etc) are there with ours in Afghanistan.
It's a rather vocal minority that comprise the archetypical ignorant, obnoxious Americans that you're thinking of--you know, the ones that come up with labels like "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" because the French didn't want to be involved in Iraq. The rest of us aren't quite so bad.
-- What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Is that so? You've done so well in places likes Iraq, Somalia, and Vietnam after all. Go ahead, and pat yourself on the back.
To be fair, he did say "conventional" forces. What happened in Iraq, Somalia, and Vietnam fits his definition. Recall that in 1991 and more recently, the Iraqi army was destroyed as a fighting force with extremely few--that is to say less than 100--American casualties. Even in Vietnam, conventional NVA forces took a serious beating. Somalia? In the events described in "Blackhawk Down" the US lost 18 soldies, inclusive of the two aircrews at the center of the battle. The Somali militia opposing them--despite outnumbering the Americans by at least 20:1--had over 500 killed, and over a thousand more wounded.
No, pound for pound and in a pitched battle, the US military is significantly ahead of every other fighting force in the world--Guderian would be proud of how well we've learned his lessons and improved upon them. However, the US military isn't (despite what "the US military is going to take over the world" types would have you believe) designed to be an army of occupation--it's designed to kill people and break things, not to be a police force.
So, just like Vietnam, we're now facing a highly motivated adversary who--despite not having access to the same technology as US forces, and despite dying in droves compared to the casualties they can inflict upon us--is quite capable of winning the war despite not being able to win the battles. Despite the massive culture of special ops we've developed since Vietnam, we still don't seem to be much better at being the defensive side in a guerilla war.
-- What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The US-Mexican border has erupted in war at least four times in the last two hundred years (that counts the California-Mexican war and the Texas-Mexican war, since they're both part of the US now).
And how many times in the last, say, 85 years?
-- The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I
suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Well, surely it has something to do with their economies going down the gurgler... I think Russia even has a contracting population, for instance. I wouldn't expect (re-)developing countries to care too much about the environment, and there were certainly still environmental horror stories coming of of eastern Europe recently... massive quantities of acid being dumped from mines into the Danube and things of that sort.
But yes, on balance it's good for meeting Kyoto's targets!
-- The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I
suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Enough to live a good lifestyle. What's the point of arguing for more/less %age points when the real issue is quality of life? Money isn't everything. When I discovered that, life got a whole lot better.
many of these companies have existed for decades and they didn't accomplish that by consistently being stupid.
In the business world, appeal to popularity is more useful than intelligence. You can't accomplish much by being consistently stupid, but you *can* accomplish a lot by being consistently mediocre. (And I never did say that these guys were stupid - just that they don't have longevity as a goal. It's a nice side-effect if you can get it, but if you can't, eh.. so what.) So if this is so important then the government should fund research to mature the technology so no-one takes a risk. That is NOT a stance I would expect to hear from someone advocating your position. It is very rare indeed to find someone like you who isn't being a hypocrite on this. Usually, the people who speak of there being nothing wrong with how companies are doing things simultaneously advocate against government funding of technology research, leading to the situation where NO research is done because it's being left to the corporate sector where nobody wants to be the first adaptor.
But you need to recognize that your stance on this is not the same as the stance being taken by other people who take the coporations-can-do-no-wrong attitude.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Also, if you're right, exactly where is the huge spike in atmospheric carbon coming from, anyway? See http://www.climate.unibe.ch/clim_recon/co2.html. See that orange spike on the right? That look natural to you?
Note that three out of the four sampling locations on that graph are in Antarctica, while the fourth location - the orange spike, for which only measurements from the present are shown - is Mauna Loa, an active volcano. I'm not suprised that there's more CO2 to be found at an active volcano than in ice sheets in Antarctica.
Also note that the large spike shown at 0 years BP (that is, at the present) indicates samples taken at different locations than the samples representing the distant past.
The present data was also collected via direct measurment, whereas the data for the past is obtained via a reconstruction procedure. In other words, the data was collected using two different methods, and it may not be a coincidence that the dramatic change in the graph is at the precise point at which sampling methods change.
Finally, if the spike shown at the present time can only be explained by industrial activity, as you seem to imply, what accounts for the equally significant spike rising between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, all at the same location?
Note that three out of the four sampling locations on that graph are in Antarctica, while the fourth location - the orange spike, for which only measurements from the present are shown - is Mauna Loa, an active volcano. I'm not suprised that there's more CO2 to be found at an active volcano than in ice sheets in Antarctica.
The atmosphere is well-mixed. The differences in CO2 measurements from one point to another are much smaller than the vertical range of the graph, as I pointed out elsewhere in the thread.
The orange spike is not a measurement. It is the curveof direct measurements over the last half century. The entire orange range has been measured at Mauna Loa. It's not just one point. Also, Mauna Loa is not continuoulsy active, and was chosen specifically for its isolation from carbon dioxide sources.
Also the green points (all of them) are obtained using the same method. The reason you see a few of them as distinct while the others blend into a curve is because, um, the curve abruptly starts rising at an unprecedented rate at the end there.
The 'reconstruction procedure' is a measurement of CO2 content in bubbles trapped in ice cores. It's pretty damned robust.
Finally, if the spike shown at the present time can only be explained by industrial activity, as you seem to imply, what accounts for the equally significant spike rising between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago
Um, the retreat of the glaciers? You don't know very much about paleoclimate, do you?
Anyway, the important thing to understand is that the SLOPE of the green and orange parts of the curve ARE DIRECTLY MEASURED. Even the collapse of the last glacial maximum, a very abrupt event by geophysical standards, is hugely slower than the current spike. There simply is no other explanation possible.
This is even before accounting for isotopic evidence, showing that the newly injected carbon has the same isotopic signature as fossil fuels and not as part of any active reservoir.
You can't imagine how exasperating it is to be "debating" the stuff that's already settled. There are a lot of open questions in the global change business. How the hell is democracy supposed to function on moderately complicated questions when we can't even get the public to agree on the aspects that are about as certain as anything in science?
"As a percentage of GDP, the USA gives less in aid than almost all other developed nations."
And in absolute numbers thay give near to most. Are you worried about giving to little, or about earning to much??
"Rush in? Tell that to the victims of the Blitz. Where was the USA when Poland was invaded? When the tanks swept into Paris? The USA only got involved in WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed."
Hogwash. If they went any faster you would be praising pour democratically elected Hitler who was ousted by premature US.
The Kyoto Protocol on fighting climate change is to become a legally binding treaty on 16 February, the UN has said. - looks like USA doesn't give a rats ass about international laws and treaties, why would this be any different?
A Flamebait? Wow, where do these moderators live, on Mars? USA went into Iraq in a unilateral action dismissing the UN, treated prisoners in a way that defies the Geneva Convention and it is still not clear that the USA is not playing by the rules and breaks the laws where it sees fit?
No. No, what it means is that quite a few people cannot accept the reality for what it is.
Mr. AC. I don't believe that in my post I ever said anything about USA being bad or evil, ok? I said that it will not abide to the international law. That's a fact. I am not passing a moral judgement, I am stating the fact.
Yikes! Are you in denial that the Geneva Convention was broken by the US? Are you in denial that the US went into a unilateral action, which is against the international law? -- I think you need listen to the words in the Amazing Grace and think: Was blind but now I see --
USA went into Iraq in a unilateral action dismissing the UN
Actually, the US actions were legal under UN resolution 1441.
treated prisoners in a way that defies the Geneva Convention
Again, incorrect. Prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan are not subject to the Geneva convention because
they are not members of signatory forces
even if they were, the Geneva Convention explicitly says that troops lose certain protections when they fight in certain ways (like fighting out of uniform, pretending to be civilians, etc.) The Geneva Convention is not just a restriction on nations; it is a quid pro quo: you fight like civilized folks, and you get treated like civilized folks.
Please look up what unilateral means. The invasion of Iraq was not undertaken soley by the United States of America. Great Britian and many other nations have agreed with the actions the US took.
I'm not going to say that two wrongs make a right, but just how many UN resolutions did Iraq have to ignore before the UN would have taken action? Without looking it up I want to say it was around 12 resolutions in about 12 years. If the UN refuses to back up it resolutions then the UN is a complete failure.
I really hope it is proven that the prisoner abuses are limited in scope but I fear that the orders came from high up in the military chain of command. Each indivdual that can be proven to have abused or ordered the abuse of prisoners must be punished to the fullest extent.
-- --
Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Please cite a source of the International Law that you think the US violated. Don't give something general like the UN or Geneva Convetion, give enough details that everyone can look up this law.
-- --
Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Re:So what
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Makes you wonder what it takes to invade a country. Iraq violated 11 by your count, Isreal is in violation of 72 (or so, look them up yourself). You bomb the shit out of one, and defend the other. Go figure.
Figure it out. The US has shown the world their true colours. We now see that you are an ignorant population, following ignorant leaders, you tell earth shattering lies, for money. You have no credibility, and no one on earth gives a shit what you think, about anything. So please, continue dancing around, wrapped in your flags, believing you are the beacon of hope in an evil world. You are not welcome outside of your own borders, so please, stay inside them. Of course, with your fiscal policy, and dollar falling to shit, you are not likely to be able to afford to leave, even if you want to.
Re:So what
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you even know what the word unilateral means?
Apparently not by the way you are spouting out crap.
A shit ton of those are just recommendations and statements condemning insignificant actions. If Israel had occupied an entire country for no reason other than it wanted to, and had to be dislodged and instructed to dismantle (and prove it) their WMD programs and they did not cooperate and routinely misled the UN, I'd expect the US to go in and force them into compliance just like in Iraq.
That was slaghter. USA troops just avanced trought tows without even military force, killing civilians freely.
That was a crime agains humanity.
What you see in Fox News, mostly, is lie.
-- I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
Going to be "law".
by
stratjakt
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Law of what? Law of wasted time and effort and using popular science as an economic control tool, that's what Kyoto is the law of.
--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Going to be "law".
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Law of wasted time and effort and using popular science as an economic control tool, that's what Kyoto is the law of.
You know, there's a reason we have to wear SPF30 sunscreen on moderately sunny days.
Just sayin'.
Re:Going to be "law".
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There always has been. This isn't a new thing, only the knowledge of the consequenses of not doing it are new.
Re:Going to be "law".
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, you're pasty white from spending your time reading this blog. And you pay attention to the hysterical whiners.
Anyway, that would have to do with the ozone layer, which is not something that the Kyoto Protocol has anything to do with.
Global warming is a myth in 3... 2... 1...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Blastoff! Conservative cnspiracy theories of UN world domination is a GO!
Re:Global warming is a myth in 3... 2... 1...
by
Ignignot
·
· Score: 4, Funny
The LIBERAL media has been slowly forcing us to accept GAYS in the BIG GOVERNMENT and the UN because they want US to ALL become GAY, and then we'll all have to BECOME ATHEISTS and KILL UNBORN CHILDREN for the good of some THIRD WORLD TERRORIST!
How was that? I tried to get all the crazy conspiracy elements into teh smallest space possible... what did I leave out?
-- I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Re:Global warming is a myth in 3... 2... 1...
by
MisterTwo
·
· Score: 1
I feel like I'm reading Sean Hannity's MadLibs...
Re:Global warming is a myth in 3... 2... 1...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... it's all Hitlery and Bill Clinton's fault?... (too easy!)
Re:Global warming is a myth in 3... 2... 1...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The moon landings....and aliens
Re:Global warming is a myth in 3... 2... 1...
by
Tonytheloony
·
· Score: 1
You forgot to include the french!
-- The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
Re:Global warming is a myth in 3... 2... 1...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You forgot to include the french!
Rumsfeld tells us that we can't take the French seriously.
'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
geoffrobinson
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A bipartisan concensus that handicaping our economy relative to other countries was a bad idea may not constitute a failure.
-- Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
NardofDoom
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
On the contrary, a lot of people think the US will suffer because they won't be in the newly formed 'carbon market.'
And, besides, this will force European nations to develop methods and technologies that produce clean power and/or use less fossil fuels. Then, when the oil really starts to run dry they'll have the upper hand, and China, India, and the US will be buying technology from them.
It's already happening in the emerging wind generation technology, where Denmark is the leader.
Think of it this way: Imagine all the coffee in the world was going to run out eventually, maybe soon. Wouldn't you be better off inventing a better way to make tea instead of a better way to make coffee?
-- You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
Ashen
·
· Score: 1
No you would continue to get coffee for as cheap as possible and get all of the benefit that you could and then as coffee prices started to rise indicating the growing shortage, you would begin to start looking to grow the tea alternative to begin replacing coffee.
"Let's just chop off our arms now and drink tea!"
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
johnjaydk
·
· Score: 1
Don't worry to much about Danish wind power. We'll fuck that up shortly. My brother is a structural engineer at Vestas (worlds larges producer of wind turbines) and after their latest merger they are runing around like headless chickens. When people say merger think: mine won't float much long, yours are sinking too, lets strap them together...
My money is on GE wind in the long run.
-- TCAP-Abort
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
killjoe
·
· Score: 1
Right. Because profits are more important then anything else.
-- evil is as evil does
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
Spoing
·
· Score: 1
Then, when the oil really starts to run dry they'll have the upper hand, and China, India, and the US will be buying technology from them.
Yet, when top elected leaders in the US decide that we are in the 'end of days', why would they care about emerging energy technologies, or if oil runs out in 20 years, or if polution causes any environmental dammage. They won't be here -- only the sinners will be!
-- A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
metlin
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Imagine all the coffee in the world was going to run out eventually, maybe soon.
That's a really *really* mean thing to say x-(
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and then as coffee prices started to rise indicating the growing shortage, you would begin to start looking to grow the tea alternative to begin replacing coffee....uh... you know he's using coffee as an analogy for oil, right?
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, really??????
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
powerlinekid
·
· Score: 1
emerging wind generation technology
I thought your post was serious until I read this...
--
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What the US has failed to do is realise that the Kyoto treaty will *improve* the US economy not the other way around. As someone posted above carbon-dioxide emissions per capita in the US is around 20.1 tons per year compared to 8.5 tons per year in the EU. But the average citizen in the EU is almost as wealthy as the average American citizen, the difference is not big, we all have cars, computers, houses etc. That's why the bottomline is: the US could cut CO2 emissions roughly in half simply by *not* needlessly wasting fuel and other forms of energy. We have done exactly that in the EU, conserving energy is easy and VERY CHEAP when you're wasting as much energy as the US is currently, when you have cut down significantly that's when conserving more becomes expensive, but you could easily cut CO2 emissions in half and it would result in more money available in the economy for other purchases and as a side bonus you could cut down on, or completely stop, importing oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions, there's no sane reason why a sheikh in Saudi Arabia should hold such power over the US economy today. It can be done, it will save you money both in short term and long term, if you don't want to cut down on luxuries (no one wants to) at least stop needlessly wasting energy you lazy bastards!
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
dajak
·
· Score: 1
And, besides, this will force European nations to develop methods and technologies that produce clean power and/or use less fossil fuels. Then, when the oil really starts to run dry they'll have the upper hand, and China, India, and the US will be buying technology from them.
Same thing regularly happens with any European Union safety or environmental guideline x: Some countries will start implementing guideline x years before it becomes legally binding because it will give an economic advantage later. For small countries it is an opportunity to become the leader in a future market for products meeting guideline x. Most offensive thing that can happen is that big states later refuse to implement x (for instance on the ground that they are economically disadvantaged).
That's what happened with the Kyoto protocol. 'Unsigning' it was much more offensive than not signing in the first place.
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
Moofie
·
· Score: 1
Of course that's not true. It's also not true that "reducing greenhouse gas emissions is more important than anything else".
If we agree on those two statements, we can have a dialog about where the line should be drawn. If we don't, we can't.
-- Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
killjoe
·
· Score: 1
Considering what the consequences of the melting of polar caps might be I'd say it's one of the most important things in the world.
-- evil is as evil does
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, that's because the EU population is 455 million to the US' 280. However, the average person in our least productive state (West Virginia) is more productive than the average EU'er
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
Moofie
·
· Score: 1
The world is definitely getting warmer. What is not clear to me is whether we can do anything about it.
-- Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
NardofDoom
·
· Score: 1
Why couldn't they have their goddamn Rapture before the election then? Why the hell did they have to screw it up for the rest of us?
-- You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
killjoe
·
· Score: 1
Since human beings put ten thousand times as much CO2 into the air as volcanos it's safe to presume we can do something about it. Look at what happened with the ozone layer. It took a while but the ozone hole is getting smaller. That's a direct result of humans stopping the use of hydrocarbons.
I just don't get the people who think that humans have no impact on the earths atmosphere, air, seas or the land.
-- evil is as evil does
who says we failed?
by
AxemRed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I hear the treaty was too strict and costly to implement. I would rather work on pollution gradually and by ourselves then sign a world treaty that would hurt our economy.
Re:who says we failed?
by
Wyatt+Earp
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Even some of the Russians are against it
"The Kyoto protocol requires a supranational bureaucratic monster in charge of rationing emissions and, therefore, economic activities. The Kyotoist system of quota allocation, mandatory restrictions and harsh penalties will be a sort of international Gosplan, a system to rival the former Soviet Union's. The majority of humankind does not accept this system, despite claims of worldwide support. Even with Russia's ratification, 75 per cent of the world's CO2 is emitted by, 68 per cent of the world's GDP is produced in, and 89 per cent of the world's population live in countries that are not handcuffed by Kyoto's restrictions. Like fascism and communism, Kyotoism is an attack on basic human freedoms behind a smokescreen of propaganda. Like those ideologies of human hatred, it will be exposed and defeated."
http://www.envirotruth.org/news/20041115.cfm
Re:who says we failed?
by
zx75
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Economy isn't everything. Most of the rest of the world has figured that out by now.
How is this going to hurt the economy? There will be a ton of new jobs, because it's going to create an entire new industry based on finding ways to use energy more efficiently. Do you seriously believe that there aren't BILLIONS of dollars in something as big as this? Why do you think car manufacturers are all over this hybrid shit? It's because more effecient energy sources IS the industry of the future. Forget technology, forget whatever else, energy is where it's at.
So the guy who has been working at a steel plant for the last 15 years who is now losing his job because the plant puts out too much in emissions... he just suddenly becomes an expert at energy sources? He's able to just stop work at the factory on Friday and pick up in a consulting gig on Monday?
It doesn't work that way, and it's utopian to think so. It *will* cause people to lose their jobs, and there *will* be people who won't be able to find a new job that they can do that pays an equivalent wage.
1. Kyoto would force manufacturers to spend BILLIONS cleaning up their processes.
2. To stay afloat, manufacturers would have to cut costs. Cutting costs like dropping their American workers in favor of opening up a plant in China.
3. American manufacturing workers are without jobs, and likely without the means to get the training required for high-tech energy jobs.
4. Unemployment skyrockets, economy goes flush down the toilet.
-- "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:who says we failed?
by
fireduck
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
So the guy who has been working at a steel plant for the last 15 years who is now losing his job because the plant puts out too much in emissions... he just suddenly becomes an expert at energy sources? He's able to just stop work at the factory on Friday and pick up in a consulting gig on Monday?
and what happened to all the auto workers 10-20 years ago when robots began doing a significant portion of the work? what happened to all the people who's jobs were supplanted or eliminated because of computers? What about the pony express riders when the telegraph was invented?
change happens, we adapt. stifling change for job security is stupid.
So you're offering to become a teacher for free, pay for the building used to teach them in, heat/light for that building, their lost wages while retraining, etc?
Hmm... sounds like an "effect on the economy" to me!
Re:who says we failed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
3. American manufacturing workers are without jobs, and likely without the means to get the training required for high-tech energy jobs.
4. Unemployment skyrockets, economy goes flush down the toilet.
I see that you do not stay up with the times. The high-tech jobs have been going overseas (see all the stories about outsourcing) and the economy IS in the crapper. for the 5th straight month, the economy turned down( There was job growth just before the election, but it was low-end seasonal). The high debt being done by bush and his cronies is absolutely killing us faster than Koyoto ever would have.
In spite of all that (and the fact that I do think that bush is pure evil), I do agree with Bush that this needs to include India and China to really be effective. If you do not include the next set of major polluters, it simply replaces one set with another. Wasted time.
Re:who says we failed?
by
lightknight
·
· Score: 1
Hahaha, that's hilarious. At least, I hope your joking.
How is this going to hurt the economy? There will be a ton of new jobs, because it's going to create an entire new industry based on finding ways to use energy more efficiently.
You're argument is flawed. If it were a good argument, you could also argue people going around and burning houses down since that would presumable create more jobs in home construction.
Shock! Outrage! The population of Russia wasn't unanimous in support of ratification!
"Even with Russia's ratification, 75 per cent of the world's CO2 is emitted by, 68 per cent of the world's GDP is produced in, and 89 per cent of the world's population live in countries that are not handcuffed by Kyoto's restrictions."
22% of that 75% comes directly from the U.S.A. If we'd signed on, these numbers wouldn't be nearly as impressive. I'm also of the opinion that our refusal to sign the treaty isn't going to cause millions of jobs to relocate from Russia to the U.S.
I would also point out that the author of the article you cited said that a warm climate would be better for human health than a cold one. As evidence, he points out that we often take vacations to warm, sunny spots. Then in the most stunning excuse for logic I've seen since... well, the last thing he said, he goes on to suggest that those who are concerned about global warming move to Siberia or admit that they're hypocrites.
This guy is an idiot, and I simply don't see how a country voluntarily reducing CO2 emissions is an attack on basic human freedoms.
--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
You know, I keep hearing these scare tactics used as a justification for polluting the environment, but somehow they just never come true. Meanwhile, our skies get dirtier, the water gets contaminated, and the planet gets hotter, all stuff that is measurable. And what is offered up in defense? Possibilities and scare tactics.
So go ahead. Live your life on fear. I'm pretty sure it's all you know to do anyway.
"Never actually having a functioning economy" is different than "figuring out we don't need that stuff anyway".
-- Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Re:who says we failed?
by
Chuck+Chunder
·
· Score: 1
Hmm... sounds like an "effect on the economy" to me!
At the end of the day I guess the question is whether economies are better served resisting change in the world around them or working with and taking advantage of it.
If you think the Kyoto protocol is unfair on the US, Kyoto signatories will certainly consider it unfair if the US operates outside it and will undoubtably take action to counter that unfairness.
-- Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
"and what happened to all the auto workers 10-20 years ago when robots began doing a significant portion of the work?"
peoples lives were ruined, whole cities became cesspits of crime, fewer American could afford to send there kids to college. yes change happens, that doesn't mean we should be changing all willy nilly with no plan.
The amount of people it took to build those robots, maintain them, and design them wasn't as many as the people they displaced.
look at it this way, if I had a company that employed 50,000 people and made 50,000 dollar robots that could replace fast food cooks it would have a huge devestating effect on the economy. Does it mean we should stop robotics? no, but we might want to think about these thing ahead of time.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
You forgot 5 US can't purchase imported Chinese good leading to wide spread civil unrest in asia 6 US agriculture is decimated, cripples humanitarian relief durring african famines
You know what? Pollution and climate change don't respect borders. I wish they would. But it's a global issue. No nation, no matter how big and powerful, is able to work on this on their own in their little sand box. That's why you can only achieve something by international collaboration. And that's why the attitude shared by the current US government and you is an arrogant slap against other nation's faces. But you don't seem to get it, do you? Others do.
I agree, stifling change for job security is stupid.
So, why are we enacting trade barriers to protect our high price of sugar? Why are we enacting barriers to keep cheaper labor out in the form of visas? Everyone would be better off in the long run with free trade and open borders - but the majority of the people in the US want to keep their job.
The only reason why those cars are even made in the US in the first place still (even with robots) is because of laws that require cars sold in the US to be assembled here.
The Mercedes plant in Alabama is a perfect example. That state has the lowest per capita income in the US so it's PERFECT for a labor farm. You can have people lining up there for a 5.15$ hour a job, but the only reason that job is even here is because it's not lawful for it to be in Africa or China.
If you want to sign a Kyoto treaty that will chase every company away that has to spend xxx thousand dollars on upgrading their equipment, then you won't have those jobs, and you won't have as many jobs in the new 'clean it up' industry, becasue there will be nothing to clean up.
Stifling change for job security is stupid, I agree, but that doesn't mean that people aren't going to do it because the majority of them don't want to change. Things like this are the whole reason why America is still so protectionist in many ways and why everyone thinks free trade is an evil way for evil corporations to make more evil money.
... 75 per cent of the world's CO2 is emitted by, 68 per cent of the world's GDP is produced in, and 89 per cent of the world's population live in countries that are not handcuffed by Kyoto's restrictions
The U.S. amounts to more than half of the former and most of the world's population lives in totally different countries without cars, electricity and/or other polluting machinery.
So you say outsourcing because of (indirectly) a worthy cause is worse than outsourcing because the greedy U.S. upper class thinks several million dollars personal income per year isn't enough?
I hear the treaty was too strict and costly to implement.
Compared to what? The costs to repair the damages from hurricanes and the ever increasing violent weather? The costs to keep your environment moderately clean? The costs in healthcare?
-- Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:who says we failed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you think the Kyoto protocol is unfair on the US, Kyoto signatories will certainly consider it unfair if the US operates outside it and will undoubtably take action to counter that unfairness.
The economy isn't about spending money, it's about creating wealth. So while Kyoto will cause a heck of a lot of spending, it won't actually create anything.
Let me guess, you're a fan of the "hurricane" theory of economics, which holds that hurricanes and other natural disasters are beneficial to the economy. The problem is that theory is a bunch of horse hockey. A hurricane may be really good for roofing contractors, but it's really bad for the economy as a whole.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The treaty required a reduction by 5% Given that the per capita output of CO2 in the US is more than twice that of the EU, triple that of Japan and ten times that of China, this is a measure which the US should feel morally obliged to take, even if the other countries did absolutely nothing.
I'm sure there will be plenty of people already in international businesses ready to point out to their bosses that Russian can expand their current production methods without investing in ANY reduction technologies.
Also, American car manufacturers haven't been all over this hybrid shit. They're liscining Toyota's work in small numbers so nobody in Congress puts blame on them. I dont know WHY this is, but its simple enough to verifiy that indeed, the new hybrid SUV is using the same patents and technology as the Prius.
Re:who says we failed?
by
NeoSkandranon
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure i'd put much trust in a site called "envirotruth.org" on this matter...kinda like getting animal information from PETA...
-- If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Re:who says we failed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"There will be a ton of new jobs, because it's going to create an entire new industry based on finding ways to use energy more efficiently."
Sure it'll make jobs, in the same way that breaking a window requires money to be paid to replace it. It's still an overall drain.
Re:who says we failed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If this were the case governments around the world would be solving unemployment by making massive make-work progroms building shit that doesn't do anything or help anyone.
Ergo, you're wrong.
Re:who says we failed?
by
Russ+Nelson
·
· Score: 1
You are an economic ignoramus. Google for "broken window fallacy". -russ
Re:who says we failed?
by
St.+Arbirix
·
· Score: 1
stifling change for job security is stupid.
You'll hear complaints about that logic. None of them will apply it to the U.S. education system even though that's exactly what's been happening. The No Child Left Behind act effectively forces the auto workers to upgrade to robot efficiency. Everyone's mad about the teachers who are failing the federal tests, but no one wants anything but the perfect school teacher for their child.
When you look at two different alternatives and decide which one will be better for you in the long run, that is economy. Therefore, economy is (pretty much) everything. You're right, though, in that most of the world is pretty much dead-set against actually thinking about anything.
The author of that article, Andrey Illarionov, is hardly a trusted source. He doesn't give a shit about truth, only about his interests (and interests of those who pay him).
He was accused (although no proof was found) in getting a 3 million USD bribe from Exxon (some evidence that 240000$ was paid to him was found, though).
The head of the Institute for Energy Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yury Israel (who actually opposes Kyoto protocol) flatly accuses Illarionov of lying through his teeth.
So you can't trust that bastard, even when FT prints his ramblings. He has an agenda and it has nothing to do with reality.
-- Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
So the guy who has been working at a steel plant for the last 15 years who is now losing his job because the plant puts out too much in emissions... he just suddenly becomes an expert at energy sources? He's able to just stop work at the factory on Friday and pick up in a consulting gig on Monday?
Bush and Kerry refused to support this, I believe on the grounds there would be absolutely no feasible way to move the US towards the requirements listed. The cost would also be untenable.
That's because the US is by far the worst polluter of any country in the world, so would have to cut more to be at a sustainable level.
Of course as the temperate zones move north some of the prime farmland in the US will become arrid, which will put a lot more than a few people out of work.. political short-termism gone mad.
Of course as the temperate zones move north some of the prime farmland in the US will become arrid, which will put a lot more than a few people out of work.. political short-termism gone mad.
That's because the US is by far the worst polluter of any country in the world, so would have to cut more to be at a sustainable level.
Wow, I didn't think this would be true -- I supposed that China at least would pollute more than we do. So I did some research, and based on a 2001 EIA study, here are the world's energy-related carbon emissions:
24%: United States 16%: Western Europe 13%: China 12%: Eastern Europe and FSU
5%: Japan 29%: Rest of world
"Bush and Kerry refused to support this, I believe on the grounds there would be absolutely no feasible way to move the US towards the requirements listed. The cost would also be untenable."
Yet we'll spend 5.8 billion a month on a war in Iraq so we can get oil to pollute with. Go figure.
--
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Both
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because you are stupid, refusing to look at anything past your nose.
You need to factor in density and such. Cities in the US are fairly livable. Cities in China are horrible environmentally. China balances out due to population spread and geography. Most of China lives in rural areas with no industrialization working on agricultural output. The parts of China that are working at industrialized capacities are responsible for the majority of its pollution.
Yes, but what you both fail to realize is that those numbers are only for "energy-related carbon emissions", i.e. for power plants (this includes automotive power I believe). But what it fails to cover are measurements from the massive underground coal fires in China. Grant it there have been perodic fires there over the last few thousand years, but many of the current ones can be attributed to human action. These fires release millions of tons of CO2 and other harmful greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere each year, yet there is little being done about it. I understand that it is difficult to do a whole lot about some of the fires, but others can and could be contained and eventually extinguished, but the cost of doing so is high, and so China lets them continue to burn. Its just cheaper to move the people to new locations and move the mines to new coal veins then it is to fight the fires, so that is what they are doing...
-- We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
there are a lot of factor to consider. Many parts of chine are very rural, or have no way of measuring true energy use, or waste. A city full of people that don't have reliable power, and use coal to heat there house gets measured in what way? Notmaking a statement abnout Chine or the US, just cationing people that these numbers hardly take everything into account. I mean in China they destroy computers by burning them or burying them, how much pollution is that?
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
energy-related CO2 emissions is a rather narrow segment of "pollution" (albeit the main one concerning Kyoto). And splitting eastern and western Europe is perhaps misleading. Don't forget about the emissions of burning rainforests and the subsequent increasse in solar gain when we pave the eath.
Nevertheless, Kyoto would merely act as a speedbump in the race to make this planet a living hell which we are all engaged. If Kyoto is too complicated and unfair and demanding and bureacratic, a real solution would be much much worse.
Does the US really have 1/3 of the World's economy?
I was under the impression that the EU was close to the US, then there is Japan, Taiwan, and China all accounting for a significant portion. Notice there a whole world of countries not included....
It looks even worse if you look at how emissions have changed since 1990. While Western and Eastern Europe and China have reduced their levels of emissions, the US and Japan increased theirs by 13% and 12% respectively between 1990 and 2002.
Interestingly, the USA has 1/3rd of the world's total economy, but emits only 1/4th of the world's pollution. It's all in how you look at things...
Interestingly, the USA has only 4% of the world's population.
The economy figure would be relevant if the USA was a net exporter of industrial goods. It is not. The USA has a service economy. It is an importer of steel, of cars, of ships etc.
China and Japan are major exporters. Indirectly, USA consumption is responsible for even more greenhouse gas emissions than these figures indicate.
Interestingly, the USA has 1/3rd of the world's total economy,
Not according to the CIA World Factbook. The USA has a GDP of around $11 trillion, around 1/5th of the world's $51 trillion.
But you were right that it emits 1/4 of the pollution, if you're counting CO2.
Re:Both
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
29%: Rest of world
HA! It's the rest of the world that's causing the problem!!! Damn dirty bastards!!!
Re:Both
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Contrary to the Kyoto Protocol, the war in Iraq has an upside. The Kyoto Protocol just makes us indefinitely in debt to welfare-recipient nations. Don't start thinking that other countries are signing for the good of the world, while the US is refusing to sign only for itself. Every signatory has their own political agenda on this particular issue.
It's more interesting if you add CO2 emissions (taken from nationmaster.com):
Popn GWP CO2 emissions China 20.0% 12.5% 15.2% Russia 2.3% 2.5% 6.7% Japan 2.0% 7.0% 5.3% France 0.9% 3.2% 1.6% Germany 1.3% 4.4% 3.7% UK 0.9% 3.2% 2.5% USA 4.6% 21.0% 25.2%
So the USA is high both per capita and per GWP, but not as high as Russia or China in the latter.
Popn GWP CO2 CO2/GWP China 20.0% 12.5% 15.2% 1.22 Russia 2.3% 2.5% 6.7% 2.68 Japan 2.0% 7.0% 5.3% 0.75 France 0.9% 3.2% 1.6% 0.5 Germany 1.3% 4.4% 3.7% 0.84 UK 0.9% 3.2% 2.5% 0.78 USA 4.6% 21.0% 25.2% 1.2
CO2/GWP is important because what it shows is the pollution efficiency of a nation. If you presume that we still need to produce at least as much Gross World Product (GWP) as we are currently doing, and you want to minimize pollution then you would seek to favor countries that are more pollution efficient (ie lower CO2/GWP).
Yet we'll spend 5.8 billion a month on a war in Iraq so we can get oil to pollute with. Go figure.
A senile wrestler with a grudge made a mistake, and we are still paying for it. It was never about the oil. We were stopping Saddam from selling all the oil Iraq was producing before the war with sanctuions, and there are plenty of other places that produce oil.
Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Well they don't have to lower greenhouse emission. In the case of Russia, for example, hey can actually riase their current levels of emission since they had more meissions in 1990.
Also, most of the meat of this deal are based on carbdon ton credits. If the UK can't make their target they can "buy" a carbon ton of rainforest (defined as the amount of trees it would take to scrub 1 carbon ton from the air) and keep them from being destroyted to "even out" the carbon levels. Costa Rica is "selling" their national parks (which were not going to be cut down anyways) for this purpose.
This treaty is functionaly a joke if you are concerned about lowering greenhouse emissions.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
huie
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I thought it was much longer than just nine years ago and I thought it got pulled because people didn't like the idea of the trading ("bribing to pollute" was another way of putting it).
Since I don't seem to remember anything correctly, can others shed some more insight on this and how it'll foreshadow trading under the Kyoto treaty?
Yeah, there are differences, but there are a lot of parallels too.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
einstein
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
ah, but the key is, the total ammount of carbon tons available on the market will gradually be reduced. this treaty isn't about immediate change, it's about slowing down damage, and then gradually undoing the damage.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
saigon_from_europe
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well they don't have to lower greenhouse emission. In the case of Russia, for example, hey can actually riase their current levels of emission since they had more meissions in 1990.
Why they should not be allowed to rise their CO2 generation? Because God gave some right to Americans to generate most CO2 per capita in world? American CO2 production per capita is far largest in the world. Christians should believe that all people are equial, or maybe born-again Christians in USA believe that they are better than others?
-- No sig today.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
MindStalker
·
· Score: 1
On a world view, yes you are correct (not about the Christian references remember name calling gets you nowhere) the US doesn't deserve the right to emit more pollution than any place else. But on a more serious side I don't see how your going to convense any government that such a thing would be a good idea. Ever nation that signed it would be have very minimal finanical impact. There is such a thing as soverignty among nations.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Also, most of the meat of this deal are based on carbdon ton credits. If the UK can't make their target they can "buy" a carbon ton of rainforest (defined as the amount of trees it would take to scrub 1 carbon ton from the air) and keep them from being destroyted to "even out" the carbon levels. Costa Rica is "selling" their national parks (which were not going to be cut down anyways) for this purpose.
And what's wrong with that? Why should Costa Rica be the good citizen that cleans up the UK's mess at their own expense? Maybe Costa Rica would have liked to have built their own polluting factories on that rainforest land.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
dknight
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Since when are americans Christian?
I'm pretty sure I'm an american, AND not a christian. Amazing, I know. Sorry to go off topic like that, but we arent ALL bible-thumbers.
On Topic, however. Do we, as americans, have a right to pollute just as much as we want? Well, as far as I can tell, yes we do. If we want to pollute til we all day, it's our right to do so. Now, you might feel that it's NOT our right, because in doing so, we might take the rest of you with us. That is a valid concern. However, most of us over here just dont care about the rest of you. We tend to have a very strong attitude of "nobody else matters". It may not be right, but its the way it is (not everyone here is that way, but I'd safely say the majority - including myself).
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
aardvarkjoe
·
· Score: 1
Why they should not be allowed to rise their CO2 generation?
If the point of Kyoto was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then policies that actually achieve that would make sense. On the other hand, if it's all just political maneuvering that has nothing to do with the environment, then Kyoto as written makes perfect sense.
--
How can we continue to believe in a
just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
MindStalker
·
· Score: 1
Pollution credits arn't such a bad idea really if the price is set high enough. It works as such, set the price equal to the cost of cleanup. Set the cost slightly higher than the cost of planting trees (not just buying up existing trees) to get rid of the polution. If paid to the government require the government to spend this money on the environment or parks. Smart companies will realize that they can either plant trees themselfs cheaper, or for even a bigger savings in money they will apply new technologies to reduce their emissions. Of course set cost on a local environment so a company can't get away with averaging thier several large and small pollution factors.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
spleck
·
· Score: 1
Actually, its about tying economic impact to environmental impact... ie the more CO2 you produce, the more it will cost you to either reduce production, buy rainforest, or buy Russia's extra credits. In light of the recent and ongoing recession/depression, the US chose not to weaken the economy further.
Considering the amount of manufacturing that is moving outside the US, I expect other countries to start facing being the polluters, while the US production drops without implementing pollution controls. Further, I think much of the CO2 production is due to power production, since unlike many places we still use coal power, principally because it was ingrained before other technologies (most countries power requirements stayed low until after clean energy sources developed). At this point the cost of replacing (not building new like other countries) plants is prohibitive, issues with nuclear power (radioactive, waste, etc), wind power (mass impact on avian species, climate change, ugliness, etc), others (mainly cost).
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
saigon_from_europe
·
· Score: 1
Since when are americans Christian?
Sorry, I had no idea to offence anyone. "Born-again christian" was a reference to George W. Bush.
-- No sig today.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
justins
·
· Score: 1
Also, most of the meat of this deal are based on carbdon ton credits.
The ironic thing here, politically, is that Kyoto carbon credits are a stupid idea in much the same way the newest EPA clean air regulation's methodology for trading credits among cleaner and dirtier coal plants is a stupid idea.
I suppose Kyoto is technically a little less harmful, since it doesn't create the acute problem of allowing a dirty coal plant, which will have a negative health effect on its local population, to continue operation by virtue of trading. But it's based on the same wonky pseudoeconomics of enforced trading of something that isn't really a commodity.
-- Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
geekoid
·
· Score: 1
I don't know anyone who thinks 'nobody else matters' Mr Bush.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
awehttam
·
· Score: 1
Well..
Your CIA
breaks down the religious components of the United States to be:
Protestant 52%
Roman Catholic 24%
Mormon 2%
Jewish 1%
Muslim 1%
other 10%
none 10% (2002 est.)
and Christians include Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and Anglicans according to the World Fact page (and other sources), so I guess you just got yourself stereo-typed.
As for you having rights, it doesn't look like you yourself have any, but that's not my problem.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please explain this to Mr. Bush, and make him lead the effort for a stronger treaty. (yeah sure)
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
tumbaumba
·
· Score: 1
ah, but the key is, the total ammount of carbon tons available on the market will gradually be reduced. this treaty isn't about immediate change, it's about slowing down damage, and then gradually undoing the damage.
But you miss the point. And the point is that neither Russia nor China will not actually
abide by this agreement once the day of reckoning will come for them. Right now they
as "developing" countries get more carbon credits than developed countries,
and what they going to do is to sell them. Basically they get money for nothing.
Talk about selling soap bubbles.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
most of us over here just dont care about the rest of you. We tend to have a very strong attitude of "nobody else matters". It may not be right, but its the way it is (not everyone here is that way, but I'd safely say the majority - including myself).
And this is precisely the reason America needs to fear future terrorist action. 9/11 again and again and again...
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
owlstead
·
· Score: 1
On Topic, however. Do we, as americans, have a right to pollute just as much as we want?
No, you don't have the right to do so. You can pollute, and you'll probably can get away with it, but it isn't your right to do so. It's not forbidden either but that's just because there is nobody there to forbid you to do it. There is nobody to give you the right either.
The question of course is not if you have the right, but if it is the right thing to do. I am not a believer, but I do believe that we have an obligation to make the world a good place to live in for all of us. That is including the future generations. If we don't, it's going to be a hell to live in, for all of us.
That's the problem with the current US government. They somehow manage to convince people that they are fighting for the world to be a better place, while they seem to grab every opportunity to fuck it up just to get profit. Either shut up and admit you're doing evil, or get with the program. Don't ask what the world can do for you, but what the US can do for the world.
3 million kg of depleted uranium dumped on Iraq, and counting.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
khallow
·
· Score: 1
But is there damage? We don't know enough about global warming to quantify humanity's effects on the environment. Given the slow pace of any increases in CO2 content, I don't see a need for a wrong start like Kyoto.
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And then there are you crying "why does one hate us so much?" at 9/11? I'am sorry, but if you say we dont care what the world is thinking about us, the world says: "hey fuck of! Hunt your terrorists alone"
Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
Russ+Nelson
·
· Score: 1
Look at the numbers. The treaty isn't about slowing down the damage, it's about slowing the *increase* in CO2 emissions, and even then only by a few percent. Do you understand differentials? -russ
Lots of ranting...
by
Thunderstruck
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Lots of ranting about how the US is just going to scoff at this "international law." But perhaps one point of clarification should be presented.
Treaties do constitute international law, but they are only binding on those nations which sign (and in the case of the US ratify) it. As such non-signatory nations who do not adhere to the terms of the Kyoto treaty are not in violation of any law.
-- Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
$5 to tell me where I saw a Childrens' story where a white object falls from the sky onto a house & everyone dies.
Could this be the children's story you're looking for? I believe all of the characters in the first story are killed when the table of contents falls on them.
Lots of ranting about how the US is just going to scoff at this "international law." I'd also like to point out that the term "International Law" is a lot of fluff, seeing as there is no International Government. And, no, the UN doesn't count, since it has no authority over the governments it supposedly presides over.
the Kyoto treaty is actually a protocal of a convention of the United Nations, they are actually binding on the US, as UN conventions are part of the UN Charter that has already been ratified by the US, and all treaties signed by the US are the supreme law of the land.
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.articlevi.html
Kyoto as urgently as it is needed is a deeply flawed concept precisely because it doesn't uniformly limit emissions around the world. In particular, as I last understood it, it doesn't limit greenhouse gasses coming out of China and India because they are "developing" nations.
Kyoto shows a mind set that predates globalization because in the modern age polluters can just migrate to countries that don't sign it or to those who are given a blank check to pollute under it, namely "developing" countries.
If post-industrialized countries have to limit emissions and China doesn't it will just further accelerate the migration of heavy industry to China because not having to limit emissions will be just another competitive advantage for China, like it needs anymore.
If China isn't limited it will churn out enough greenhouse gases to make up for and probably surpass the savings in all of the U.S., Japan, Russia and Europe.
To make this work it in fact has to be globally enforced and prevent polluters from just migrating to a country where terms are lax or unenforced. By moving to such a place they gain a competitive advantage over companies who are in a place they are fighting the constraints in wide open markets that usually means the win in the marketplace.
"Kyoto shows a mind set that predates globalization because in the modern age polluters can just migrate to countries that don't sign it or to those who are given a blank check to pollute under it, namely "developing" countries."
To expand on this I wager the U.S. could sign Kyoto and meet its emission limits just by staying the course and migrating all of its heavy industry to China.
One area that is hard to migrate is American's dependence on and fondness for coal fired power plants.
The U.S. still clinges to its steel production which is another set of big green house gas producers and that could easily end up in China in its entirety in the next 10 years. If it does the U.S. could coast on meeting the Kyoto limits.
Kyoto trying to set pollution limits based on national borders is just flat out quaint in the globalized world. Only things it can cap are transportation and power production(and power production can be migrated across national borders to an extent(for example to Mexico and Canada in the case of the U.S.).
And there was a Supreme Court Case in 1956 to parts of the NATO treaty which basically said that the Consitution shall be upheld above treaties signed with foriegn governments. Kinda off-topic, but just an interesting fact.
-- "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Since you become a citizen of the US simply by being born here, are you suggesting we put "click through" banners in hospitals? Something like "By breathing, you agree to the following terms:"
How easy the world must be for you people who think "legal equals moral"
Well, I don't believe that. But I don't find the Kyoto treaty to be morally good. So it is fortunate that the US isn't legally obligated to observe the treaty.
Have you tried posting the question in your sig on Google Answers? The last time I visited, a lot of questions were like yours.
-- The shareholder is always right.
Re:Lots of ranting...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sorry, we can sign treaties, but no treaty can abdicate the power of congress to determine which laws apply to the US. A specifically ratified treaty is considered law, but such a treaty cannot create a body which determines post-ratification what such laws will be. Ratifying anything related to the UN does not allow the UN to impose laws upon us. That right is specifically granted to the legislature. Sorry, I was once under the impression you are, but there is no world government, and a constitutional amendment would be required to hand over law-making powers to another body. No such amendment has occurred.
Re:Lots of ranting...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Constitution itself says it is the absolute authority.
Article. VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Only things it can cap are transportation and power production(and power production can be migrated across national borders to an extent(for example to Mexico and Canada in the case of the U.S.).
FYI, Canada wouldn't really be an option since it has ratified the Protocol.
Kyoto shows a mind set that predates globalization because in the modern age polluters can just migrate to countries that don't sign it or to those who are given a blank check to pollute under it, namely "developing" countries.
Man, it's statements like this that make me glad we have the Polution industry, who's sole goal in life is to dump tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and are so totally mobile they can just up and move their huge expensive plants overseas.
Seriously, though. What exactally do you think produces the most CO2 emissions in the US? Random factories like.. a car factory, or energy production plants, like.. oh, I don't know, a coal plant? Do you think it's easy for a coal plant producing electricity for the US power grid to just up and move to China so they can continue to burn coal and pipe their product back overseas to the US for sale? Seems a little far of a reach for modern power transmission lines, over all that water.
The only way companies can move to another country to continue using cheap and harmful manufacturing methods is if they are capable of shipping the product back to the location they sell it (the US) cheaper than it would cost to clean up their emissions. If this is not true, then the companies won't move just to continue poluting, but will rather take the cheap way out and install whatever manufacturing filters are needed to decrease their production of greenhouse gasses.
There is world government, its called the un, yes ALL Security COuncil resolutions are binding, even general assembly resolutions are binding as are special conventions set up by the un, now the fact that the US openly defies these laws only proves that it ahs become beligerent with super power.
Canada helps out
by
loconet
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Cars that are environmentally friendly may be coming to drivers in North America faster than anyone expected after the Canadian government pledged this week to a dramatic 25 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from all vehicles sold inside its borders by the end of the decade.
-- [alk]
Re:Canada helps out
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Which will effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars on the North American continent by about 1% when all is said and done. Woo frickin' hoo. I'm tired of doing my part when the rest of the world just says "fuck y'all" anyway.
Re:Canada helps out
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You have no moral leg to stand on, yankee doodle. Why don't you go shoot some injured nearly dead POW in the head just for fun? Why don't you go and hold someone indefinitely without charges? Why don't you go and torture and humiliate POWs? Oh... right... I forgot - if the U.S. does it, it must be morally justified.
Re:Canada helps out
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Defending Canada from whom? Mexico?
Re:Canada helps out
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Who exactly has Canada pissed-off (other than the US) so that they must defend themselves?
You are correct Canada has underspent on its military for several decades, but that is slowly changing. Simultaneously the country has participated in world affairs when feasible. If I recall correctly the Canadian force was the largest in Afganistan for some time. Even if it's just logistical and low level support the Canadian military has participated. With the increased spending perhaps there will be more involvement.
Relative to Canada the US government spends twice per capita on healtcare yet some 45 million are uninsured. Perhaps there is something wrong with your implementation.
Re:Canada helps out
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Defending Canada from whom? Mexico?"
Actually, not only is that funny but its factual. If you saw how much the State of California pays in terms of health coverage and education for illegal aliens, you'd understand why our State cannot seem to pay for its budget.
It didn't help that when we passed Prop. 187 to cut off such benefits the Federal Government ruled it to be Unconstitutional based upon Amendments to the Constitution that were meant to help free the slaves in the South during the American Civil War and did not relate at all to migrants who moved by choice to our country.
Under many of our health programs, California has to pay for coverage for illegals but then the Feds turn around and deny matching funds because California failed to collect Social Security Numbers from the illegals because guess what? They have no Social Security Numbers because they are illegals. The failure of circular logic.
So yeah, Canada, if you want to pay for illegal aliens from Mexico, be our guest. Wasn't that what Mexico wanted out of NAFTA to begin with?
As for defense, Russia is a stone throw away from Canada when you are talking about aircraft carriers with jet fighters.
Got it wrong again
by
H3lldr0p
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The submitter and the proofing editor missed a big problem with the above statement. This treaty will only become law in those nations who have 1) Chosen to become a signatory to the treaty and 2) Raitified it according to their own traditions and laws.
To the best of my knowledge, neither one of these things has happened in the US. Therefore, I submit that it will not, in fact, become law.
Not in the US, dimwit. In Russia! Don't people even read the submission anymore?
-- Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:Got it wrong again
by
DeadVulcan
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
To the best of my knowledge, neither one of these things has happened in the US. Therefore, I submit that it will not, in fact, become law.
Well, the signatory countries have laws too, you know.
Actually, I think the poster merely misused the word "law" slightly; he just meant that, as the article says, the treaty is to become legally binding. Of course, it only applies to the countries that have ratified it.
-- Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Re:Got it wrong again
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And THIS gets modded up 4, Informative? It HAS become law, DUMBFACE, in those countries that ratified it!
Re:Got it wrong again
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.
Who's the rogue state now?
by
nightsweat
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I just don't get the US's non-participation in this treaty. Cutting pollution is good for the economy. Making green products requires a high level of technological sophistication which is supposed to be our specialty, right? If everyone is getting green and we have the sophisticated products necessary we make money, right?
I guess we'll just have to be happy shipping fibers and scrap metal and timber to Asia and getting back manufactured goods.
200 years ago we were a materials colony and market for a power on the other side of the Atlantic. Now we're a materials colony and market for a power on the other side of the Pacific.
Some progress.
--
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's the point. *NOT everyone* has to "get green" under the treaty.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
MachineShedFred
·
· Score: 1
While I think that everyone would agree that "green" industry is for the best, it should be pointed out that green != cheap.
It is much more expensive to be green than it is to not be, and that is why Kyoto presents a major issue for the US, as it's chief competitor in industry (China) is exempt from Kyoto because it is a "developing" nation.
Therefore, you get the expensive green products from the US, or the just-as-functional products from China for half the cost. Why would the unenlightened masses spring for option #1?
Any nation that has nuclear weapons and ICBMs is NOT developing. Sorry.
-- Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
foniksonik
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Do you know how the Kyoto treaty works? Each nation gets a certain number of vouchers for pollution that they can trade amongst each other or sell off at a market value... the number of vouchers is based on old data regarding pollution wherein some of the nations will instantly have more vouchers than they need currently and stand to make a huge windfall selling them off to nations who have continued to progress or haven't been able to slow down pollution levels for any number of reasons... basically Russia specifically will stand to make several billion dollars selling their vouchers to nations like India, US, and other nations that have continued to grow their industries while Russia's has languished for the last decade.
This 'system' of vouchers is what the US will not buy into... as it leaves us at an automatic pollution deficit with nery little hope of ever catching up.
-- A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
nightsweat
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure at the time getting "electric" or "mechanical" wasn't cheap. But those companies that invested in the technology and got the infrastructure put in to support them sure benefitted.
--
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
JustNiz
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Its because nearly all of the Bush family's personal wealth and political election fund money comes directly from the oil industry.
The only green issue he cares about is the colour of money. He's just helping his mega-rich oil baron friends get even richer at the cost of the environment.
Can any one even say Halliburton without tensing up any more?
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
nightsweat
·
· Score: 1
...which gives us as the #1 polluter in the world incentives to get green and develop technologies that don't pollute which are then marketable to other countries as the vouchers get more expensive and the developing economies come on line and come under the treaty's successors.
--
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
ryanmfw
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but not polluting doesn't allow you to produce things more quickly. It probably just raises the cost.
-- Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
nightsweat
·
· Score: 1
That's because you're not taking the true cost of producing those goods into account. If I make a widget one way for.04 less in labor but devalue my land with the pollution caused by that process, what's the actual cost of the good?
Pollution is another way that risks and costs are socialized while profits are privatized.
--
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
g_adams27
·
· Score: 5, Informative
> I just don't get the US's non-participation in this treaty. Cutting pollution is good for the economy.
Then I'll be happy to help explain it. The short version: Kyoto would have required the US to cut its carbon-dioxide emissions by 30-40% over the next 10 years. Cutting CO2 emissions = cutting back on the use of carbon-based fuels like oil, gas, and coal. Those fuels produce over 2/3 of the energy used in the United States. Witness the downturn that the economy took just over the last few months as oil got a bit more expensive and energy production dropped. Now picture another 30-40% drop on top of that. Do you see begin to see how "cutting pollution is good for the economy" is a bit simplistic?
And what would be the end result of the US crippling its economy in this way? Estimates indicate that Kyoto would reduce global temperatures by 0.25 degrees F by the year 2100, and a rise in ocean temperatures of 0.11 degrees C over 40 years (see the journal Science, 4/13/01)
The Kyoto treaty is not the warm-and-fuzzy "save the environment!" treaty you think it is. It's rigid and onerous and gives the UN significant regulatory power over the industries (and economies) of nations that sign it. There's a reason that the Senate decided in a completely bipartisan fashion (95-0) to reject the treaty. It's bad for the US, and it still doesn't solve any global environmental problems.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
ryanmfw
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, economics does not take pollution into account, nor does it charge a producer for pollution. Maybe the Kyoto treaty would have solved that, but with it's developing countries loophole, it's just gonna cost us more in the long, but short sighted, run.
-- Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
goretexguy
·
· Score: 1
Watch out for the black helicopters... and be sure to put on your tinfoil hat, too.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
nightsweat
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
We arent' required to stop using those fuels, only to cut back on emission of carbon into the atmosphere. Scrubbers, filters, whatever you want can be used to meet those goals.
In fact, if the treaty's ratification were expected instead of resisted, there would be a capital spending boom as companies geared up for the treaty. Those that didn't want to convert would end up subsidizing the industries that did.
A recent clean burning coal generation plant in Clark County Kentucky produced the following benefits, according to the Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives:
Up to 700 construction jobs at an average of $60,000 a year.
$11 million in state property taxes in its first 20 years of operation.
$1 million in revenue for Clark County from payroll taxes during construction.
New market for up to 1.2 million tons of coal each year.
Sharply reduced emissions through the latest, proven clean-coal technology called "circulating fluidized bed."
98 percent less sulfur dioxide and 5 times less nitrogen oxide than a conventional pulverized coal power plant.
Enough electricity to supply 19 cities the size of Winchester - 278 megawatts - that's dedicated to serve the cooperative member-owners in Kentucky.
Kyoto isn't the business busting treaty you think it is. We'll see the effects over the next ten years as signatories lap American industries.
--
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
daniil
·
· Score: 1
Therefore, you get the expensive green products from the US, or the just-as-functional products from China for half the cost. Why would the unenlightened masses spring for option #1?
Oh, it's really very simple. Just market everything "green" as good and people will practically fly to buy your "green" stuff, never mind if producing the "green" $product creates more pollution than producing a "regular" $product. And they'll even pay you double for the feeling that they're "doing something!"
-- Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
nightsweat
·
· Score: 1
There are a few economists who take pollution into account since it has to be dealt with eventually and affects health care costs.
Unfortunately, there aren't many accountants that take pollution into account.
--
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
ryanmfw
·
· Score: 1
OK, but those aren't the short sighted ones that run our country. Anyway, I'll be going now.
-- Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
bluGill
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Err, no, there would be a capitol boom in scrubber spending and the like. Paid for by raising electric rates (and other energy?). In turn there will be a corresponding loss in spending in other areas, areas that I'd prefer to see spending.
Now I realize the economy is not a zero sum game, so the correlation will not be one to one. It will be there.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
flossie
·
· Score: 2
This 'system' of vouchers is what the US will not buy into... as it leaves us at an automatic pollution deficit with nery little hope of ever catching up.
It was the bloody USA that demanded that emissions trading be included in the protocol!!! All European nations were completely opposed to the idea but finally gave in to American demands so that a meaningful treaty could come in to effect.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
aWalrus
·
· Score: 1
So, the only option available is to cut jobs, destroy the industry and head into economic downfall, is it?
I take it that placing stronger regulations in place to stop soccer moms from buying gas-guzzling 2-ton SUV's to drop the kids at school and cutting on all the excess americans are so prone to indulge in is out of the question?
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
nightsweat
·
· Score: 1
I disagree.
You have feeder industries to the scrubber industries and feeder industries to those industries and the eventual cost of production of electricity is likely to drop as you take the opportunity to put new more efficient generating technology into your electic plants along with the green upgrades.
Sure there's a capital nut to swallow (offset I would argue by increased production of new products), but more efficient technologies are inherently green and ultimately less expensive.
It isn't a conicidence that corporate finance and environmental groups have the same motto - "Do more with less."
--
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
foniksonik
·
· Score: 1
Well, that was during the Clinton administration... back when ol' slick Willie was schmoozing his way around the globe and the US was rolling in cash... during a period of unsustainable growth and market inflation due to gross speculation in the markets both by US and foreign investors... then the bubble burst, the economy went to crap, Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice, Bush was elected and then terrorists attacked...
Times change.
p.s. I'm not for or against Kyoto... I think it's not the best solution or the worst treaty ever made.. but i don't think it stops people from pursuing green tech or environmentally friendly methods... it also won't stop pollution to any great extent either... it's an 'OK' thing to do with big downsides for US economically and no big upside environmentally, though it would be better than doing nothing.
-- A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
Taladar
·
· Score: 1
Any nation that has nuclear weapons and ICBMs is NOT developing.
So this is why the US isn't a developing nation?
Must be because you have an awful lot of people over there that live like the people in nations known as "developing nations" (contrary to most other "industrialized nations")
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
wass
·
· Score: 1
Witness the downturn that the economy took just over the last few months as oil got a bit more expensive and energy production dropped.
So you're assuming that the economy took a downturn strictly due to pricing of heating oil, and no other significant factors?
Further, if you do believe the economy is so strongly coupled to heating oil prices, doesn't it make more economic sense to develop better technology so our economy isn't so unstable as to be disastrously affected merely by supply/pricing of heating oil?
Estimates indicate that Kyoto would reduce global temperatures by 0.25 degrees F by the year 2100
That's an entirely misleading statement. (BTW I looked up that issue of Science and of the two articles on global warming I see the figures you quoted, can you give a page#). Since you like Science, see Science296 p. 1971, for another view of Kyoto, specifically talking about consequences of delaying it's commencement. One major point of Kyoto is to reach stabilization of CO2 levels at around 450 ppm by 2100. It's not merely to reduce temperatures for temperature's sake. It's to stop disastrous effects (the article mentioned talkes about shutdown of thermohaline circulation in the oceans). Stabilization of CO2 levels at a reasonable point, instead of the increasing CO2 production trend, will more greatly affect climate not just in 2100 but beyond it as well.
Besides, your quote ignores technological developments Kyoto would ultimately spur. Eg more efficient engines and alternative non-carbon energy sources. Such developments have a decent chance of reducing carbon usage much beyond the Kyoto limits.
It's [Kyoto Treaty] rigid and onerous and gives the UN significant regulatory power over the industries (and economies) of nations that sign it.
Isn't that one of the primary purposes of the UN? Or is it only justifiable for the UN to have regulatory power over the industries (and economies) of some "bad" nations (eg Iraq and North Korea)?
--
make world, not war
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And when such changes are fiscally appropriate, they will be made... contracting to pay other countries money because they don't happen to be as developed as we are will push our industries out of the country. To hell with that.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
winwar
·
· Score: 1
"You have feeder industries to the scrubber industries and feeder industries to those industries and the eventual cost of production of electricity is likely to drop as you take the opportunity to put new more efficient generating technology into your electic plants along with the green upgrades."
So, how exactly are you going to scrub out the CO2? I have worked in a project dealing with CO2 sequestration (the end point of CO2 scrubbing) and someone noted that it would require about 25% of the power generation of the power plant for this scrubbing (really collecting and concentrating the gas so it can be injected in the subsurface). Many things come to mind after these rough calculations-reduction in energy costs was not one of them. Reinforcing my belief that it was a pork political and science project so we could do real geology work was another...
Not to mention, many emission controls require energy to work, and in any case, cost money. Sure they may be offset by increased efficiency (more money). Look, energy costs will not go down (probably a good thing in the end). Other industries will benefit. But remember, it will be the utilities customers paying for this (that's you and me). I would like to see a good cost/benefit analysis and not some handwaving or "trust us, we are from the government/environment group/industry" before it starts...
Economically speaking, this is a Good Thing. The fundamental assumption of global warming -- which a large number of scientists seem to believe, although clearly the question needs to be studied more -- is that when the U.S. used CO2-emitting technology, it is imposing a cost on the entire planet that is not accurately reflected in its own production costs. Kyoto's tradable vouchers would "internalize this externality" by making U.S. firms pay the real (social / environmental) cost of conducting their business. Thus is makes no sense to say that Kyoto would put us at a "pollution deficit." Either you believe in global warming or you don't. If you do, then there is no valid reason why American companies shouldn't pay a price for their emissions.
Free-market incentive structures like this really work. By letting supply and demand determine the allocation of the vouchers, they will necessarily end up in the countries where polluting is more efficient than reducing emissions. What we too often forget is that wealth is not about the flow of dollars into and out of our country: it's about the standard of living of people; the dollars are just pieces of paper, or today, mere bits. In short, if global warming is a problem, then the structure of Kyoto will make the world a genuinely better place, in terms of real value to the global society.
Moral: if you doubt the science, you doubt the science. Otherwise, don't bitch and moan; it's just protectionism and it's irrational.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
Thor+Ablestar
·
· Score: 1
We arent' required to stop using those fuels, only to cut back on emission of carbon into the atmosphere. Scrubbers, filters, whatever you want can be used to meet those goals.
You are wrong.
To cut back emission of carbon dioxide preserving use of fossil fuel in vehicles you must supply every vehicle with filters similar not to modern catalytic ones, but to Lithium hydroxide canisters used by Space Shuttle, or their Calcium equivalent. To produce the filters you must emit the equivalent quantity of carbon dioxide since the natural calcium is in carbonate form. Add here the emissions needed to create the energy needed to convert calcium carbonate to calcium hydroxide - and you are in total loss.
You may, of course, invent filters against nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides but they are not the main greenhouse gas, The carbon dioxide is.
There is the way to limit the emission - namely, convert CO2 photosynthetically to carbohydrates and them - biologically - to ethanol, and use the ethanol. But filters will not help.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
foniksonik
·
· Score: 1
If everyone could agree and not try to get the upper hand attempting to gain more power then yes, it would be a Good Thing. Unfortunately that's not how it is in the world today.
People seem to think that all the nations of the world have stopped competing with each other... it's simply not true. The general public is deluded, globally. The leadership in every country continues to scheme at how to gain more power, more resources, more influence. It's not just the US and if the US wants to compete they must make competitive decisions in international dealings.
A true free market on a global scale with one standard and one set of data and equality all around would be awesome... it's just not real yet.
I don't doubt the science I doubt the 'facts' as published regarding the true intentions of each group and what they are admitting to... there simply isn't any transparency in how the data is being acquired both on the environment and in the economic effects and additionally in how each nations policies are being implemented. Each nation is still holding back all of the data needed to establish a baseline reading on what is actually going on. Until there is complete transparency each nation has to assume that all other nations are only giving up the data that will benefit their own position.
I do agree that paper and bits are meaningless... it is the natural resources including labor that constitute wealth... all the rest is just the trade of debts and obligations back and forth covering both past trades of resources and future promises of resource trades. Yes standard of living is up there in the definition of wealth.. it is a reflection of the amount of resources available in day to day life. That's why the US is still the wealthiest nation in the world, day to day we have access to more resources per unit of work than any other nation.
-- A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Earth-friendly Russians!
by
meabolex
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Hey, not only are Russians nice enough to ratify the Kyoto treaty, they're also nice enough to develop a nuclear weapon program that could avoid any possible defense (in the rare event that missile defense could actually work).
Not only are they friends of the environment, but they could also destroy it better than anyone else!
-- FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
Re:Earth-friendly Russians!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sure, but USA:
1) has not signed kyoto
2) surely has much more guns to DESTROY EARTH BETTER THAN _ANYONE_ ELSE
Re:Earth-friendly Russians!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Hey, not only are Russians nice enough to ratify the Kyoto treaty, they're also nice enough to develop a nuclear weapon program that could avoid any possible defense (in the rare event that missile defense could actually work). Not only are they friends of the environment, but they could also destroy it better than anyone else!"
Not to mention that they actively participated and profited in the UN Food For Oil scam, continued selling weaponry to Saddam Hussein after the first Persian Gulf War, tried to lift the UN Sanctions against Iraq (again while profiting with collaboration with Saddam) at the UN, resisted every attempt by the Bush Administration to force the hand of the UN and prevented a Kerry-esque "Grand Coalition" from being built,* sent in their commandos prior to the latest war to remove munitions and potential WMD material and had it shipped back to Russia and Syria (according to the World Tribune), etc. etc. etc. Not to mention that Russia helped usher support for al-Quaida through its brutal crackdown on Chechnia (sic), for what, almost a decade now?
*France also an active conspiracist, doing the same things except for the commando part, but reportedly printed up French passports for friends of France in Saddam's Baath Party so they could escape from the Coalition Forces during the war. Why again do we consider the French an ally when their modern conduct illustrates more appropriately that Fifth Republic is an enemy regime of the United States?
Re:Earth-friendly Russians!
by
WindBourne
·
· Score: 1
they're also nice enough to develop a nuclear weapon program that could avoid any possible defense
Their weapons program is not a big threat to US interest as long as they do not sell it. They are developing solid-fuel missles that can ran around on trucks with little to no maintenence. BTW, those same missle can be used to launch cargo into space.
The defense system that we are developing is not meant to stop a couple of hundred warheads. It is meant to stop maybe 10-20 incoming warheads/missles. It will also be used on battle grounds where there is a possibility of chemical or biological weapon being launched.
-- I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Earth-friendly Russians!
by
ryanmfw
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and did you know America actively participated and profited in the UN Food For Oil scam? Yessirree. One American participated in it, therefore America is an enemy regime of America. And did you know we gave weapons to Afghanistan and bin Laden? And Iran even? Yes, we are an enemy regime of ourselves, surely.
-- Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
Re:Earth-friendly Russians!
by
varjag
·
· Score: 1
Hey, not only are Russians nice enough to ratify the Kyoto treaty, they're also nice enough to develop a nuclear weapon program that could avoid any possible defense
Sorry, but it was the USA who have pulled from the ABM treaty two years ago. The United States builds missile defense, so the other nuclear nation upgrades its missile arsenal to be able to penetrate the defense. Wouldn't the US do the same if Russia suddenly got concerned with invulnerability from ICBMs?
-- Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Re:Earth-friendly Russians!
by
legirons
·
· Score: 1
"Hey, not only are Russians nice enough to ratify the Kyoto treaty, they're also nice enough to develop a nuclear weapon program that could avoid any possible defense (in the rare event that missile defense could actually work)."
And the US is developing scramjets so that they can deliver nuclear weapons past other peoples' missile shields -- are you saying that one is significantly more evil than the other???
Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
benhocking
·
· Score: 3, Funny
As Robin Williams said, "In England, if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun and you don't have a gun. If you commit a crime, the police will say 'Stop, or I'll say stop again.'"
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
wa5ter
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
A commonly held misapprehension.
In the UK, you don't have a gun, the police call out an armed response unit and shoot you in the back of the head for carrying a table leg in a plastic bag.
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
Sinus0idal
·
· Score: 1
As opposed to the US where both parties have guns, and both end up shooting their dumb selves.
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
salvorHardin
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That was clearly his own fault for having a mate tell the police he was Irish before he set out with the table leg.
The fact that neither police nor criminal generally has a gun, does not mean they never do. It simply means that less lead per capita is flying around Greater London than in The District of Columbia. Slowly, guns are being found more frequenty amongst both sides.
Kyoto, and its successors will also one day have 'teeth'. This will likely be once damage to the environment has become noticeable in everyday life. Either that or it'll all come to nothing.... maybe. You pays your money and you takes your chances...
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
HBPiper
·
· Score: 1
I hate to tell you this Ben, but Robin was wrong. The police and the bad guys have guns. It is the average UK citizen that does not have a gun.
-- "I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How did that get +1 Insightful?
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Police in the UK were only allowed to carry guns within the last 10 years or so.
Have a nice day.
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
Roger+W+Moore
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Ummmm.... and it's an improvement to have a gunfight in the street rather than a shouting match?
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
The+Grassy+Knoll
·
· Score: 0
I live thirty yards from where Harry Stanley was shot. The police were reacting to a call from a member of the public, informing them that a man with an Irish accent was leaving a pub, carrying a shotgun in a plastic bag. The police followed all usual procedures (including shouting "Stop!", please note grandparent poster!), but were forced to shoot when Stanley (drunk) adopted a threatening stance. No matter that he was only carrying a table leg in his plastic bag. It was shotgun shaped so the police had to react the way they did! Would it be better if Stanley HAD had a sawn-off shotgun and two more policemen were dead? An unfortunate incident, but Stanley is only now dead because of his own stupidity. If an armed policeman tells you to get down, do it! Unless you're planning on shooting them first!
-- They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
jayveekay
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why don't they have a 2005 target? Why did they set the implementation date so far into the future? If reducing CO2 emissions is important, shouldn't those concerned start reducing today?
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.
Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
October_30th
·
· Score: 1
An excellent analysis.
Unfortunately, this treaty is null and void unless there's a clear and immediate political fallout from being in breach of it. Things like global warming, melting ice-caps, desertification of southern Europe/Corn Belt USA and flooding of coastal areas are non-issues until they become political issues.
-- The owls are not what they seem
Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
salvorHardin
·
· Score: 1
desertification of southern Europe/Corn Belt USA and flooding of coastal areas are non-issues until they become political issues
So the question is... will it take until 2012 for these things to become political issues? Such things already are political issues in the places whose citizens already believe (rightly or wrongly) they're being affected by them.
Unfortunately, the slightest hint of a flood has people talking about global warming in the UK, and news of hurricane has people debating if what happened in Grenada was the result of climate change or not. Also - for every rent-a-scientist who writes a few lines of copy about how bad the state of the environment is, there's another rent-a-scientist who'll argue the opposite. So it's very difficult to know how serious the problem is, or indeed if there is a problem at all. In the past few years it seems that in the view of the public, anybody who publicly bashes the global warming theory must automatically have an agenda, and is probably sponsored by Exxon or somebody - and anybody who publicly chastises business for not caring about the environment must automatically be some kind of hippy nut who is clearly insane.
Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
AvitarX
·
· Score: 1
Can't buy credits if I am not mistaken.
Clinton wanted it, but it never happened.
-- Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
tacocat
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why don't they have a 2005 target? Why did they set the implementation date so far into the future? If reducing CO2 emissions is important, shouldn't those concerned start reducing today?
Because the amount of effort involved is amazing. While I believe it's vitally important that we do what we can and now, you simply can't tell industries to discard the technology they use today that are still economically viable for minor gain.
The problem is two fold:
No industry will willingly replace anything without a cost benefit to it. It simply won't happen. The only possible method to get them to change is to either offer a cost saving alternative or a very expensive price to not migrate.
The other problem is that for a lot of sectors of industry and consumer patterns, there are no alternatives that are truely viable.
Take myself. I live in a house. There may be things I can do to lower my costs. But industry takes up a huge majority of the green house gas generation.
Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
cdrguru
·
· Score: 1
The real question is can we tell the difference between climate change that we can do something about and climate change that we cannot?
It is all well and good to say "Gosh, those CO2 levels are really high", but I've seen nothing that says that a 90% cut in current CO2 emissions will result in less desertification or less flooding of coastal areas. Sure, there is a chance that this might fix the problem, but there is an equal chance that either (a) something much more drastic is required really soon or (b) nothing much we do is going to have an effect.
The assumption behind Kyoto is that we have the power to redirect the climate. Interesting assumption, almost religious in its ferver. I see no proof that any human induced change is going to have much impact, especially something as weak as Kyoto.
Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
SilentOne
·
· Score: 1
You smoke 2 packs a day.
There is no direct link that if you smoke, you will definatly get lung cancer.
Should you stop smoking?
Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
winwar
·
· Score: 1
Let's see, you said:
"Because the amount of effort involved is amazing. While I believe it's vitally important that we do what we can and now, you simply can't tell industries to discard the technology they use today that are still economically viable for minor gain."
In response to the GP who said:
"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."
I think you just made his point. Potential hardship for little gain. But lots of political benefit.
Look, it is easy to reduce CO2 generation. Burn less fuel. If you have a more fuel efficient vehicle, use less power at home, buy less stuff, etc., CO2 use WILL GO DOWN. This will be a lifestyle change-most people don't want this and will be mighty unhappy with the person who makes them do it (or thinks will make them do it) without a CLEAR benefit. There is a reason Republicans seem better able to capture the executive branch in this country-they give the people what they want.
Of course, there are certain countries that have a problem, like France. They get so much energy from nuclear power that it is HARD to reduce CO2 without expending lots of money or wrecking industry. If I am not mistaken, they are going to shut down their coal industry, probably in part due to Kyoto. It's rather amusing that they may be hurt most by the treaty even though they probably meet it best in spirit.
Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
AaronGTurner
·
· Score: 1
"This will be a lifestyle change-most people don't want this"
Saving money on fuel bills? Yes, noone could possiby want to do that.
Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We could improve CO2 emissions by simply deforesting our land. Green plants emit CO2 as a byproduct of photosynthesis. I would think CO emissions would be more of a concern.
Too Little, Too Late by Too Few
by
luna69
·
· Score: 1
Great. So some nations will be putting out less CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
That's all fine and well, but they'll be emitting those gases from factories that are UNDERWATER. At least if they're anyhwhere near a coastline...
-- No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
How is it that the US failed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I see the denouncing of the Kyoto treaty as a SUCCESS for the US and failure for all of those nations that were stupid enough to ratify it.
Re:How is it that the US failed?
by
piett134
·
· Score: 1
Totally Agree. The nations that signed this are ultimately going to be the losers here.
Before any U.S. Slashdotters get into a flame war about this, remember that in 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 in favor of specific conditions that had to be met before they would be willing to agree to the Kyoto Protocol draft or any other greenhouse gas emissions limitation. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol -- as written -- was effectively rejected by the U.S. Senate without a single vote in its favor.
Horray for Science!
by
JBMcB
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.'
Fantastic! Just a couple questions: 1. What constitutes an "Industrialized" country? 2. What constitutes an "Emission" ? 3. Why those six particular greenhouse gasses? 4. Why 5.2%? Why not 10.2? Or 2.7? 5. Why 1990 levels? Why not 1980? 1994?
I tried to glean the answers from the protocol itself: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/ky oto_proto col/items/1678.php
And, well, it's unreadable legaleese. It's like an obfuscated code contest, half the articles point to other articles and those point to other paragraphs. It looks like there's about two paragraphs of substance in it's 20 pages.
-- My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Re:Horray for Science!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Brilliant!. I bet nobody thought to ask those questions before.
You are indeed wise. You should be working on this treaty instead of those idiots. Why they didn't even have the common sense to define what emission or industrialized nations mean. They totally left that out of the treaty. Nobody knows what emissions mean when it comes to this treaty.
How could they have created a treaty like that without answering these basic questions.
-- evil is as evil does
Re:Horray for Science!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
2. The release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere 3. They are the main ones causing global warming. While there are other greenhouse gases, countries have no reason to emit them anyway. I belive the two biggest gases are CO2(causing 62% of warming) and methane (17%) 4. Compleatly arbitrary, but you have to start somewhere 5. see 4
I would not recomend reading legal documents to find out what something means, get a summary such as the one from wikipedia.
Re:Horray for Science!
by
An+Onerous+Coward
·
· Score: 3, Informative
1) Check here to see if your country is "industrialized" or "transitioning".
2) "Emissions" means the release of greenhouse gases and/or their precursors into the atmosphere over a specified area and period of time. [source]
3) The six gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride) were presumably chosen because they make up the bulk of human-produced greenhouse gases.
4,5) Because having a quantifiable goal is nice. The choice of the year 1990 makes sense because the further back you go, the less the numbers bear any resemblance to the situation of the country today. If you go back too far, there aren't even useful numbers to work with. 1990 says, in effect, "You were performing at this level fairly recently. Try to shoot for that."
Why that particular percentage was chosen is a mystery, except that every country that signed Kyoto believed it was attainable. Will it be enough? Doubtful. But we have to start somewhere.
--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The protocol is defined too arbitrarily.
That's the way it is with most government. For example, the penalty for a rape crime is pretty arbitrary. If you weren't aware of how penalty for rape was decided, will you be opposed to laws against rape? You can't just object to protocols by saying that it's questionable, you have to point out where you think it went wrong, and we could start from there. In the case of Kyoto it's possible that scientists and economists came up with values that they thought would be most effective and practical. But that's not the main point. The UN isn't going to sit everyone down and make us scientists and mathematicians so each of us can understand the calculations.
I'm too lazy so I'm going to ask a bunch of questions and hopefully someone will answer them.
It almost sounds like this is your main objective, I only list this as a possibility of what you're trying to say because I'm not too sure what else you're trying to say.
The protocol is too hard to comprehend.
Really? Twenty pages is really too much? Is this really your main point? You said: 2. What constitutes an "Emission" ?
For starters, you might check the line that you just quoted: 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.' You can get a start with the part where I bolded. Look practically anywhere else and you can find out exactly what those six gases are. Since we're talking about the Kyoto Protocol, you might want to check out what UNFCCC says. Just start reading the framework convention and bam right in the beginning is a list of definitions only a page or two long. It's defined there. "Sinks" are a part of the Kyoto protocol, which is when greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, so it's not just reducing emissions. I happened to be doing a little research on this a few day ago, so here's a list that may be useful in gathering info:
Because they are the major greenhouse gases. What I'm more curious about is what are you trying to say? Legal papers are hard to read?
Then they don't have to worry about it...
by
Viceman001
·
· Score: 1
Everyone knows the world is going to end in 2012. The Mayans said so.
-- "It's not the despair, I can take the despair, it's the hope that's killing me!"
Carbon for Cash
by
WayneConrad
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Russia wants in not because Mother Earth will weep if they don't sign, but because the treaty allows countries to sell their carbon credits for cash, and they stand to make a bundle.
Russia being Russia, my bet is that they will both sell their carbon credits and use them.
Science! Think of the science, children!
by
mumblestheclown
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
First, the USA (and I say this as a semi-estranged USA-ian), are a bunch of asshats for not ratifying this. Sure, there are excuses and apologetics, but, at the end of the day, they (we) could have done it.
However, those of you who think that the whole Kyoto debate is about the USA should not lose sight of the more important fact:
Global Temperatures Will Continue To Rise as a result of CO2 emissions even if 100% of the world wholeheartedly adopted Kyoto TODAY.
All Kyoto does (and it is a big step, but nevertheless) is slow the RATE of growth. Politicians and other know-nothings will be patting themselves on the back saying "well, that fixed it!" It did no such thing--at most, it bought us a little time.. and a little is the operative word. Kyoto's significance is not so much that it has somehow lessened the problem - for all practical purposes, it has not. It's significance is that it works to effectively keep the problem from getting much, much worse.
all those countries that say they will follow it..
by
kird
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
..are either: a) tiny industrial forces or b) lying.
im glad the United States is will to stand up and say this is WRONG.
why should a country like china that has a BROWN CLOUD hanging over it be exempt? this is just a ploy to bring the US down.
Europe will probably violate the treaty right off the bat and go 'tee hee'
The whole thing with the U.S. not signing the Kyoto treaty is very simple. The European countries simply cannot match our economic output. Of the industrialized countries, we have the cheapest labor force. Because of their lack of a cheap labor force (in relation to the US) and restricted space, it is not even feasible to produce goods that damage the small living space they have. This drives up costs. In order to remain competitive on the Global Market, they must get the big producers on the same playing ground. Of course they want the U.S. to sign, this put's our nation on the same productivity terms of theirs. This drives up our production costs and allows European goods to compete with American made goods. Now to the question of Russia. Why wouldn't they sign? Russia cannot compete with America anymore on the production scale. They cannot compete with China on the manufacturing scale (China manufactures the things we produce). Thus, caught in the middle, it is better for Russia to align with the European countries attempting to get America on the same terms.
Moreso, joining the Kyoto treaty would cost America 5 MILLION jobs. Thats by the DEMOCRATIC estimate (the tree huggers). Would you join a treaty if it meant your job?
Re:I Disagree
by
WindBourne
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Would you join a treaty if it meant your job?
Well, in a way, we have. We are watching exports drop as countries find alternatives to dealing with us. APEC is now working quite abit closer with Asia rather than with USA due to not trusting our politicians.
Now as to your arguments about production costs, well, you need to look at America vs. the far east/Central-South America/India/etc. We are losing
-- I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:I Disagree
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Intelligent quip. Apparently all democrats are tree huggers. Note that your argument was good until you took the cheap shot. So basically the only people that are going to listen to you are those that agree with you, which means you've accomplished nothing. Sure, you and your friends can pet each other's dick, but I assume you want to convince others that your view is the right one. Here's a tip, stop being a cocksmoker and others might listen to what you have to say. Now go hug Jesus (I guess that's what REPUBLICANS do).
Re:I Disagree
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, I might sign it if it meant i prevented the world from collapsing in 100 years even if it meant my job. But for the sake of argument lets say I wouldn't.
To refute som of your arguments: 1) The labour costs in the easter half of europe are much lower than in the US.
2) The EU block has a pretty much equaly sized economy as the US so:
3) It's not a matter of competing with the US economy-wise, the EU already won since it's economy is currently in a slump, but *even so* the EU economy is on par with the US'. The US economy OTOH, is currently pretty good but the problem is that it is bound to decline badly in a few years considering your mindbogglingly enormous deficit which your government isn't doing anything about. Also the EU-US trade has the US importing more stuff from the EU than it exports.
4) The only reason the US economy has remained so strong the last decades, in spite of sometimes horrible deficits is that the US dollar is tied to the oil. When you buy oil internationaly you have to buy it in dollars. This has meant that the US Federal Reserve has been able to pretty much create money they dont really have. As the oil runs out this situation is gonna change and the US will be forced to face the consequences of its deficit. It wont be pretty. Every economist knows this, so you would assume the US government knows this as well. This makes it hard to understand why they dont seem to want to do everything possible to get rid of their oil dependancy. Signing Kyoto and actively trying to reduce the usage of oil (and the production of CO2) would be good for them.
I dont care who says it'd cost america 5 million jobs, i doubt it anyway unless i see matematical proof of it. It would *create jobs* in the pollution control market if anything.
Why would the European Union be interested in the production costs in the US? Last time I checked the EU accounted for the vast majority of worldwide exports while the US export was relatively small (~75% and 14% if I remember correctly but I read it a few weeks ago).
Ah.... but China isn't industrialized now is it... and I believe I answered the question about Russia in the post already. Last time I checked, China is still a third world country.
Sweet sweet bolt turning
by
nizo
·
· Score: 3, Funny
we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job...
Turning a bolt for 17 years? How big is this bolt anyway? And wouldn't that tend to slow down the rest of the assembly line?
WTF are you talking about? Ever heard of Rockefeller? The man got his oil mostly from the US (not sure about his later years, though. I think he eventually expanded outside of the US). In fact, if you look here, the US is the second-largest producer of oil, right behind Saudi Arabia. The difference is that we use up our oil and thus don't appear on the exporting charts.
So no, the US isn't sitting on some magical unused pool of oil. Its using it quite rapidly.
--
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
But the USA's oil has never been used, and then THEY will be the only suppliers.
Unfortunately for them but then nobody will want to buy oil as anybody will just use hydrogen or some other alternative technology. It's not like oil is the only thing that can oxidate (burn).
Ok, lets imagine, just for fun, that the US isn't using any of its own oil. Where would we put it all? Flush it down the toilets? 8.84 million barrels per day is quite a bit of oil to flush, or to store anywhere.
Now, if we look around the DOE's site a bit more, we find this, and it looks like the US is using 20 million barrels per day, and importing 11.1. Drawing upon our grade school math skills, we deduce that since the US is using up 20 million barrels and importing 11.1, that there's 8.9 million barrels that the US is using but not importing. Now, that sounds awfully like the 8.84 million that the US is producing. Looks like its using them, too! Or wait, maybe its getting those 8.9 million barrels from stored oil?
Well, lets check that out. Is the US using stored oil on a daily basis? Our search leads us to this page, where we scroll down to the section labeled "Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)" and read that the US indeed does have some 653 million barrels stored, but is not using them nor will be using them unless there is an energy emergency.
So, to recap: the US is using 20 million barrels per day, importing 11.1 million, and not using any that are in storage. So, its using roughly 8.9 million barrels that it has to produce by itself, which, accounting for rounding weirdness, ends up matching pretty well with the given 8.84 million barrels per day production rate.
So no, I don't "See!" that the US is sitting on its oil. In fact, I see that the US is using its own oil, and using it for over 40% of its energy needs. In fact, if you read the section named "Imports/Exports" on the page previously linked, you'll see that the US uses more of its own oil than any other country's (but not all others put together, obviously).
--
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
I hope that the countries that support Koyoto will label their goods as Koyoto-made or Koyoto-safe. Basically, they need to turn a perceived negative into a marketing positive.
-- I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Reminds me of CA and zero-emission cars
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wasn't CA supposed to by law only have zero-emission cars for sale by last year. Car manufacturers laughed when CA passed that law, especially since most SUV sales are in CA.
The US did the right thing. Not sign onto a law that will just be ignored.
Re:Reminds me of CA and zero-emission cars
by
KarmaMB84
·
· Score: 1
CA's emissions laws were a joke. Some companies just added air intakes for the sole purpose of diluting emissions so they'd pass tests. Of course, the power needed to run the intake actually caused it to consome more fuel and spit out pollution at a higher rate, but it was diluted and therefore passed.
and others
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While third world countries can pollute just as much as they want...Russia hardly even has enough industry for it to matter whether it joins or not.
IF Global Warming were not due to man made causes,
by
Dana+P'Simer
·
· Score: 1
then it would be a good thing that we did not sign on to this restrictive treaty. Some data is suggesting that the other planets in our solar system are experiencing global warming. Could this be due to a cyclical increase in the output of the Sun? I know, that many scientists are not convinced that the sun's warming cycle could cause all of the warming that we have seen, but this new information needs to be taken into account.
Does the USA have to join?
by
some1somewhere
·
· Score: 1
Since the USA is part of the UN, now that the treaty has been passed by the UN, does the USA have to comply? Or are they exempt since they withdrew in the first place?
-- **FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS:- http://tinyurl.com/la6fhd
Luckily the most powerful nation in the world realizes that a few flooded countries matter little when compared to the prospect of losing a Few American Jobs.
Shortsightedness like this makes me think twice about having children (and the US is by no means the only offender).
-- Can you hear me, Major Tom?
I'm not the man they think I am at home...
This has been moderated "Funny", but there is of course a lot of truth in it. The argument "oh, but if we ratify the Kyoto protocol the American economy will suffer!" has been used in frighteningly many replies to this article.
People may believe the BS that retaining a solid economy while reducing the wasting of fuel is impossible; however, the fact that ANY other developed country produces less CO2 per capita than the US cannot be ignored. This is not idealistic environmentalist talk, it's reality.
Another simplistic argument against ratifiying the Kyoto protocol is that it would be impossible to force nations to stick to their quotas. Ehm, self-regulation anybody? Countries are not little kids, and certainly ought not to behave like them in matters like this!
Anyway, this ranting is leading me into a very pessimistic mood. Wanting to have children used to be self-evident to me, but several things (including the fact that they might be going to behave like countries...) make me think twice about that, too.
Yeah, gotta maintain the balance of power
by
melted
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Russia has tons of oil, and the only thing preventing the US from going there in search of "WMD" is that Russia has WMD. If US designs a system to protect itself from these WMD, Russia will design a system to protect itself from the USA.
Re:Yeah, gotta maintain the balance of power
by
PW2
·
· Score: 1
By that logic, the US will invade Venezuela sometime soon... (obviously won't happen) That oil argument has been brought up so many times in the hopes that people will get tired of answering against it. I'll volunteer this time.
Re:Yeah, gotta maintain the balance of power
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Alaska has tons of oil, and the only thing preventing the US from going there and getting it are the panty-waisted, foul-smelling, tree-hugging, dirt-munching brain-dead Liberals.
Re:Yeah, gotta maintain the balance of power
by
pjt33
·
· Score: 1
Did you notice an attempted coup in Venezuela a couple of years ago?
And isn't there a lot of speculation about global warming... even still? I mean, just because Al Gore said it's possible doesn't make it so. Sheesh.
Re:Plantlife...?
by
Mathiasdm
·
· Score: 2, Informative
(From the article you mention)
The controversy occurs almost entirely within the press and political arenas. In the scientific press and amongst climate researchers, there is little "controversy" about global warming, only a desire to investigate a scientific problem and determine its consequences. As Kevin E. Trenberth writes:
In 1995 the IPCC assessment concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate". Since then the evidence has become much stronger... Thus the headline in IPCC (2001) is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"... While some changes arising from global warming are benign or even beneficial, the economic effects of the weather extremes are substantial and clearly warrant attention in policy debates... Consequently, there is a strong case for slowing down the projected rates of climate change from human influences.
-----
And even if global warming might not be that bad...
We can't know for sure right now.
If you're allowed to go for a space trip, and 50% of the people (many of them scientists) tell you you'll die for sure, while the other half (also including scientists) tells you there's no danger...
Will you take the risk?
Will you let your children and grand-children take the risk?
-- Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
Not that Wikipedia is authoritative, but the article you cite very specifically says:
The controversy occurs almost entirely within the press and political arenas. In the scientific press and amongst climate researchers, there is little "controversy" about global warming, only a desire to investigate a scientific problem and determine its consequences. As Kevin E. Trenberth writes:
In 1995 the IPCC assessment concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate". Since then the evidence has become much stronger... Thus the headline in IPCC (2001) is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"... While some changes arising from global warming are benign or even beneficial, the economic effects of the weather extremes are substantial and clearly warrant attention in policy debates... Consequently, there is a strong case for slowing down the projected rates of climate change from human influences. [1]
That's exactly the kind of analogizing that makes me leery of those in favor of formulating policy based on an assumption of manmade global warming.
If 50% of scientists told me taking the trip would kill me and 50% of the scientists told me there was no danger, of course I wouldn't take the trip.
But this is a grotesquely simplistic analysis, since it gives no cost for not taking the trip (aside from "gee, I don't get to see space"). The argument we are actually faced with is whether the harm done via CO2 emissions is greater than the harm done by retooling our entire infrastructure to eliminate them.
--
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Given that the two groups cancel themselves out (assuming that I give equal weight to the personalities involved ), I would do my own research and decide based on that. As for my children or grand-children, the bar would be raised a bit higher on the decision, but I would still let them if it seemed reasonable.
If there are natural causes of global warming, you can bet that it will outweigh anything we can do to control it. At best we would be able to slow it down a bit. If it is primarily us, then there are other things that we should be worried about more (up to and including an asteroid strike)
Personaly, I am waiting for the beach-front property in Arizona and still driving my SUV
It will just be incorporated into the "Made in China" sticker.
-- People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Hate to burst you "freedom loving" bubble...
by
Run4yourlives
·
· Score: 1
The US has more nukes than the rest of the world put together.
The US has more Bio/Chem agents than the rest of the world put together.
The US is the only country to ever use the former in a war.
What was that about destroying stuff?
Re:Hate to burst you "freedom loving" bubble...
by
ryanmfw
·
· Score: 1
Well, about that last bit, it was kinda a new frontier...:-/
-- Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
Does not apply to the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The "or what" part does not apply to the U.S. from what I understand.
Re:Does not apply to the U.S.
by
SirTalon42
·
· Score: 1
The U.S. never ratified it. Mainland China though, they are exempt.
Lots of posts explaining why the US is right...
by
26199
·
· Score: 1
But personally I'm happy to be able to say that I live in a country which agreed to this.
There's something about the idea that a number of countries would work together to make the world a better place that appeals to my sense of ethics.
Re:Lots of posts explaining why the US is right...
by
geekoid
·
· Score: 1
If only you relized it is not applied equally, and while places in the US have been becoming less polluted(percapita) the countries which are becoming worse polluters are held to no standard.
so My sense of ethics says we need something that applied equally, as well as a method for helping emerging country not be a bad polluter as they become industrialized.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Lots of posts explaining why the US is right...
by
Taladar
·
· Score: 1
+1000 Insightful
If only more people/countries would realize it isn't just all "us vs. them"...
Re:Lots of posts explaining why the US is right...
by
uncadonna
·
· Score: 1
"My sense of ethics says we need something that applied equally".
Good idea. Let's think about how that would look.
Now CO2 is a cumulative problem. So every country should have a cumulative cap on per capita emissions that is the same, right? That means that the countries that have already emitted the most need to stop totally, and other countries need to stop when they catch up.
OK, that's too harsh. Let's let bygones be bygones. Every country should have the same cap on emission rates, right? Well that still impacts the more industrialized countries the most, since they are doing the most emitting.
Still too harsh? How about if we let every country emit what they were emitting in 1992. That means the countries that were doing the most damage get a special right to continue to do the most damage, just slightly less than they would otherwise. This impacts countries least that emit the most. Since that doesn't make any sense for the totally undeveloped countries, we'll cut them a break, but that's not a big deal, relatively speaking.
Unfair? To whom?
For the countries with the highest 1992 emissions to resist this is not only shortsighted and immoral. It's also shortsighted in the sense of being strategically stupid.
Kyoto gives a built-in-advantage to the countries with the biggest consumption in 1992, essentially forever. I've never been able to grasp the argument that this is unfair to the US.
-- mt
Wow...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We (i.e. the US) are now, officially, politically right of Putin's administration. That's pretty fucking amazing.
The Beef of it, and why Russia Signed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... is that countries who pollute more than they did in 1990 must pay money to those that pollute less than their "fair share" or "quota" if you will.
The idea is that heavy polluters will be taxed and this money will go to poor (mostly 2nd and 3rd world ) countries that signed up. This money they are flooded with is *supposed* to help the 2nd/3rd world skip the dirty forms of production (pollution) and skip to the cleaner ways, much as many of these countries skipped over landlines and went straight to cell phones.
The problem with this wonderful idea? Most countries are in nature good, but a very large majority of leaders in the countries that stand to benefit from this are corrupt and will just use the money for whatever-the-hell-they-feel-like.
So why did russia join in? Don't they stand to lose a crapload of money?
No! Russia's economy has gone to such shit that their pollution is much lower than what it was during 1990. The fall of the ruble and privatization of factories has forced many many to close down, resulting in a net loss (and a relatively large one, if i'm not mistaken) of pollution output. Enough so that Russia falls in with those who will actually EARN money for signing this treaty. I'm just surprised it took Pooty Poot so long to realize this.
"'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.'""
Meaning if you were a huge polluter in 1990, you don't have to do shit to meet the treaty, and instead get to sell your pollution "rights" to other countries that have gone through growth in the past 14 years.
And the UN still thinks this is a good treaty.
-- Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
According to the EPA, the current US carbon monoxide level is almost 35% less than the 1990 level, nitrous oxides are about 20% less than the 1990 level, sulfur dioxide is about 30% less than the 1990 level. We seem to be regulating ourselves just fine, thank you very much.
And besides that, does anyone think that this will carry any more bite than those "stern warnings" from the UN on genocide in Africa? Please.
Of course they are not without a potential bias. Their existence depends on pollution being a problem. If it ceases to be a problem, goodbye funding.
Of course that doesn't neccessarily mean they would cook the books.
-- Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Doh!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Umm, who said this is a failure on the U.S's part? Sounds like a good success to me!
The US won't participate....
by
NoseBag
·
· Score: 1
...and the participants will all lie. Does anyone really believe that the EU, Russian, etc folks are going to comply? This is like the recent EU/Iran accord about nuclear weapons. Does anyone really believe Iran will keep its promise?
-- Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
Simple solution: Tax credit
by
DogDude
·
· Score: 1
Instead of not ratifying it, Bush and his people should absolutely ratify it, then instead of using $200 Billion to fight a pointless war, use, hell, maybe $1B to subsidize tax credits for industries that clean up their act. It's very simple. The US has got the money (this morning Bush was authorized to raise the national debt to levels unheard of in history). Why not use some of that money for cleaning up the air & water instead of dropping bombs? The companies themselves could use the tax credit to remain competitive with developing countries, AND we could all live healthier. I don't see any downsides.
-- I don't respond to AC's.
Re:Simple solution: Tax credit
by
helmespc
·
· Score: 1
A half trillian dollars deficit or so says the US DOESN'T have the money... take that as you may... pretty fucking scary on both sides of this argument!
So who's signed it?
by
payndz
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Among many others...
Britain
Canada
China
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
South Korea
Spain
And now Russia.
Wow. So seven of the eight G8 nations have signed up to something that the US maintains would cripple them? Either the rest of the world is hopelessly naive, or the current US administration is obsessed only with making themselves and their corporate backers grotesquely large short-term profits, and fuck everybody else.
Gbush: We arent followers... we are aimless leaders
wake up dumb fuck
-- KARMA POLICE ARREST THIS MAN HE TALKS IN MATHS- radiohead
Re:So who's signed it?
by
John+Murdoch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...or the current US administration is obsessed only with making themselves and their corporate backers grotesquely large short-term profits, and fuck everybody else.
The Kyoto Protocol was initially presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification by the Clinton Administration. The Senate, which must ratify all treaties, voted it down 98-0. That's Democrats and Republicans.
The devil, as they say, is in the details. A lot of the debate about Kyoto--echoed by a lot of the posts you see here on SlashDot--is that "we must do something about global warming!" At least some of those senators have significant relationships with environmental organizations, who are steadfast in their concern about global warming. Why, I wonder, did every single senator, regardless of political stripe, vote against Kyoto? I suggest that the senators are aware that the devil is in the details, and they got a good look at the details. The entire world might be concerned about global warming--but that doesn't mean that an international treaty focused on global warming is automatically a good idea. It could be chock full of "we all agree that you will pay us money" provisions--it would not be the first time that has occurred.
Either the rest of the world is hopelessly naive, or the current US administration is obsessed only with making themselves and their corporate backers grotesquely large short-term profits, and fuck everybody else.
Which could it be?
C. None of the above. Let's rush into this Kyoto treaty, which will do NOTHING to stop global warming, though it will guarantee even more American companies start putting factories overseas.
I love people like you who see the world in black and white. Corporations - evil. (Forget that they supply you with jobs, not the government, unless you work for the government.)
-- Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As somebody who grew up in Europe (Italy) and now live in the US, I can tell you that, yes, the rest of the world is quite naive.
As somebody who grew up in Europe (The Netherlands) who now lives in the US, I can tell you that, yes, the US + at least 1 Italian are a bunch of asshats.
Well, actually, most countries that signed it are not going to meet their targets, and they knew that going in (the few that do are going to do so only on technicalities, like Russia whose carbon levels were set before a steep industrial decline).
So why, you ask, did they sign, knowing that they wouldn't meet the targets? Well, because they know that nobody else is going to meet them either. And if everybody fails, nobody gets punished.
What will happen is that in a few years, at one of the Kyoto target dates, there will be a conference, there will be speeches about how carbon emissions have gone down, but not by the amount pledged and everyone will claim to try really hard to meet the next target, really this time, we promise.
It's all just hypocrisy, really. But, in the end, it might be useful hypocrisy.
Now why did the USA government decide not to go along with the nudge-nudge, wink-wink Kyoto ruse like everyone else. I'd like to claim that it was because they were more principled, but really it was just pandering to domestic political interests.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I suggest that the senators are aware that the devil is in the details, and they got a good look at the details.
Are these the same senators that passed PATRIOT and the DMCA?
The devil, as they say, is in the details....The entire world might be concerned about global warming--but that doesn't mean that an international treaty focused on global warming is automatically a good idea.
I hope people realize that this sort of thing goes on all the time. Even when people agree there's a problem, they don't always agree on the solution. Environmental issues are more complicated than voting, "Yes, I think we don't want to polute more than we have to." Dealing with poverty is more complicated than voting, "Yes, I think we should help the poor."
What happens pretty often is, you hear things during campeigns like, "[Candidate A] wouldn't pass this tax cut to help working families!" and the ad ignores that the tax cut was bundled with all sorts of rediculous pork. You hear about how Democrats won't pass a ban on partial birth abortion, while Republican leaders refuse to include consideration for the life of the mother-- specifically to keep the law from passing and keep issue on the table.
There was an incident where Clinton enacted some environmental laws right before he took office that were pretty unreasonable, and unlikely to have a good effect. Why? They knew Bush would have to repeal them, and then they could slam him for being "anti-environment".
Really, this crap happens all the time. So slashdotters, voting against an environmentalist bill or treaty does not necessarily mean you want to *destroy* the environment. It might just mean that you had a problem with the means to protecting the environment *in that bill*. That might be because you see some other problem with the bill, or maybe you just don't think the bill will work.
Likewise with any other subject. Voting against one gun-control bill does not mean you like giving guns to criminals. Voting against one anti-abortion bill does not mean that you want to go around terminating every woman's pregnancy. Voting against *one* campeign-finance-reform bill does not mean you're in favor of bribes. It *may* indicate *something* about that politicians leanings, but it's never as simple as the sound-bites sound.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Are these the same senators that passed PATRIOT and the DMCA?
Quite. The vote on the USA PATRIOT Act was 98-1 (the lone dissenter was Feinstein, D-CA), and the DMCA passed unanimously (99 senators voted for it).
Since the Senate has shown such excellent judgement on these other issues, we can no doubt trust that their rejection of the Kyoto Protocol was equally well-reasoned and based entirely on rational scientific investigation.
Does anyone seriously believe that Senators read (or even look at) most of the bills and treaties on which they vote?
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:So who's signed it?
by
cozziewozzie
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Sadly, that's not the only treaty the US is conspicuously absent from:
- Convention on the Rights of the Child. Here the US is in the respectable company of Somalia and nobody else. - The Landmine Ban Treaty (would hurt the weapons industry). - Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty - Basel Convention on hazardous waste - Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention - International Criminal Court
You can try to justify not signing Kyoto through bunk science claiming that greenhouse gasses are good for you and make your children more clever, but the fact of the matter is that whenever the world at large signs some treaty that would make the world a better place (even if it is only symbolic), the US, more often than not, chooses not to give a fuck. Not the first or the last time.
Now mod me into oblivion.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Vitriol+Angst
·
· Score: 1
What liberal or progressive is saying that they actually think these Democratic representatives are 100% pure? The rhetorical arguement for our current 4 year run of utter incompetence is that somehow, the opposing views have to have all the answers and meanwhile have troups of Angels trumpeting their purity before people will realise that we as a country are being very foolish.
Yes, there were problems with the Kyoto agreement. But we (I mean, the moron in Chief when I say WE), should have attended the latest rounds and should have stayed engaged. We could have come to some agreement and we should have been willing to make sacrifices.
And by sacrifices, I don't mean the tax right off for people buying Hummers. Or doing absolutely nothing positive towards conservation, or emmissions reduction.
But most NeoCons I talk to, will only realise that their was a problem, when the last ice cube melts from the North Pole. We in the US just look like a bunch of fools right now. Ironic that NASCAR and Hummers are so popular. Dumn American jokes will be the rage in twenty years.
-- >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Vitriol+Angst
·
· Score: 1
Most never actually read the Patriot act. They had 8 hours or something before they had to sign it. Amazing so much stuff written so quickly. The DMCA just meant a lot of money to reelection coffers. Standard Operating Procedure.
"What liberal or progressive is saying that they actually think these Democratic representatives are 100% pure?"
Probably about the same number of conservatives who think that Republicans in power are "pure."
"But we (I mean, the moron in Chief when I say WE), should have attended the latest rounds and should have stayed engaged."
Why? So he could get someone to reintroduce the treaty to the Senate? Maybe he could get triple the votes it got last time around!
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Quila
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Wrong on the land mine treaty. Here are a few reasons we didn't sign it:
The right to use mines in the Korean DMZ, which is a very special case. The mines pose no dangers of the types the treaty is trying to prevent, as all are in a closed, guarded area and mapped.
Better verification and compliance provisions. Yes, we actually wanted to be able to make sure everybody complies -- not just us (this was rejected of course).
The right to make self-destructing anti-tank and anti-personnel mines (again, not part of the long-term danger the treaty is about).
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Vitriol+Angst
·
· Score: 1
Funny.
-- >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Now why did the USA government decide not to go along with the nudge-nudge, wink-wink Kyoto ruse like everyone else. I'd like to claim that it was because they were more principled, but really it was just pandering to domestic political interests.
Also, let's face it, if the US had signed, it wouldn't matter whether or not all the other countries had met their goals, they'd just sit around bitching about how the US didn't meet its goals.
Of course, that will probably happen anyways.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
TrancePhreak
·
· Score: 1
You left off The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women -- not that that one has any teeth anyway, but again we are in pretty sad company.
(1) Unlike most of these countries the US is both highly industrialised and enjoys high growth, which means that it would be extremely hard for the US to comply with Kyoto. Most of the countries you listed are either exempt, or have had low or no growth so they will have to do very little to comply.
(2) Unlike most of these countries, when the US ratifies a treaty it actually becomes law, so the government is obliged to comply. For other countires compliance with treaties is a foreign policy matter, i.e. strictly optional, so they can sign something like Kyoto with no intention of ever complying.
Short version: the US takes treaties seriously and does not have a fucked economy.
What, exactly, is the point of mines that are mapped and pose no danger in a zone between two enemy countries? Surely you want the mines UNmapped and extremely dangerous to stop the two belligerent nations from deciding to march across the DMZ?
In other words, you posted a non-sequitur in response to me.
The company I work for is a corporation. We are incorporated. Yet we have less than 10 employees. Small businesses can be corporations also.
Oh, so what you're saying is if a company becomes too large, too successful, and has too many employees, THEN it is evil? That too is an illogical argument.
-- Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I'm sure that if Kyoto had been offered up to them without time to read it along with a hyped up "environmental threat" that the Senate could not afford to seem "soft" on, Kyoto would have passed too.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
NeoSkandranon
·
· Score: 1
Funny that, how no one seems to remember that a clearly mapped and labeled GIANT minefield is the only thing which is keeping next years maps from having to revise the korean peninsula borders.
-- If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
....Korean DMZ, which is a very special case. The mines pose no dangers of the types the treaty is trying to prevent, as all are in a closed, guarded area and mapped.
Wrong.
Mines float after floods. Korea has plenty of stray mines:
wash mines from storage areas or fields into open civilian areas. Since the 1980s, only 10 percent of 1,430 washed away mines have been recovered."
Mines are evil, you can't control what happens to them after deployment. The US not signing the treaty (or even wanting a Korean exception to it is a bad thing).
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Wrong on the land mine treaty.
You haven't said anything that proves the grandparent post wrong, you've just listed some excuses for not signing. But in the end, the fact is that USA hasn't signed the land mine ban treaty while almost everybody else has.
um, no. 52% of VOTERS think you are fuckwits. The entire population is no eligible to vote and the entire population of voters did not vote. Anyone who did not vote, did not express their opinion at the polls.
Personally, I was afraid the oval office would be relocated to UN headquarters or somewhere in the EU if Kerry were elected.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... the US, more often than not, chooses not to give a fuck.
It's not that the US as whole chooses this, rather a bunch of narrow minded right wing fundamentalist christians who are currently controlling the government don't care because Jesus is coming soon and he'll fix everything after the appocalypse.
The US not signing the treaty (or even wanting a Korean exception to it is a bad thing).
I have a Korean friend who realizes that Seoul would fall within the hour should ol' crazy Kim get a wild hair up his ass. Under those situations, anything that would slow him down or make it cost him too much is worth it.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
tpgp
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have a Korean friend who realizes that Seoul would fall within the hour should ol' crazy Kim get a wild hair up his ass. Under those situations, anything that would slow him down or make it cost him too much is worth it. [emphasis mine]
Slow him down huh? Do you really think Kim is personally going to invade South Korea?
Anyway - what you're saying is that *anything* is justified to stop North Korea attacking the south?
Why stop at landmines in that case? How about proximity nukes? Why not just nuke the DMZ and turn it into a radioactive wasteland? After all that would slow him down wouldn't it?
Idiot.
Landmines always end up killing more civilians then combatents. I am sure you're Korean friend does not like the thought of them close to Seoul
Re:So who's signed it?
by
teflonrabbit
·
· Score: 1
Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) Voted against the patriot act.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and this kind of demonizing is what gets them elected. Thanks, ya damn elitist wanker.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But fortunately not as bad shape as the naive fuckwits in the rest of the world! For once, I can agree with leftist fascists.... we do believe there are a bunch of coward naive bastards out there... the only problem is, we're right.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Idiot.
Landmines always end up killing more civilians then combatents. I am sure you're Korean friend does not like the thought of them close to Seoul
Oooh.. testy testy testy aren't we my little double-digit IQ friend.
The mines are there to stay as long as the Korean peninsula is divided, goatfucker.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Way to not comment on anything the grandparent said.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
A bunch of meaningless twaddle - I defy anyone to spend a few minutes googling this and tell me that it means anything. I think it says parents should take care of their kids, unless some authority decides to take them away for their own good. That's about all I could find after looking at pages of noise on the topic. Obviously we should just let Americans torture their children with Somalian like conditions, if that is what they want to do.
The Landmine Ban Treaty (would hurt the weapons industry).
New flash: War sucks. Having rules for War is stupid. Try not to have a war, but if you do, you'd better win it by any means possible. The winners write the history books.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
See above, re: war.
Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty
Nothing organic persists. We can always nuke something to clean it up, if needed.
Basel Convention on hazardous waste
Basically this says rich countries that are lucky enough to have hazardous waste can't sell it to poor countries that don't have it. Now does that sound fair?
Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention
See above, re: war.
International Criminal Court
The US has a legal system. I don't see how it would behoove the US to submit to the rule of a bunch of folks, who on balance, don't really like it.
Oops--damn. You're right. I misread the page. You'd think I'd remember that here, too.
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Didn't South Korea sign onto the ban of landmines?
I'm also fairly certain that when mines were first laid down in the first and second world wars that all mine fields were 'closed, guarded and mapped' to a certain degree, too.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Item 1: Why stop at landmines in that case? How about proximity nukes? Why not just nuke the DMZ and turn it into a radioactive wasteland? After all that would slow him down wouldn't it?
Item 2: Idiot.
Nuking the DMZ with Seoul only a few miles away isn't really a good idea, especially since you would have to re-nuke it from time to time to keep up the radioactivity. The Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese would all be likely to frown on that. Besides, actually nuking the DMZ wouldn't really slow down the North Koreans much for a number of reasons. The North Korean army has sufficient mechanized forces that it could move powerful forces across the DMZ under armor protection. They could also, no doubt, use armored vehicles as shuttles. The North Korean army over the years has dug a number of tunnels under the DMZ. It is by no means certain that the allies found them all. The North Koreans have airborne forces that they could drop by airplane. They wouldn't be slowed down by nukes. The North Koreans also make fairly regular attempts to land commands and spies by sea. They don't have to go through the DMZ either. Finally, the North Koreans don't seem to care much about people and might just be willing to send some, or all, of their soldiers across a radioactive wasteland in order to conquer the South since radiation doesn't kill instantly except in truly massive doses. As it is they are starving their population, many to death, to maintain a million soldiers under arms (do they really need that many if they aren't invading?) as well as continuing an aggressive program of ballistic missile development and sales, and nuclear weapons programs. Heck, if this keeps up, the North Koreans may use nukes to clear some of land mines so that they can drive their tanks to Seoul, nudge nudge. Or maybe we just misunderstand them, and they are reall a peaceful bunch? See Item 2.
Slow him down huh? Do you really think Kim is personally going to invade South Korea?
That is a convention in speaking. He doesn't mean it literally. But, of course, you already knew that, didn't you?.... Or did you? See Item 2.
Anyway - what you're saying is that *anything* is justified to stop North Korea attacking the south?
Did he say that? You are making quite a leap from land mines being helpful in slowing down an invasion to "*anything* is justified". See Item 2.
Landmines always end up killing more civilians then combatents. I am sure you're Korean friend does not like the thought of them close to Seoul
So, how many civilians do you think are in the DMZ wandering between North and South Korea?
Also, I suspect his Korean friend prefers the land mines being "close" to him rather than the North Korean Army being close to him. North Koreas are already dying by the tens of thousands on account of the North Korean Army. If they move south, hundreds of thousands, or millions, of South Koreans will join the North Korean people in dying. See Item 2.
Why not just nuke the DMZ and turn it into a radioactive wasteland?
During the '50s General Douglas MacArthur wanted to use radioactive material (dirty bombs) along the Yalu river, the border between Korea and China, to prevent the flow of Chinese reinforcements into Korea. So this kind of idea certainly has come up before... (Mac got fired for it, however.)
>The right to use mines in the Korean DMZ, which is a very special case. The mines pose no dangers of the types the treaty is trying to prevent, > as all are in a closed, guarded area and mapped. So you could not sign because you could not find any other technology to protect a small area? Sounds like you are stuck in one track. On the top of my mind I can think of: - Claymore mines (directional fragmentation mines, legal to use according to the treaty) - A huke dike (not the type Bush does not like...) - A huge wall. Gaza-strip/Berlin fashion. - Some hitech IR-sensor connected to a minigun (You could probably make this slashdot-style yourself with parts from Homedepot and your local Guns'r Us arms dealer)
>Better verification and compliance provisions. "We could not make sure everybody that drove a car had a licence, so we thought it was better to not have one at all" "We could not check any everybody at the airport check-in 100% so..." etc...
>The right to make self-destructing anti-tank and anti-personnel mines (again, not part of the long-term danger the treaty is about). Whould you buy a house with a garden if the real-estate agent told you: "There are 100 anti-personell mines in the garden, but don't you worry at all because they are not active any more due to the self-destructing routine..." http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/06/laos.legacy/ I am not a bomb expert, but I thought all bombs where ment to self-destruct in some way after they where armed and dropped?
Look at the fine print on most of these: majority of funding for these organizations is from Uncle Sam. And after we pay them money, they'll prosecute with petty unsubtantiated lawsuits. These world treaties are like snake oil salesmen; there's a lot more than meets the eye. Not letting their foot in the door is a Good Thing. If you don't like that, vote for those who follow your views. Or, There is a way out. For me, communist-socialist-libs sucking my hard earned penny is just as leech sucking as your neighborhood monopolist.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Funny that, how no one seems to remember that a clearly mapped and labeled GIANT minefield is the only thing which is keeping next years maps from having to revise the korean peninsula borders.
Apart from the threat of overwhelming force from the world's most powerful army, you mean?
You know, I reckon there's a slight possibility that the fact that Pyongyang would be rubble within minutes of the first shot fired into South Korea is slightly more of a factor in preventing a North Korean invasion than the loss of a few thousand expendable troops to mines.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh, so what you're saying is if a company becomes too large, too successful, and has too many employees, THEN it is evil? That too is an illogical argument.
Not necessarily. One can point to plenty of instances of companies beginning to behave in ways that some people describe as "evil" once they grow to a certain size.
Is it illogical to point out a correlation between company size and "evil" behaviour? No. If no such correlation exists, it would be wrong, but not illogical. If the correlation exists but is caused by other factors, it would be unscientific, but not illogical. If the correlation exists and is caused by the size of the company, but the behaviour identified is not inherently bad, then it would be misguided, but not illogical.
By the way, constructing a deliberately illogical argument and trying to make it sound as though your opponents are using it is a logical fallacy. So is saying that somebody contradicting one of your claims by asserting the opposite is a non-sequitur (his post did not disprove yours, but that was because he provided no definitions of his terminology and no statistics to support his claim, not because the thing he was claiming was irrelevant).
Sorry, but you are not a good debater. I suggest you go and get a clue before you start trying to make yourself look clever again.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
John+Murdoch
·
· Score: 1
What liberal or progressive is saying that they actually think these Democratic representatives are 100% pure?
I was making two points:
The Clinton administration was reluctant to present the treaty to the Senate, having its own doubts about it, and
The entire Senate--every single senator from Strom Thurmond on the right to Paul Wellstone (and John Kerry) on the left--voted against it.
You or I might disagree with the politics of one senator or another--but none of them are stupid. And if all of them--every single one of them--vote against a treaty, it's a pretty good bet that there was something dramatically wrong with that treaty. There was--it effectively permits China, Russia, India, and Indonesia to pollute to their heart's content, while crippling the U.S. economy. That's not an implementation issue or something that "staying engaged" or not would influence--it was the core concept of the treaty.
In simple terms, this isn't an issue of a single president or a conservative point of view: our nation's entire political leadership, from every point on the (elected) political spectrum, agreed that this was a bad deal and voted "No." Blaming the then-governor of Texas for the collective wisdom of the U.S. Senate seems a bit, um, misguided.
Funny that you seem to have forgotten that the German's were able to easily overcome the French Maginot Line, which the latter thought was impregnable.
Now if you think that the North Koreans can not overcome a stretch of land filled with Land mines, then you are clearly delusional (which most republicans are). The sister post made another good point. Our forces and the fact that we'd fight back if our South Korean ally would be invaded is by far the bigger detterent than a couple of (thousand) land mines.
By the way FREE iPODs IS A SCAM, YOU WILL NEVER GET YOURS !!! HAHAHA
Re:So who's signed it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
grandparent:Anyway - what you're saying is that *anything* is justified to stop North Korea attacking the south?
parent:Did he say that? You are making quite a leap from land mines being helpful in slowing down an invasion to "*anything* is justified". See Item 2.
Maybe the grandparent was referring to: great-grandparent:anything that would slow him down or make it cost him too much is worth it
So yes. He did say it - can you read english? Did you even read the thread?
- Claymore mines (directional fragmentation mines, legal to use according to the treaty)
I know those, I've used them. Claymores are useless for this since they need something to activate them unless you set up a tripwire. Now if you do that and conceal them like you're supposed to, you might as well have a landmine because that's whet you've just made -- an above-ground landmine.
- A huke dike (not the type Bush does not like...) - A huge wall. Gaza-strip/Berlin fashion.
Manmade land defenses such as this are notorious failures when put to the test. We blew through the Iraqi berm in no time (Gulf War). Those walls are not meant to stop armored and infantry attack, but civilians and terrorists.
We could not check any everybody at the airport check-in 100% so...
No, more like "We won't sign an ineffective treaty." Remember, we don't sell these things. Countries like France and Russia love to sell them to anyone.
I am not a bomb expert, but I thought all bombs where ment to self-destruct in some way after they where armed and dropped?
Then at least become knowledgeable before you write stuff like this. "Self-destructing" is a misnomer. These mines defuse themselves after a set period, from hours to days. After that, a kid playing with it won't get hurt unless he drops it on his foot.
You seem to think that the US doesn't care about the landmine issue. The truth is that we've given hundreds of millions of dollars internationally to clean up mines and treat their victims (even though we're not the ones who laid the mines). Our soldiers in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc., spend a lot of time cleaning up the mess other people made. We've also destroyed millions of our own dumb mines over the last decade.
We like the idea, but we just don't like this treaty.
Surely you want the mines UNmapped and extremely dangerous to stop the two belligerent nations from deciding to march across the DMZ?
Some of the mines belong to the US, and some to South Korea. Anyway, there is only one belligerent nation in this picture: North Korea. The South has been making peace overtures to them for years, even bribing the Kims to get them to the negotiating table. Of course it never works. The Kims just take the money to prop up their regimes for a little longer, then start making more threats so that more money will be offered, repeat ad nauseum.
No, Kyoto does NOT place higher standards on the U.S. Any country that polluted as much as the U.S. would be held to the sane standards. There only happens to be one country causing like 40% of the world's pollution.
> No, Kyoto does NOT place higher standards on the U.S. Any country that polluted as much as the U.S. would be held to the sane standards. There only happens to be one country causing like 40% of the world's pollution.
Because the "standards" were drawn up by... who, again?
Kyoto is three wolves and a sheep voting on nutritional standards.
For the sake of arguement:
Any country that pollutes as much as the US would be held to the same - I'm sure your 'sane' was a fruedean slip:) - standard as the US. Since no other counrty pollutes as much, no other country will be held to the same standard as the US. Therefore, the US will be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world in any practical analysis.
Analagously, I would be in the same tax bracket as Warren Buffet if I made the same amount of $ as he does. I don't, so I'm not.
That is based on the presumption that if you're richer, you can pay more tax and not experience as negative results as a poor person ("progressive" tax policy).
But we're not talking about taxes, we're talking about denial of technology that generates CO2 in order to reduce aggregate CO2 production by a country. That is pegged by physical laws, not subjective perception of financial wellbeing.
Its not fair if the US would have to sacrifice all its cars in order to meet the same CO2 production as France. (Granted, requirements are per capita related, so its not quite as bad, but you get the picture (if you have a brain).)
What makes Kyoto UTTERLY pointless is that China is not being held to any MEANINGFUL standard to control its CO2 production. ("I'm a poor country, I'm entitled to pollute more...") Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that as China grows to be in the top 5 production economies, it must produce a CO2 level commesurate to what a top 5 economy will produce. Do I think China must be compelled to match CO2 generation standards AS IT GROWS? No. But at a certain point, China would have to be compelled to meet standards commesurate to an industrialized nation. China refuses to agree to anything would result in "capping" its economic growth (until its as economically productive as the US).
Look, you semi-educated, granola-munching, earthy hippies have to realize that half measures won't result in jack squat. Eventual 50% reduction in CO2 generation does not mean the problem presented by global warming will go away or be ameliorated. At very least, scientists need to show PROOF that will be the case. Logical presumptions are meaningless in a physical world; the world runs on physical laws. (Sometimes relationships are logarithmic in nature, or a hard set number.) What is certain is that following a law like Kyoto will have definite short-term economically negative results. Why should Europe and the US face an economic depression THAT WILL NOT FIX ANYTHING BECAUSE the 3rd world will take up our CO2 generation?
I'm not an opponent of Kyoto on principle; only as its currently formulated. I'm not devastated that Bush won't sign Kyoto. I am displeased he won't continue to engage in negotiation to design an agreement that could be meaningful and "reasonable". But this is a zit level irritation compared to the destructive policies he champions. I don't set expectations for a chimp to do calculus. Its a waste of time to expect the chimp in office to be concerned about the environment.
-- There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
they've ratified Kyoto, and now it's going to be law (on Feb 16).
Law, huh? More like hopeful suggestion if you ask me. The UN isn't worthless, but when it comes to enforcing anything, they're like a newborn baby.. no teeth.
Ratings abuse
by
nightsweat
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
1. The parent is NOT redundant I posted at 6 minutes after the item went up. At that time no visible posts covered the same ground.
2. Overrated? At 2? At 1? I guess the right wingers don't want to see a post they disagree with. Sorry, you may not agree with it, but its worthy of discussion as the replies would indicate.
--
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
I am suggesting that while we should take measures that will reduce the output of greenhouse gasses, which we are doing, we should not sign on to an unfair treaty that puts us at such a dissadvantage to the "developing" nations like China without extremly hard scientific evidence. The fact that there is still debate and new information is becomming available means that the question has not been answered to the level required, in my opinion.
It seems like whatever the bush administration is doing for the enviroment is working because he got elected again... so ignoring the enviroment will probably work until its completly destroyed.
but... saving the enviroment would be too hard because that would mean we dont need iraqi and saudi oil. oh that means that we didnt have to go to war with iraq but that means hallaburton doesnt get free money
-- KARMA POLICE ARREST THIS MAN HE TALKS IN MATHS- radiohead
I'm sure most of Big Western Europe will honor the terms of this treaty in much the same way they are honoring the terms of the Eurpean Union economic agreements, by forcing others to do what they cannot. France, Germany and others run budget deficits in flagrant violation of European law while trying to enforce those rules on the new members from the East. I am sure Kyoto will be no different as it is economically improbable (or even impossible) that they will be able to maintain the terms of Kyoto.
Re:European Conformance
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I totally agree, also I think it's time we removed all laws that have been broken. Rape and murder laws cleary haven't stopped rape and murder being commited by some people so why should those laws restrict my god given freedom?
(In case you didn't notice - I think you need to rethink your arguments. Some laws are infact benficial even if they are difficult to enforce or broken from time to time.)
-- "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
swv3752
·
· Score: 1
WTF is a USA-ian? Do you mean United States of America Citizen? If you are not proud to be a US citizen, then there are procedures to divest yourself of your citizenship. I whole-heartedly endorse you to do so.
-- Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Re:IF Global Warming were not due to man made caus
by
argoff
·
· Score: 1
Besides the point that the UN has no way of enforcing something like this, please note that it's in the US consitution that:
a) The US has given itself the right to enforce any of its law anywhere in the world.
b) No foreign laws will be enforceable in the US.
Kyoto is just whishful thinking.
To all americans...
by
JustNiz
·
· Score: 0, Troll
To all you brainwashed americans who won't face the facts and take responsibilty for your own behaviour with the lame excuse that actually doing anything about reducing pollution is just too expensive or will cost a few american jobs...
How much money and jobs do you think a new ice age might cost? What sort of dent to your family budget and quality of life might total ecological shutdown cause?
Geneva Convention does not apply.
by
DanEsparza
·
· Score: 1
"...treated prisoners in a way that defies the Geneva Convention... "
Sorry to burst your liberal bubble... but the Geneva Convention does not apply here. If you're going to cite the Geneva Convention (presumably you're talking about the 3rd convention, that dealt with the treatment of prisoners -- but you weren't specific, probably out of ignorance), at least get it right:
"There exists exemptions to the Third Convention for "High Contracting Parties" to this convention. In the case of a conflict between a signatory and a non-signatory the signatory shall remain bound until such time as the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention." I don't believe 'Al Qaeda' is a signatory party to the Geneva Convention.
Re:Koyoto and Trade
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why Russia Approved Kyoto
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The reason why Russia changed its mind on Kyoto is that they will make a lot of money from it. See here.
"Kyoto backers, however, rejected the claim, saying that even after a five-year recovery, the post-Soviet economic meltdown has left emissions 30 percent below the baseline.
Russian officials have voiced hope that the treaty's provisions allowing countries to trade greenhouse gas emission allowances would enable Moscow to attract foreign investment for its crumbling industries.
Under the treaty, Russia can sell unused emissions credits to countries that have exceeded their limits."
So they can sell off credits for 30% of the emissions that they don't even produce anymore anyway, which would result in a net gain in greenhouse gases.
Too bad Russian is also making a new kind of nuclear missle. (Sounds like a Cruise missle - not actually new) Hey won't the nuclear explosions cause some global warming?
Hey won't the nuclear explosions cause some global warming?. Nope, the debris will cause "nuclear winter".
-- [Insert pithy quote here]
Koombyaaa....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'd personally like to buy you all a coke.
pssst...most countries entered it to profit from the shell game they will play with their vouchers..
I would mess w/ the good Lord's police force.
by
stimpleton
·
· Score: 1
Come 2012, and the UN tried to force the US to do anything, the US would take that as a threat, or worse, an undermining of mineral resourse interests the US have outside their shores.
They would defend this vigourously.
Interpret this how you will.
--
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Hey there is one thing missing in Kyoto ...
by
JollyFinn
·
· Score: 1
5% mandatory import tariff by every kyoto signers to *ALL* imports of nonsigners.
-- Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
F*** yeah! You tell 'em pinkos, cooter! Prolly some sorta jeff gordon fan, tha'un. Now where'd ellie-mae put my Skoal?
Oh my god!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> How many 'other countries' are giving aid to countries abroad?
Plenty. Japan for example give millions.. and without pretending oil in exchange.
>How many other countries liberate people from dictators?
Your definition of "Liberate" is killing thousand of innocent civilians? Or are you talking about the killed iraqui rebels who were defending his own country? Maybe those your army deny medical attention.. or food? How about tomorrow, i don't know, China for example, decide to "liberate" you? You'll thank to them for bombing your house, killing your friends and rape your daughter? You should. After all is "the american way"!.
JP
Force Grandfathered Coal Fired Plants to Modernize
by
Black-Man
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Clinton waited until the last month of his 8 year administration for the EPA to draft changes to the grandfathering of coal fired plants and the Clean Air Act. Bush cancelled that directive and has since instituted a new directive. And the utilities with these plants have moved forward with plans to add scrubbers.
You just don't submit legislation or directives without a plan by the utilities to implement. And I think that is where the greenhouse gas issue has to be treated with "credits". Utilities can buy tracts of forestland and keep it as such - i.e. no logging. There is no magic bullet technology to convert coal-fired plants to non-greenhouse gas. It just doesn't exist!!
The only reasonable thing that can be done along with the "credits", is to raise minimum requirements for MPG in automobiles and trucks. I see that happening during this administration.
Japan has more CO2 credits than the US...
by
goretexguy
·
· Score: 1
under Kyoto. So does Norway. How in the world does this treaty make any sense? It's not about protecting the environment at all. It's about limiting countries.
Re:Japan has more CO2 credits than the US...
by
Maltheus
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yeah, I just got back from Kyoto and Tokyo. I could hardly breath in Tokyo because of the air pollution. I actually ducked into some smokey bars just so that I could breath freely at times. The sky was nothing but haze all throughout the country. They shouldn't have spare credits. The US has much cleaner air. Although, I haven't been to California in quite some time, I can't imagine it being as bad as Tokyo. NYC is much better in any case. Nice country though, aside from that.
Re:Japan has more CO2 credits than the US...
by
gothmog666
·
· Score: 1
Thist is should be modded as "interesting", flamebait or even "funny" would be better
-- I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
The carbon market
by
siskbc
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
On the contrary, a lot of people think the US will suffer because they won't be in the newly formed 'carbon market.'
Those people are math-challenged, or those who are trying to spin. The US would have, for the forseeable future, been a buyer on the carbon market. So yes, we'll be out of the carbon market, in the sense that we won't be paying other countries for the privelege of doing what we're doing now.
As for Russia, they did not sign out of altruistic purposes. They did because their current carbon emissions are over 30% below that of 1990, the benchmark for establishing the carbon market. This is the case not because they have developed clean fuel, or learned to reduce consumption, but because their economy completely imploded. So basically, Europe won't change much, nor will Russia, but the rest of Europe will end up paying Russia money.
That's why Russia ratified. It's free money. Why wouldn't they do it?
Re:The carbon market
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because the US was using its influence over Russia to keep them out of it? Just like they silenced Russia's objections in the UN to the invasion of Iraq. Only with the increasing influence of the EU do they now have a choice about which direction to take.
You'll find also that most of the 'coalition of the willing' is deeply in the USA's pocket or in desperate fear of losing their good favour.
This is probably why Australia is not ratifying also - we are too chummy with the US to sign up.
It's not about morals, but about national interests and pragmatism. It's a shame the US is throwing their weight around to secure their position in the world rather than to achive goals that would benefit everyone.
Those people are math-challenged, or those who are trying to spin. The US would have, for the forseeable future, been a buyer on the carbon market. So yes, we'll be out of the carbon market, in the sense that we won't be paying other countries for the privelege of doing what we're doing now.
Actually, you're already out of the market, you just don't see it.
Like how European steel is cheaper than American steel. Why? More efficient, more productive plants. Now couldn't American steel producers benefit from this same increased efficiency? Why aren't they now? Largely because they've just been pissing and moaning for the government to save them, rather than doing it the Mom-and-apple-pie, All-American way and just innovating their way into the competition. You know, free-market style?
I don't get why the hell you guys don't just shut up and stop whining about finding ways to do things more efficiently. What possible ill effects could come about from using less coal and oil? Cleaner air? You feel that it means the terrorists win? What possible ill effects from using more and more, the way you are now? Poorer health, a possible global catastrophe, and the end of the way of life we've all enjoyed, which will bring about its own catastrophe.
-- "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
You just hit on one of the big things I disliked about Bush, he was all for pissing people off to save the Big steel plants. Note I said big steel plants, many smaller more efficient plants are turning out cheap steel and making money. But the big plants (like the ones about 40 miles away) are done. Most of the plants are shutting down as they should have about 10-20 years ago. So the free-market works when you let it, but policital issues always get in the way economics. Bush wanted to save the workers jobs at the mills and that is why he put tarrifs on steel imports. In the end all he did was pissoff other countries and make it so they had jobs for another year or so.
But don't say that the US doesn't do alot to cut-back or restrict pollution. Look at car emmison standards in Cal (and the rest of the country by default because no big Car maker will restrict a new type of car to sale only outside of Californa ), they are some the toughest in the world. I can think of a many sports cars that will never be sold (outside of import shops) in the US because of emmisions. If the US didn't have laws tough laws (if they need to tougher is the whole debate in this thread) poeple would do stuff as cheap as possible. And much of the time efficent and clean systems are not the cheapest. Do you think any coal power plant in the US would have Sulfer Dioxide scrubbers if they weren't forced to have them.
When cheaper method is found to do something it will be implemented; It doesn't matter it cheaper because it's more efficent or for some other outside reason. If you want to look at the total productivity of the US vs other Nations you find that in almost every industry it's very hard to match the US. I am not saying it's not possible just that we tend to have more money and willingness to implent new solutions when it helps make us more money. In the case of envorimental issues many times the goverment raises costs (on companies) by having laws forcing good behavior so a new solution might not be as cheap as it would otherwise be.
note, it's 5;15 am my time. What I am saying might not be that clear or organized and I am sure I have lots of language problmes in this post, it's late and I just want to goto bed...:|
If you want to look at the total productivity of the US vs other Nations you find that in almost every industry it's very hard to match the US.
Ah, but total productivity is deceptive, because the US has people working more hours than most other nations. If you look at productivity per hour europeans are roughly as productive as americans. They just want more free time, so they work fewer hours, so the totals are lower.
Same thing for economic growth. America's growth is always portrayed as somehow much higher than europe's, but if you break it down to a net purchasing power per person figure (which means you account for differences in population growth and inflation) the growth difference is below 1 percent.
It's like they say, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.
Because it's only a short term way to get money, but binds your CO2 emissions long term? If they don't plan now to keep their carbon emissions low, they will end up losing money in the future.
-- The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
Nice stock, off-topic troll. DOn't know who you're responding to, but it wasn't my post. To respond, however, I'm pretty sure Americans don't worry economically about Europe. Your poor support of higher education and stifling social programs will ensure it.
Guess what? I'm a Canadian too,a nd I don't recall making you "our" spokesperson!
Based on US response
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Based on US response to immediate crises around the world you will be bombed into submission and a puppet government installed. Is this better than trying discussions first?
Re:Just more international Welfare, thats all!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Except, by capita, the US provides less foreign aid than almost any other western nation.
Further, about half of it is in arms to Israel and the other is Monsanto grain "licenses" to developing nations.
Re:IF Global Warming were not due to man made caus
by
Dana+P'Simer
·
· Score: 1
From the article you sited:
"Whether solar activity is a dominant influence in these [climate] changes is a subject of intense debate," says Paula Reimer, a researcher at Queen's University Belfast who wrote an analysis of the new study for Nature. Why? Because "the exact relationship of solar irradiance to sunspot number is still uncertain."
This is exactly my point. We don't know enough to go taking the kind of hit this treaty would cause to our economy.
Total Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>How many other countries allow their people to own property?
What a narrow minded guy! You actually think USA is the only country where "property" exists.... i'm guess american's high schools have the worst education after all... or you are just a moron.
"How much money and jobs do you think a new ice age might cost?"
see, in a free enterprise enviroment the question is: "How much money and jobs do you think a new ice age will create?"
Beside, The Kyoto agreement is designed to put the burden on successfull industrialized nations. Point in fact 300 million american 'waster' is nothing compared the BIllions of people who won't be held accountable.
WHat we need is a plan that takes emerging 3rd world nations and let them enter a modern industrialization with modern equipment and not go through years of waste.
Plese bear in mind that 'energy usage' from the us are for a very large country (it take energy to move stuff, including the things that moves stuff) with a decent level of living.
WHen electris cars can be charged in 5 hours and travell 500 miles, and be as safe and confortable as a sedan, then you'll see Americans change to enviromentally safer form of transportation.
DId you know there is LESS pollition in LA then there was 25 years ago? with more cars on the road? SO we are making strives toward better enviromental standards.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
"DId you know there is LESS pollition in LA then there was 25 years ago? with more cars on the road?
SO we are making strives toward better enviromental standards."
that's probably because the pollution is also 'outsourced' to china when you outsource those manufacturing jobs.
You peaceniks are ridiculous...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Rush in? Tell that to the victims of the Blitz. Where was the USA when Poland was invaded? When the tanks swept into Paris? The USA only got involved in WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed."
Well, are you for or against preemtive action? Make up your mind, you soft-headed fool.
Re:You peaceniks are ridiculous...
by
Rakshasa+Taisab
·
· Score: 1
Well, are you for or against preemtive action? Make up your mind, you soft-headed fool.
I guess "preemptive" is a difficult concept to understand. When Poland was invaded, what would have been preempted? Certainly not the invasion of Poland, cause that was already underway.
-- -
These characters were randomly selected.
some thoughts on this
by
khallow
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have opposed the Kyoto protocol for several reasons.
The Kyoto protocol was based on some dubious science. While it's pretty clear that human activity has boosted CO2 levels to record levels, and there's strong evidence that global warming is occuring, the two aren't properly linked. For example, it hasn't been shown that reducing CO2 levels will reverse global warming. Another possibility is that increasing solar output is responsible for global warming not human activity. There's some evidence that the IPCC study (I am unable to find the "first assessment" report on the web) that the Kyoto treaty is based on was presented in a misleading light (eg, the summary of the report doesn't agree with the body of the report).
Second, only reduction in CO2 production is considered for the Kyoto treaty. Some work has been done on carbon sequestration. While these methods may prove infeasible, it seems absurd to ignore them in the treaty.
Further, developed countries have to cut back, but underdeveloped ones do not. I wonder how long this disparity can continue before we see countries withdraw from the treaty. In particular, I suspect that Russia will withdraw once it has entered the WTO (apparently the carrot used to lure them into the treaty by the EU).
No cost/benefit analysis has been performed. Is it really better to restrain economic activity rather than to deal with the costs of global warming due to greenhouse gases? The apparent reduction in economic activity that would be experienced by the EU (the most likely ones to comply with the treaty) might mean a significant drop in global standards of living.
Re:some thoughts on this
by
Pentagram
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
While it's pretty clear that human activity has boosted CO2 levels to record levels, and there's strong evidence that global warming is occuring, the two aren't properly linked.
They show a strong correlation, and while it's difficult to show conclusively that the latter is a result of the former, there's a clear scientific understanding of how increasing CO2 levels can lead to warming (the greenhouse effect). There's also no other good candidate, so Occam's Razor comes into play.
Another possibility is that increasing solar output is responsible for global warming not human activity.
It's a possibility but no real evidence has been found for it, so it is really speculation.
Second, only reduction in CO2 production is considered for the Kyoto treaty. Some work has been done on carbon sequestration. While these methods may prove infeasible, it seems absurd to ignore them in the treaty.
Since none of them are practical at the moment this isn't really surprising.
Further, developed countries have to cut back, but underdeveloped ones do not.
Developing countries do have restrictions on how much they can increase their emissions by. This "disparity" is because industrialised countries are already far greater polluters.
They show a strong correlation, and while it's difficult to show conclusively that the latter is a result of the former, there's a clear scientific understanding of how increasing CO2 levels can lead to warming (the greenhouse effect). There's also no other good candidate, so Occam's Razor comes into play.
I mentioned variation in solar output, which we already know to be more than sufficient to generate the observed changes in temperature. Also, there's the related matter that Earth's temperature has been warming up for the last 10,000 years. This is no time to use the Razor.
Since none of them are practical at the moment this isn't really surprising.
Seeding iron-poor regions of the oceans appears feasible and of a sufficient order of magnitude to be relevant. We could test and implement in a reasonable time. Reseeding forests is a proven way to sequester carbon.
Developing countries do have restrictions on how much they can increase their emissions by. This "disparity" is because industrialised countries are already far greater polluters.
Deforestation is a big contribution to the overall CO2 levels (I've seen estimates that the levels of deforestation in the 90's contributed almost as much as industrial output) and is a problem primarily of developing countries.
Re:some thoughts on this
by
Pentagram
·
· Score: 1
Also, there's the related matter that Earth's temperature has been warming up for the last 10,000 years. This is no time to use the Razor.
However, the current period of warming is the fastest known in the entire history of the Earth. The obvious candidate is us; Occam's Razor.
Seeding iron-poor regions of the oceans appears feasible and of a sufficient order of magnitude to be relevant.
Not really. That's no reason not to research these things but it doesn't look like there are any magic bullets.
Deforestation is a big contribution to the overall CO2 levels (I've seen estimates that the levels of deforestation in the 90's contributed almost as much as industrial output) and is a problem primarily of developing countries.
This may be true, but I don't see your point. This is a reason to adopt the treaty since Kyoto already takes this into account.
Re:some thoughts on this
by
uncadonna
·
· Score: 1
Also, there's the related matter that Earth's temperature has been warming up for the last 10,000 years. This is no time to use the Razor.
However, the current period of warming is the fastest known in the entire history of the Earth. The obvious candidate is us; Occam's Razor.
Both wrong, sorry. The world has been gradually cooling since about 4000 BC. There's some debate about how smoothly. The current rate of CO2 accumulation is indeed unprecedented, but it's not obvious that the recent rate of global warming is. On the other hand, there's good physical reasons and paleoclimatological analogs that cause most scientists working in the climate field to believe that the warming over the next few decades will be unprecedented.
Both wrong, sorry. The world has been gradually cooling since about 4000 BC.
Er, the story appears (from here) a bit more complicated, but I am wrong. However, I should point out that global temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution are of the order of magnitude that we observe. Ie, one can't use man-made CO2 to explain these changes.
On the other hand, there's good physical reasons and paleoclimatological analogs that cause most scientists working in the climate field to believe that the warming over the next few decades will be unprecedented.
Frankly, I think this is likely, but my point has always been we should have clear evidence of harm from global warming commensurate with the harm that we'll inflict through restricting CO2 emissions. Considering the Kyoto treaty a "good start" is dubious because we don't know what damage we're preventing or what damage we cause.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
dbasken
·
· Score: 1
Here's an idea -- prove your assertions. Don't Think That Capitalizing Each Word Makes You Right.
It's amazing to me that the people who think Kyoto will do something act like they're the "big thinkers" of our society. But if you'd really think for a minute, you'd see that the Earth and the Sun (not humans) have everything to do with Global [Warming|Cooling], and we're along for the ride. Scary, but get used to it.
Re:all those countries that say they will follow i
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
..are either: a) tiny industrial forces or b) lying.
Which one does the UK fall under then? They agreed to a 12.5% cut on 1990 levels by 2012, a target which they've already met (managed it four years ago).
I'm surprised everyone missed the obvious:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They picked 2012 because all the politicians who signed on are hoping that by the time 2012 hits we as world, or they as a nation will have developed a truly viable alternative to fossil fuels. We may hit upon it, I hope we do, but i think its its pie in the sky planning.
We (US) are going to be pariahs for not signing on. But people dont respond by pointing out WWII debts. They were never going to be repaid, we knew it going in.
The treaty was not ratified, by us. It will be ignored by China, because they want to build a bigger economy than the US. It will be ignored by Russia because of the pervasive amounts of corruption in the system. Im sure some of the smaller EU nations will abide by it. But they have a nation that has a more highly concentrated population, that already embraces public transportation.
The US needs to defend its position by developing the alternative. If we produced a affordable fuel-cell power it would justify our not signing.
Homer Simpson said Solar Power is pipe dream.
-- It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
"developing countries" my ass
by
commodoresloat
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Please show me where in the Kyoto protocol the words "China" or "developing countries" appear. Oh, I see, they don't appear in the treaty at all. Because the categories of countries are based on how much pollution those countries emit, not based on whether they are "developing" or whether their human rights record is bad enough to exempt them. When China pollutes as much as the US does, they will move to the same category as the US.
Re:"developing countries" my ass
by
Chris+Pimlott
·
· Score: 1
Consequences for not having lowered emissions?
by
DroopyStonx
·
· Score: 1
What, does someone invade you or something?
Ok, so your country signs this treaty agreeing to lower em, but what if it doesn't happen or a country flat out refuses to comply?
-- We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Re:Consequences for not having lowered emissions?
by
ArtStone
·
· Score: 1
I know that was meant in jest, but the reality is that the foundation is already being laid by the EU socialists to call the countries that do not adopt Kyoto (ie the US) "Environmental Terrorists" posing an "Imminent Threat" to civilization.
That of course could form the legal basis for a "preemptive invasion" to implement "Regime Change".
Stay tuned.
-- Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
So everyone does understand, don't they, that, scientifically speaking, Kyoto is only the first small turn of the steering wheel on the Titanic, and at least 10 turns of the wheel would be required to steer clear of the "global warming" iceberg. (How's that for a mixed metaphor.)
In other words, we have to globally reduce to less than half of 1990 emmissions levels, and using real math, not funny political math, to stop the growth of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Here's to a good start on the turnaround anyway. Cheers.
Now let's hope the US is as embarrassed as it should be about being the one remaining unrepentant energy pig on the planet.
--
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Re:Ok, now the bad news
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You must be Canadian.
The next time one of your frosty Canadian volcanoes erupts, it will likely dump more C02 into the atmosphere than the Industrial Age's entire C02 emissions combined, and your shoddy Kyoto Protocol will be up in smoke (and ash) in a matter of weeks.
Too bad, eh?
Hopefully it doesn't blow while any of you hippie wackos are up there at the rim frantically shoveling ash and rock into the crater to plug our impending Global Warming doom!
there the leader, they have all those windmills making wind...
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I'm an American too
by
2nd+Post!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And I think the attitude, "Nobody else matters," is suicidal and self defeating.
That statement fundamentally reduces to "Nobody matters," when you aggregate it over an entire population unless you take the stance, "Everybody matters,". Everyone can't just exclude themselves from the population, so either nobody matters or everybody matters or some matter more than others; then who do you choose who matters?
I believe everybody matters, and because of that, *I* matter. And because *I* matter, then we have to look out for ourself. A cleaner, safer, world is in my best interests, and it's got a nice side effect that it is also beneficial for everyone else.
Yet China is more poluted..
by
slashkitty
·
· Score: 1
For those of us who have gone over there. We know that Cities in China are far far more poluted than cities in the US. Polution is more than just CO2 of course.
-- -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Where the US failed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How about China and India? Surely they've got some industries driving up greenhouse gas...
Re:Where the US failed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
they certainly have, but are exempt from the kyoto agreement (which it appears no-one has to agree to anyway..) because they are developing industry
or something
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
tomcode
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely right that Kyoto does not solve the problem. The first global trade agreement did not form the WTO. It is a first step on a thousand mile journey. If you're going to refuse to take that first step because you think it's going to stop there, or if you're going to wait for a measure that does everything at once, forget it. Head in sand.
And what of people who claim the science is not conclusive yet? When UCS and others claim it is? What happens if the scientists are right and the earth warms up killing polar bears and half of all life on earth? Will the global warming deniers then blame the scientists for not being conclusive enough?
-- f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmng
Mr Bush has had little to do with this
by
John+Murdoch
·
· Score: 1
You might be interested in looking at a U.N. history of the Kyoto Protocol (including the actual text). The groundwork for the treaty was laid in 1995, and continued through 1997. In 1998, despite significant misgivings about the treaty by the (then) Clinton administration, the administration presented the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. It was rejected by the Senate on a vote of 98-0.
Hate Bush all you want--believe all the wacko conspiracy theories you like. But the U.S. rejected Kyoto while he was governor of Texas.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
gcaseye6677
·
· Score: 1
Yes, yes, the sky is falling! Just like it was in the 1970s when we had only 20 years of natural gas left. Environmental hysteria is old, we don't care anymore. Study after study of unsubstantiated claptrap has left people apathetic about the environment. If the so called environmentalists want to actually make people concerned about things, they could at least come up with some reality-based information rather than alarmist crap that is always proven false later. People who continually spout junk science actually undermine the cause of environmentalism. I know that hysteria is supposed to get peoples' attention, but after time it just annoys them and makes them tune out.
speaking of useless laws
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Didnt the US pass a law which makes the promotion of semitism a condition for getting good marks from the US? What is it we ask of them? Chop your peepees? Eat bagels? Since when is it our government jobs to promote people who believe in the bogeyman? You want to pray? Thats your effing problem. Believe in the tooth ferry if you want but I do not think that promoting religion is a governments job.
Its bad enough we have our own little nuthouse in Utah, no we have to serve the israelis too.
We all have our thoughts on what is a useless law. My neighbour the biker thinks the helmet laws are useless too.
DINGO: Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot! Oh, she is a naughty
person, and she must pay the penalty -- and here in Castle
Anthrax, we have but one punishment for setting alight the
grail-shaped beacon. You must tie her down on a bed and spank her!
GIRLS: A spanking! A spanking!
DINGO: You must spank her well. And after you have spanked her,
you may deal with her as you like. And then, spank me.
VARIOUS GIRLS: And spank me. And me. And me.
DINGO: Yes, yes, you must give us all a good spanking!
GIRLS: A spanking! A spanking!
DINGO: And after the spanking, the oral sex.
GIRLS: Oral sex! Oral sex!
GALAHAD: Well, I could stay a BIT longer.
Correction:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Looks like Russia has failed where the U.S. succeeded"
Wow, how is it that so few people realize...
by
Tickenest
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
that Russia ratified Kyoto pretty just solely to get support from several EU nations in their attempt to join the EU? They didn't do it out of some desire to help the environment. It was politics. (Even NPR's story about Russia's ratification said that this was the reason.)
-- This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
Re:Wow, how is it that so few people realize...
by
ElBorba
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wait, WHAT?
You mean to tell me that Russia adopted the treaty for essentially the same reason the US didn't; Because the treaty has no enforcable impact on a nation violating the treaty, and because the endorsement is a non-binding political ploy?
China's per capita rating is misleading..
by
Shivetya
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Considering that the bulk of China's population has no real income let alone any ability to paticipate in air pollution.
One thing this treaty is not doing is preventing the widespread pollution of the ground and water by other means, of which China and many of the former Soviet states excelled at.
The "50%" item is just an estimate, worst case scenario, in no way is it provable. Hell one of the hurricanes hitting Florida this year was thought to have pushed an endangered species of Turtle to near extinction... Nothing works better to build up excitement than to use extremist examples.
-- *
Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Re:China's per capita rating is misleading..
by
waynelorentz
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Considering that the bulk of China's population has no real income let alone any ability to paticipate in air pollution
I think that's underestimating things. They have plenty of opportunity to create pollution, and do every day. Things like burning out the fields every year. Cooking with wood. Heating with low-quality coal. Diverting water from rivers for irrigation, lowering water levels.
Just because they don't have a factory doesn't mean they don't pollute. Remember, Los Angeles was already covered in smog when the Spanished first arrived in the area. It had to do with burning, wind, sun, and mountains. I don't think the Chinese are any less talented at mucking up the air.
I hate to break the news to everyone but Kyoto is too little to late and whether the US signs it or not is irrelevant. You can expect things to start to change politically when climate issues begin to negatively affect people's lives (particularly voting people) on a large scale which probably won't be too long from now. Maybe that's some solace to those who are so concerned about the situation now. Oh and you'll always have the "I told you so" card to play.
-- **insert favorite profound quotation here**
Sites like "envirotruth"
by
Decimal
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't doubt that many of the people in Russia are against it. Russia hasn't exactly been the world's beacon for representative democracy lately. But just for the record, although it isn't really known who the people who are financially backing Envirotruth.org are, we do know that ExxonMobil was one of the contributors. Keep a few large grains of salt on hand while reading the site.
Re:Sites like "envirotruth"
by
Thor+Ablestar
·
· Score: 1
I am againts it simply because the global warming makes my country - Russia - more suitable for life. Every degree of warming converts a lot of Russian (And Canadian, too!) ice desert into arable land and saves a lot of money spent for heating our dwellings.
And the global warming lets me grow watermelons, too!
Re:This planet belongs to America, learn the rules
by
MachineShedFred
·
· Score: 1
So I guess it was Governor Bush of Texas that rejected the Kyoto treaty in 1998?
You, sir, are an idiot.
(PS - The US Senate is who ratifies treaties, and they voted against it 98-0. If you don't like it, fire your Senator.)
-- Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Your economy is no where as healthy as you might think. Already there have been articles coming from within Canada about what is going to be needed to pay for the universal health care, which is anything but free. Estimates of it consuming nearly 40% of Quebec's budget by 2010 are not that far off from reality. I suggest you start looking into government and independant studies about the situation up there. Apparently you are either not looking or failing to see it. Don't take it as a slight to Canada, I have friends in BC and they are worried about what is coming in the future. One comment that I found interesting is a push to have nurses replace Doctors for some treatment programs and that isn't a direction that will go over lightly.
Your economy is also heavily dependant on US trade, hence when the US economy picks up as it has been for 2+ years there is a recipricol effect for the region.
-- *
Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Re:IF Global Warming were not due to man made caus
by
Teancum
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Who knows? Perhaps the Viking probes, the Mars Rovers, and all of the other dozen or so spacecraft that have crashed on Mars have released all of that pollution and nuclear waste to start damaging the environment on Mars as well.
There are a number of things that could be causing substantial changes in the Earth's global climate picture, and man-made pollution is only one of them.
I conceed that there are local environments that have changed substantially from 10,000 years ago, or even 200 years ago, and that local environment is different directly due to human influence. Witness Los Angeles, where the first settlement in that location died off to the last person due to a lack of water, and now there is a city of over 10 million people living there (with suburbs, etc.) It is a city that wouldn't exist except for modern (20th century+) technology. Cities like Ur and Basra have also changed their local environment, and in those cases the changes are positively ancient in nature, because the original changes happened several thousand years ago.
There are also some very notable situations where the local environment has not only improved, but improved so substantially that criticisms are totally unwarrented. Most notable in this regard is Pittsburg, PA, where in 1880 the smoke was so thick that you couldn't see more than 1/2 a city block anywhere within city limits. And the Ohio river was so polluted that every fish in it was dead, with oil slicks a very common sight, and almost no plant life at all along the banks of the river. If you go to that same city today, with many more people living there than in 1880, the skies are almost always clear except when it rains, and the rivers are clean enough to fish in (I'm not sure I'd try to eat them, but at least the fish are living there now). I could give similar stories about Minneapolis, NYC, Liverpool, and other 19th Century industrial centers where the environment is in much better shape on a local basis now than in the late 19th Century. And this is stuff we have data on, unlike the 19th Centry satellite telemetry monitoring the ozone hole in Antartica.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a spokesman for our country. I know that we have our problems, and I'm very aware that there are a lot of differing viewpoints in our country. I'm simply trying to express that our country as a whole does what it can to help others, improve the world in the way that we know how and that the majority of Canadians are happy with who and what we are. There is always someone who is going to disagree with any piece of legislation that passes or doesn't pass. But we have ratified Kyoto, and on the world stage we are doing very well for ourselves.
I apologize if I came off as pretentious in my previous post.
Huh? Russia will never join the EU. Why would they? Economic protection? No. The EU is competition. Military cooperation? No. See previous. They only joined the Council of Europe (a de facto prereq for EU membership) in 1996. Most likely they ratified Kyoto to line up with treaty memberships as part of the COE. Serbia will join the EU before Russia and that isn't even projected as a possiblility until 2030 according to Serbia itself.
-- Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Yes, failed is the correct word.
by
Ryan+C.
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
We failed to recognized that this treaty is in our best interest. No matter how many jobs we lose in the short term, the cost (in dollars) of coping with a damaged ecosystem will be higher.
Furthermore, this will put us technologically behind in energy generation and resource management. We're going to miss out on a big part of the next industrial revolution. Similar to what happened when US automakers fail to keep up with Japanese automakers.
Sometimes conservatism hurts business, and this is one of those times.
You haven't been paying attention, the cost of our environmental mismanagement will be the cost it will take to send our fearless leaders and their loyal compatriots to Mars, from where they may guide us with their great wisdom.
Re:Yes, failed is the correct word.
by
empedocles
·
· Score: 1
I agree that the challenge of meeting the Kyoto protocols emissions levels would in the long-run be good for the U.S. economy, the pressure could help reduce inefficiencies and spark innovation. Does excusing your chubby kid from gym class make him more likely to the win the race?
Unfortunately, a stronger economy does not necessarily mean that the same players will remain strong within that economy, and perhaps that's the problem. Who's got the strongest lobbies?
Re:Yes, failed is the correct word.
by
Russ+Nelson
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Why does everyone assume that 1) changing the CO2 level will reduce global warming, 2) that we are the cause of the current CO2 level, and 3) that we can change the current CO2 level? There's no science here, it's all based on faith. Environmentalism is a religion, and the US is a country that does not foist religions on its populace.
Go away, and come back when you have science. -russ
Re:Yes, failed is the correct word.
by
invid
·
· Score: 1
When the impending ecological disaster comes, the US will be the only country left with a working economy because we didn't spend so much money to follow this silly protocol which doesn't address the third world which is where most of the growth in emissions is coming from.
-- The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
So are you saying they cooked the numbers?
by
SuperKendall
·
· Score: 1
So put it more plainly - you believe they are cooking the numbers? Then come out and say so and stop implying what you believe to be true.
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So what if we all would agree that every person would have 80% of allowanse of what was in 1990 by average of *entire* population of earth. So that USA would need to cut to 1/10th their carbon dioxide emissions. Hey if you would sign kyoto your per capita allowance would be double compared to europe! You are biggest polluter of entire world 1/4th of CO2 emissions. Russia and china combined are as large polluter as you are. USA pollutes 50% more than EU while EU has 50% bigger population so think about fairness, when kyoto would give americans a far bigger share of the CO2 allowance than anyone else. Think about fairness.Your per capita allowance is ten times any developing country.
Besides china HAS reduced its CO2 emissions levels. And what you could say about its ECONOMY has it grown or reduced during the process?
-- Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
You are biggest polluter of entire world 1/4th of CO2 emissions.
Our economy also makes up 21% of the Gross World Product.
Russia and china combined are as large polluter as you are.
Russia makes up 2.6% of the GWP and China makes up 12%. So those two countries produce 14.6% of the gross world product but produce the same amount of CO2 as we do? Sounds like, on balance, we're not doing too bad. Yes, we produce more CO2 than other countries but we also produce a hell of a lot more economic activity in the world.
Calling the U.S. the biggest polluter just because it produces more quantity is rediculous. Even calculating it on a per capita basis is unfair. The only way to rationally look at CO2 production is to evaluate the amount of CO2 produced for each unit of economic activity. Russia and China are generating way too much CO2 considering their relatively small contribution to worldwide economic activity. They are the countries that need to be made more efficient, not the United States.
So, the US is producing and consuming more than every other country (World export 11%), and that entitles it to produce more CO2?
If you are crashing your car every year you are raising the GDP. If you produce weaponry and dispose it one way or another, you are raising the GDP. It is no measure of benefit to humankind.
> Even calculating it on a per capita basis is unfair
Is it? After an initial industrialisation phase with a corresponding growth of both, no statistical correspondance can be found.
To quote:
all the evidence suggests that emissions are to an important degree a function of policy and choice that determines the energy efficiency of economies
-- "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Russia and China are generating way too much CO2 considering their relatively small contribution to worldwide economic activity. They are the countries that need to be made more efficient, not the United States.
Yes and they have agreed to try to be more efficient, but the USA refuses to.
So, the US is producing and consuming more than every other country (World export 11%), and that entitles it to produce more CO2?
Yes. Total economic activity is higher than every other country and every country should be entitled to produce an amount of CO2 that is proportional to their contribution to the world economy.
And, no, just because we don't export all of that doesn't mean it's not a contribution to the world economy. Financial markets and investments are very integrated and just because we don't export everything we produce doesn't mean the financial benefits generated by the economic activity don't contribute to the entire world economy.
If you are crashing your car every year you are raising the GDP. If you produce weaponry and dispose it one way or another, you are raising the GDP. It is no measure of benefit to humankind.
Maybe. Assuming you have insurance they're going to have to pay to buy your new car which is going to reduce their profits which reduces GDP--on balance it should be close to a wash. And if you don't have insurance and have to pay for it yourself you're going to spend money on a car that you would have spent on other things anyway--so the GDP hasn't changed.
If you are producing weapons then, yes, that generates economic activity. But the government is your main customer and there is a limit to what they can buy so increasing GDP by buying arms is not a sustainable model.
I realize GDP isn't a perfect measure of the benefits of economic activity, but it is not bad for comparing the relative contribution to the world economy of each country.
Is it? After an initial industrialisation phase with a corresponding growth of both, no statistical correspondance [oxfordenergy.org] can be found.
I don't see what bearing that has on the discussion (aside from the fact that the organization in question seems to be a group of sociologists/environmentalists).
The fact remains that if Plant A is producing $100,000 worth of good for the economy and generating 100,000 tons of CO2 and Plant B is producing $50,000 worth of good for teh economy and is generating 75,000 tons of CO2, the focus should be on improving Plant B because it is producing a disproportionately high amount of CO2 for its contribution to the economy. An environmentalist would say Plant A is the problem because it produces more polution without taking into account the relative contribution to the economy.
That's the same problem with Kyoto. It looks at the U.S. and sees us as the #1 producer but ignores the fact that the amount of economic activity that we create is equally high. The focus needs to be on less efficient countries that produce half as much pollution but only generate a quarter of the economic activity.
If you are crashing your car every year you are raising the GDP. If you produce weaponry and dispose it one way or another, you are raising the GDP. It is no measure of benefit to humankind.
I thought GDP was a measure of benefit and wealth?
-- Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
Sorry, I was under the strange misconception that CO2 emissions should be awarded to production, not consumerism, because production inevitably causes CO2 emissions.
> But the government is your main customer and there is a limit to what they can buy [...]
I didn't want to suggest that the military spending is used to artificially increase the GDP. It should be taken as one point how the GDP increased, without being necessarily of benefit. BTW, the US has raised its limit of deficit once again. This means a good thing for the GDP.
> I don't see what bearing that has on the discussion
You don't see what bearing it has, that there is no connection between GDP-growth and CO2 emissions (after a industrialisation phase)?
The Kyoto protocol is limiting the emissions of the US and other industrialised nations to that of 1995. Since the GDP is independent of CO2 emissions, their economic growth should not be hindered by it. It is merely a question of policies.
The developing countries will likely increase their CO2 emissions until they reach a certain level of industrialisation. But since they aren't industrialised, it is natural that they're CO2 emissions will increase. And since they are cheap countries, it is natural that their GDP is low. If you pay a tenth for your costs of living and only get a tenth in wages, the GDP will be a tenth.
> It looks at the U.S. and sees us as the #1 producer but ignores the fact that the amount of economic activity that we create is equally high.
Let's see the following kgCO2/$GDP table from the IEA:
I can see, how think the US is held to unfair standard.
> the fact that the organization in question seems to be a group of
You seemed to have spend more time on finding out about the group than reading the report. The report is external, made by scholars from the Oxford and Cambridge University, and criticises a report by the group itself.
-- "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Every lawsuit increases GDP. Crashing a car, and handling it for repair increases it. Shooting people and taking them to hospitals increases it. Making lots of rubbish, and having a corporation to move it to the dump increases GDP. So using more wastefull packaging increases GDP. Abortions increase GDP. Having higher price on food increases GDP. Having more expensive housing increases GDP. Reduction of CO2 could be done quite easily, and without LONG TERM cost on your economy.
Your argument don't hold any stand against EU which is number 1. Economy of world and producing 17% of CO2 emissions.
Why per capita pollution should be unfair? Why you should have more rights than anyone else to pollute? Of course there is option of enviromentalist of rest of the world if united stated won't reduce its per capita pollution. A forcefull reduction of the other side of multiplication so that overall pollution will reduce;) I'm not much in favour such acts, but I wouldn't weep, if someone released some deadly disease in united states 50 largest cities. [Some thing that any enviromentalist group could easily do.] You have no idea how important this is for europe. Lets make it certain. In europe alone failure of handling the CO2 reductions worldwide is going to end up MORE destruction than exploding nukes in 100 largest european cities. Now think what european enviromental groups would be willing to do in order to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide, since some are really fanatical about it;) (Not me, I'm moderate enviromentalist here;)
-- Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
-- Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
DunbarTheInept
·
· Score: 1
The best strategy when you don't like your country's laws is NOT to leave, but to try to fix them. Leaving is the absolute last resort. Leaving is only appropriate when there's no hope of changing people's minds. The love it or leave it attitude is extremely stupid. Yes, I just called you stupid. Your post proves you are.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Capitalist1
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What happens if the Earth warms up and it has absolutely nothing to do with human activity? What then? Because if the Earth is warming, that is the most logical first conclusion. Instead, what we get is that any measurable change in the Earth's climate MUST be the fault of those evil, evil humans who are destroying God's Eden paradise, where the deer and the bunnies are best friends and speak English to each other when those evil defiler Humans aren't there to shoot their mothers. (That's for the hippies and Michael Moore fans who might believe that "Bambi" was a documentary).
-- One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
In the US crooks and cops have guns...
by
benhocking
·
· Score: 1
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Baki
·
· Score: 1
What is this, is it an obligation to be proud to be a citizen of whatever country? I am dutch, and I am not proud because of that. In fact noone IMHO has the right to be proud because of whatever citizenship. Citizenship is something you get because of birth, so there is no merit whatsoever to be proud of.
This kind of illogical pride generates nationalism, which in turn generates war and conflicts.
The adminstration has done
this. Its recent, but its a step in the right direction.
-- Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I do like to give my comedians artistic license...
by
benhocking
·
· Score: 1
I assumed Robin was stretching the truth, at the very least. Also, of course, this is a very old monologue. (Not that they didn't have guns, then, either, but probably fewer of them had guns.) I believe Robin was just trying to be funny, and was taking a few liberties in that pursuit...
An Irish comedian who years ago had a TV in the UK told a joke like this:
500 years ago, if you was homosexual, you would be tortured, burnt with red hot branding irons, hung, drawn and quartered.
300 years ago, if you was homosexual, you would be tortured, burnt with red hot branding irons, and hung
100 years ago, if you was homosexual, you would be tortured, abused, thrown in jail on bread and water until you died.
50 years ago, if you was homosexual, you would be jailed in the most embarrassing way (and all secrets would be public) so the shame would kill you.
20 years ago, if you was homosexual, you will be abused and be pushed out of normal life... but you lived.
10 years ago, if you was homosexual, it was accepted if you stayed in the closet.
Today, if you are homosexual, you have rights!
In 10 years time it we be MANDATORY to be homosexual, OR ELSE you will be be tortured, burnt with red hot branding irons, hung, drawn and quartered and shagged.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Teancum
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, just find a federal judge and say the following sentance:
"I hereby renounce my citizenship of the United States of America." That's it, and you don't technically have to sign anything even. I think you can also do this to a U.S. consul or diplomat for the same effect, or scribble something to that effect and send it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. A postcard would do just fine that way as well.
BTW, I am not a USA-ian, I am an American and damn proud of it. Thank you swv3752 for pointing that out. I live in America and am a citizen of one of its states. Unfortunately there are many people who can't figure out that the country of America even exists.
The only reasonable thing that can be done along with the "credits", is to raise minimum requirements for MPG in automobiles and trucks.
Watch such legislation be a windfall for holders of patents on processes used in hybrid vehicles. Then watch such patent holders gain leverage in Congress and get U.S. legislators to Sonny Bono the relevant patents to 30 or 40 years instead of 20.
Kyoto treaty shouldn't add to lose of jobs
by
kyliaar
·
· Score: 1
The main reason that jobs are being outsourced to other sections of the globe is because the cost of labor in the US is high. We have minimum wage laws that prevent us from hiring people at the low wages that people in third world countries are willing to work for. Remember, their cost of living is a lot less as well. Also, remember their average quality of living is a lot lower, too.
As an aside, I wonder if people who scream against outsourcing are the same people that will chatise you for not giving a quarter to a homeless man. In the former, at least the money is going to someone who is willing to honestly work for it.
Overall, you only need to look back over the last several hundred years to realize there have been constant and often, much more drastic changes in economies and job distribution as technology advances have allowed for more effecient organizations of said economies. Have these left mankind as a whole in a worse condition? If you only look at the immediate effects, you might say yes but I see that there has always been an adaption that occurs to handle whatever real problems are presented by the change. Things have always stabalized at a higher level.
So who's signed it?
by
jrumney
·
· Score: 4, Funny
According to one source, the US spends roughly four times per person what Canada does for national defense. They can do this mainly because of your observation: there is no way on earth that the US would allow anyone to attack Canada unopposed. First, it would be strategically disastrous to have enemy troops so near our own country. Second, and most importantly, we like Canada.
To any Canadians reading this: we know that you don't approve of our lifestyles or our choices, but you're still one of our best friends. Noone gets to you without fighting us first. Remember, though, that we're spending over $700 per person per year more than you to defend our two countries. Yes, you guys have managed to do some pretty neat things with your tax revenue, but we could probably use that money for some nifty projects of our own if we weren't using it for mutual defense.
-- Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Absolutely correct
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>To any Canadians reading this: we know that you don't approve of our lifestyles or our choices, but you're still one of our best friends.
Actually I am Canadian and do approve of what the US is doing. I also feel we pay too much in taxes. Just because a few stupid Canadian politicians speak out agains the USA doesn't mean many Canadians don't wish for closer relations with you.
I think united we stand, and the US has always been (and should continue to be) our ally, friend, and largest trading partner.
Both countries should continue to prosper together, though the US will more because of all the levels of goverment waste and taxes we have.
P.S. - here in Toronto we are further south than some people in Michigan. It rocks!;-)
I don't believe 'Al Qaeda' is a signatory party to the Geneva Convention
No. They didn't. But we did. Get it? Besides despite their plainly wrong worldview, they all are citizens of some sovereign nation on this planet and covered by a fuckload of other treaties as well as such. If you are going to walk the walk and talk the talk as a freedom-loving nation, you have to do it whole hog. It is called 'credibility.' Conservatives talk a lot about this notion, but often possess not a single ounce.
What's it say in the Bible? Do no practice evil nor wear evil's garments. Something to that effect. Shooting prisoners is evil. Talking your way around the fact that a prisoner was shot is evil. But what American bothers to read the Bible anyway? Oh, wait. Me.... I love how conservatives hate situational ethics except in their own situation.:-)
Insert Strawman Argument about John Kerry here. I wrote Kucinich in. Now there's a credible patriotic American.
-- Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Re:Better to follow the law than not
by
KarmaMB84
·
· Score: 1
Since they do not follow the convention, we do not have to follow it when dealing with them, get it? That is in the treaty.
Re:Better to follow the law than not
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How the fuck is "we will treat you well if you fight like civilized people" inconsistent with "you rape and kill and pillage civilians, you're not going to be treated nicely" The Geneva Convetion was SPECIFICALLY CREATED to encourage folks to fight honorably. To treat reward the terrorists for disregarding basic human rights is to legitimize their actions.
Kyoto is ineffective and potentially harmfull
by
logicnazi
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As much as I hate to credit Bush with good judgement, especially in respect to the enviornment I think he may be correct about the Kyoto treaty. I realize that most enviornmentalist and liberals strongly support the Kyoto treaty but often they seem not to look past the fact that it is a pro-enviornment international agreement. Good policy deciscions, enviornmental or not, need to be based on a detailed estimation of the effects not simply warm feelings about the intended goal. It is not uncommon for economic and societal regulation to have paradoxical effects and actually encourage the opposite of their intended consequence and I fear Kyoto may be such an example.
In particular the danger with Kyoto is that it places legal caps on emissions from developed countries while enforcing no such requirements on third world countries. There are non-binding targets but realistically few third world countries are going to sacrifice economic development for a non-binding CO2 emissions target. I can't really say I blame them, certainly if I was living in poor squalid conditions I would not take kindly to my government sacrificing my chance to earn a better wage because the industrialized countries dumped too much CO2 into the air when they were trying to modernize.
The economic consequences now seem fairly obvious. A plant built in a first world country, party to the Kyoto treaty, is likely to require a more expensive emission control system or the purchase of emissions credits in addition to the already high price of labor. Therefore Kyoto is likely to simply encourage the building of CO2 emitting plants in third world countries on whom the treaty is not binding. Even if some provision of the treaty or national law prevents the company in question from building such a plant themselves it will only be a short time before investors in china or elsewhere realize they can produce widgets much cheaper and construct a factory to supply them.
Now if the effect of the treaty was simply to move jobs and plants overseas I would have no problem with it. I think the idea that americans (or your favorite first world nation) should keep jobs rather than giving them to desperatly poor third world nations is downright selfish. The claptrap that these jobs, who the people in the third world seem to overwhelmingly prefer to their former employment, are somehow actually bad for the residents of the third world is just a flimsy cover story so liberals don't feel squeamish about supporting organized labour. Admitedly there are cases where companies have moved in and abused the local population, and we need to be carefull about totalitarian regimes like china joining forces with multinational corporations to exploit their citizens. However, it is arrogant and insulting to suggest that the citizens of a democracy like india are not perfectly capable of deciding if a corporate factory or plant is to their national detriment or benefit.
Loss of jobs, though probably the concern of the Bush administration, is not the real danger. More disturbing is the prospect that by further encouraging factory relocation to the third world we actually increase CO2 emissions. Already most first world countries have some emission control requirements but by increasing the cost of emissions significantly we will push many plants and operations over the line where relocation guarantees a significant increase in profit. However, once in a third world country they will have even less incentive to curtail CO2 emissions thus potentially increasing global CO2 production.
Admitedly this is probably much more of an issue for the US, because of it's more liquid markets and production, than it is for europe. Also europe may already be affected by this problem with factories moving the the USA. So while european nations signing the Kyoto treaty may result in a reduction of CO2 emissions it is quite possible that the long term effect of a US signature would be to *increase* emissions by encouraging factories to locate in areas wi
--
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Re:Kyoto is ineffective and potentially harmfull
by
marcosdumay
·
· Score: 1
Well, you are missing a part of it. First, the money (at least some of it) adquired on the carbon marketing may be used for developing clean tecnologies. This will prevent the developping coutries from polluting much more.
Also, normally, developping countries tend to improve their ecological legislation while they develop, due to external and internal pressure. This happens now, without the need of an agreement.
So, there is not such thing as a harmfull kyoto.
Re:Kyoto is ineffective and potentially harmfull
by
DaveAtFraud
·
· Score: 1
Good analysis. I only take issue with your suggested alternative:
I would suggest a system where any imported goods into industrialized nations are assesed a duty proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases issued during their production. Such a tarrif would place products imported into a first world nation on the same footing as those created at home (the tariff should be set at the same price domestic pollution credits are availible) while not restricting the internal trade of third world nations. Additionally it has the benefit that it only requires the consent of the first world nations.
This doesn't address the issue of things like electric power plants and cars both of which emit a significant proportion of the greenhouse gasses we supposedly are attempting to diminish. In the case of the U.S., most of the electric power produced in this country comes from burning coal mined within the U.S. To the extent that the U.S. imports oil for the cars, you could probably come up with some sort of scheme to somehow tax the imported oil but this would have less of an effect on the U.S. than say Japan which imports all of its oil and have no effect at all on oil exporters. I don't even want to think about trying to come up with a fair scheme that somehow calculates an appropriate tariff for an imported car based on how much it *might* pollute during its lifetime and, besides, you would probably just prop up domestic car manufacturers who in the U.S. have historically built cars that are inefficient.
Unfortunately, if you want to cut greenhouse gas emissions through some sort of treaty regulation, you will probably have to look at the emissions side. This just brings us back to the rest of your analysis which bascially says that that approach probably won't be "fair" and won't "work".
I don't claim to have the answer. However, I will point out that sometimes doing something that isn't well understood will create worse problems than doing nothing.
-- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
thats if the Bush administration actually does
by
DrunkClam
·
· Score: 0
what it says. And that is taking a lot on faith. As the Bush administration doesn't keep its word very often. And these 3 emmission are not the primary greenhouse gases, so their effects aren't going to make much of a difference.
A company led by competent leaders will always attempt to choose the path leading to the greatest efficiency at generating profit, within their means. If we reduce the efficiency of the company, it may not be as profitable, or maybe not profitable at all.
If a company is operating at a net profit margin of $400K per year, and new requirements require a $500K/yr additional cost, with no net-profit return, the sensible thing for the company to do is to liquidate assets as soon as possible and dissolve. Thus, jobs are lost, not created.
If the new requirement adds a cost of $300K/yr with no addtional return, that reduces capital available for investment and development by that amount. Thus, jobs resulting from investment (such as research and construction) are lost.
Both cases above result in a net loss of jobs.
If energy costs increase overall, that increases the costs for all customers without adding anything positive to the output, probably resulting in more lost jobs by the energy customers than the energy provider will add.
By the way - Outsourcing is when a company hires someone else to do the work. Offshoring is when a company moves an operation or function overseas. Offshoring is more likely to result in net domestic job losses than outsourcing.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
haxor.dk
·
· Score: 1
"Global Temperatures Will Continue To Rise as a result of CO2 emissions even if 100% of the world wholeheartedly adopted Kyoto TODAY."
Absolute bullshit. Even the IPCC and the various IPCC reports Kyoto stems from admits that a fully ratified and supported Kyoto will make a negleible difference in anthropogenic global warming. And the anthropogenig (human-made) global warming is a willy nilly 0,38% of the complete global greenhous egas contributions.
Try researching what you're talking about before talking about it. Here's just a tiny bit to chew on: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/17/15110/5194
The problem is that it penalizes countries that started reducing their emissions _BEFORE_ 1990. Now if you were polluting like hell back then, reducing your emissions is easy...
This is actually what happened to Finland. Stupid politicians. It would have been totally fine to just ignore the treaty and just announce that we were unilaterally doing the equivalent thing except using the peak emission year of the 80's as the basis.
Why Russia Accepted
by
Prien715
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Russia didn't accept because of good foreign policy. Maybe only partially. They accepted because they pollute less now than their target and they can sell the rest of their pollution quota and make money.
-- --
Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Re:Why Russia Accepted
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why hasn't the comment above this one been moderated insightful? It's so true. The targets of Kyoto were set in such a way that emissions must be reduced from levels in the early 90s. This benefits Russia because the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the closure of a huge number of factories and military facilities. With the creation of an international emissions exchange where over-polluting countries can purchase credits from under-polluting countries Russia will be in a position to make money and appear environmentally friendly.
Of course Russia signed the treaty, they don't have the ability to pollute more than the Soviet Union did in the early 90s and they'll make some money as well. Russia signed this treaty out of self-interest.
I Like the Chicago Climate Exchange Better
by
bayers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
'Chicago Climate Exchange,® Inc. (CCX®) is a self-regulatory exchange that administers the world's first multi-national and multi-sector marketplace for reducing and trading greenhouse gas emissions.'
Re:I would mess w/ the good Lord's police force.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oooo the 6.2 billion people who are not American are shacking in their boots. Heres hoping the nuke that takes out Washington DC is a French one.
Not irony just politics
by
Enrique1218
·
· Score: 1
I don' t find it ironic. I just call it politics. I don't think it hypocritical to want balance on both the issues. You seem to gloss of the whole outsourcing issue by relating it solely to environmental policy. There are many factors affecting the lost of manufacturing jobs in the US and it is not just EPA policy. Our high wage is also a reflection of the higher cost of living in the US. Everything from health care to gasoline is up. Most of our jobs go to countries, where either there is spartan labor laws (heard of sweat shops) or many services are provide by the government (socialism/communism). Moreover, the Bush administration has thrown out alot of environmental regulations in addition to rejecting Kyoto and we are still losing jobs. Ultimately, we simply want a way to make a living and raise a family. But, we also want this planet to be habitable for our children. Both these concerns have to be weighed and given a balanced priority. It is not being finicky but rather a consequence of the times in which we find ourselves. Our leaders should have some insight on the best direction we should take that balances those priorities. Sadly, I don't think this administration posesses that quality.
-- You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Tiroth
·
· Score: 1
Woah there fella. He is just avoiding offending Canadians/Mexicans/etc by using the term American. No need to fly off the rocker.
Even one of the latest issues of Scientific American had an article talking about how they've discovered periods in geologic history when the climate changed by 5-7 deg C in a decade (remembering roughly).
Wow, talk about selective reading. In that same article, they mention that it is known that human activities have been shown to make a difference in the climate.
Who actually believes that you can make statements about small (0.5%) variations in a system...
If I understand you, you're trivializing the temperature variations that have been mentioned, and equating them to an insignificant change just because they don't seem large numerically? Those small changes, if doubled or tripled (or contrary-wise, halved or divided by three), would have gigantic ramifications on our lives, both in the way we live, and the way the things around us live, upon which we depend; and that's ignoring their current effects as-is.
I suppose it highlights the difference in opinion, and the the subsequent dif ference in interpretation.
--
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea. (adapted from Gandhi)
jobs and environment are not mutually exclusive
by
acomj
·
· Score: 1
Jobs and environmental rules are not mutually exclusive. This line of reasoning is often used by people who opose environmental regulation.
I used to be an environmental engineer, and saw first hand how companies view running operations cleanly/cleaning up as a cost to minimize, public health/right thing be dammed. To view it any other way is to be niave. Government regulations serve to increase the cost of polluting enough it becomes economically better not to pollute.
Not to mention who knows how NOT ratifiying the treaty will effect US exports (will Kyoto Nations be able to slap a stiff tarif on goods the US produces because we pollute to much so trading with us is unfair(I'm not claiming to be an expert on that incredibly complex WTO contract, who knows what in that thing)).
In short much like NAFTA, these contracts and accords have an almost impossible to predict impact on economies.
Kyoto may not be perfect but its a start. To bad the US isn't going to be part of the solution and didn't work to make something that they found more palatable.
You can forget about the US imposing any sort of trade tariffs based on non-compliance with labor standards and such - it would just be shot down by the WTO. We tried to put some limits on the importation of steel products to offset the labor differences between where steel is made in the US and where it is imported from and BAM, the WTO says no, no, no. I am sure the same thing would happen if we enacted any sort of trade barriers against prison labor, child labor, paying less than reasonable wages, etc.
Actually the steel debacle had to do with cutting out the Australian steel industry, iirc. Australia is hardly known for it's excessive abuse of workers, child labor, and such. The WTO came in because it was essentially an attempt to create an unfair market by effectively preventing non U.S. steel industries from competing.
However, what I am referring to is an effective sanction or ban on industries which are grossly violating human rights (including the right to a clean, healthy environment). Furthermore, I'd much rather see the U.S. saying "We don't care what the WTO says. If you use child labor your products will never make it to a U.S. market." Rather than the all to typical, "We will polute as much as we want."
good for nintendo
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ratifing nintendo at their base in kyoto will make people more happy and a peaceful world.
Remember you can't spell tokyo without kyoto.
'Doh!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You seem to have overloaded your misinformation inhibitors.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Taladar
·
· Score: 1
If you are proud to be an US-Citizen today you either don't follow any news or are totally ignorant.
Why Kyoto was flawed from the beginning!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly. To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.
Re:Why Kyoto was flawed from the beginning!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sorry, you are off a few decimal places...
by
cdrguru
·
· Score: 1
It isn't just the American lifestyle that isn't sustainable. It is everybody in Europe, Japan, Australia and a good part of South America as well. Nope, we are creating waste products faster than natural processes can convert them back into usable form.
What does that mean? Life on planet Earth isn't sustainable at the current population level at anything near the current lifestyle enjoyed by most people in industrialized nations.
We have some really hard choices coming up:
Reduce the population. Drastically - like to a worldwide level of maybe 100 million people.
Accept a lifestyle more in line with a Bangladeshi farmer for everyone on the planet. You don't get to use any energy you didn't produce.
Start planning on the survival of the human race based on getting resources from places other than just Earth. And start doing something about this soon.
Of course, the last item is the one that makes sense - we're not going to do either of the other two. Unfortunately, until we get over the "it might be dangerous" we need to start making people understand the other two alternatives do really exist.
Come on, folks, can't you see that waste products are being created at a rate faster than they are naturally recycled? What does that mean?
Re:Sorry, you are off a few decimal places...
by
stinerman
·
· Score: 1
Very true. It is the "western" lifestyle that is not sustainable. Also, we must remember that this lifestyle depends on keeping the 3rd world poor. If those people ever came close to our standards of living, the entire system would collapse.
Those in the Peak Oil community (myself included) always go back to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that energy cannot be created. Right now we are living in an odd time that we can tap into large stocks of sequestered energy (oil) that was created by the sun millions of years ago. Very soon, that extra energy will not be there when we need it. Hopefully we can substitute a new energy provider while we move toward a sustainable model.
I think the main problem is that your average person doesn't understand this relationship. Most westerners are too far removed from the factors of production that make their lives so much more convenient than that of the Bangladeshi farmer.
Again, hopefully everyone will wake up and realize that humans cannot continue to keep living in the way they do.
Re:Sorry, you are off a few decimal places...
by
jadel
·
· Score: 1
I agree with your data, but not with your conclusions. The fact that we are using a source of energy that is available in only limited supply implies to me that we need to change our sources of energy not that we need to reduce our standard of living to conserve our existing sources of energy. That implies to me rapid expansion of nuclear power for now and eventually fusion and solar power satellites.
I happen to think we have an amazing society and I'd like to see the rest of the world made just as wealthy as we are.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Chainsaw
·
· Score: 1
I live in America and am a citizen of one of its states.
So you live in a state in America. Which country? Last time I checked, both North and South America consisted of a large amount of separate countries.
(do you see the difference between "american" and "USA:ian" now?)
-- War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
Who posted this story? Oh, Micheal.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Mod story = -1
Clinton didn't like the Kyoto treaty any more than Bush. He didn't sign it either
MOD PARENT FLAMEBAIT!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Seriously, it adds nothing useful to the discussion.
Yes, commodoresloat, you are an "it" -- bigoted fucking dumbasses like you are things, not people.
oh please; I was joking. Read my posts and you'll see I don't really think like that. It may have been a dumb joke but I found it funny. Sorry to have offended you....
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
(do you see the difference between "american" and "USA:ian" now?)
United States of Mexico = Mexico = Mexican United States of America = America = American
Or are you suggesting that USM:ian somehow makes sense?
But the defence forces buy them? If suddenly this stopped then industry would be hurt.
I'd ask you to actually think for once but this is slashdot and we don't want to be different..
-- groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
Re:BTW,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
they don't continually purchase them, in fact new land mine designs occr about every decade and that is when the Pentagon reviews and replaces older LM. soem of teh advancemenst are self-disabling mines and they have gotten to about 98% accuracy. Where as China, India, Russia and France sells LM's to any country they want the US has banned the export of LM's. The US military can't even purchase LMs from companies that have manufacturing plants oversea where they seel to other countries through that entity.
Environmental FAILURE
by
Mulletproof
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"Looks like Russia has picked up where the U.S. failed..."
It's amazing what ones choice of words can tell you about the person who wrote this story. Failure? Failure assumes one wanted to be involved in the first place. No, don't be so self-centered, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about national policy in general. The US didn't want to be involved in Kyoto period. There was no failure. There was no effort, policy or want to join Kyoto. And as long as we're being unbiased, maybe it was because of studies such as this:
The Sun is Getting Hotter Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtm l?xml=/ne ws/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/i xnewstop.html
Or this:
Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
The Sun, Stanford University Sunspots are plentiful nowadays A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.
They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.
This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.
Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the invention of the telescope. They provide the longest-running direct measurement of our star's activity. The variation in sunspot numbers has revealed the Sun's 11-year cycle of activity as well as other, longer-term changes. In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.
This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. Ice core disc, Epica Ice cores record climate trends back beyond human measurements It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/386975 3. stm
Or possibly even (and slightly more combative):
Global Warming Activists Studiously Ignore History's Cycles of Warming and Cooling The latest pseudo-scientific parlor game is pretending that the Little Ice Age didn't happen. We're supposed to ignore the historic reality that the world's mean temperatures dropped sharply by 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit from about 1300 AD until at least 1850 AD and fell perhaps a freaky 9 degrees below today's average temperatures in the 13th century.
Let's pretend this well-documented spasm of freezing cold, advancing glaciers, and terrible storms did not freeze the Viking settlers on Greenland to death or create Europe's "year without a summer" in 1315, when crops failed and created massive famine. The silly game of "hide the Little Ice Age" is being played to support the g
Re:Environmental FAILURE
by
St.+Arbirix
·
· Score: 1
I'm only replying to tell you that no one else will be replying. Yes, a lot of money did go into the global warming simulations and greenhouse effect projections. Just as much money has been earned by the publishers of books on global warming and the greenhouse effect. Look even at the companies who stepped in to replace freon once it got its black label: billions for much poorer solutions. There's just so much money pouring into research to find that cheap materials are harmful so that more expensive ones can actually see the market.
In a world of lies, damn lies, and statistics... well, everyone has lots of statistics and the juicy ones are in favor of global warming. The statistics can refute what your saying but there aren't any hard facts that do so, like the articles you've posted include, so few people Slashdot will be touching your post.
The Apocalypse hasn't sold this well since John wrote his Revelation.
I tend to agree with the first poster, if it doesn't benefit the US then to hell with it.
WE should be looking out for OUR best interest, not some other 2 bit countries..
( likewise, they should be looking out for their best interest.. equal opportunity here )
-- ---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Fairness, hell.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not destroying the environment is in EVERYONE's best interest.
The fact that the US is complaining about the costs of being responsible instead of leading the way towards cleaner air and cooler breezes is a sad indication of the current state of affairs in this country.
That's easy!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The rest of the world is naive.
Re:This planet belongs to America, learn the rules
by
gelfling
·
· Score: 1
The reason I like kyoto is that it spells out for the layman to see: Nuclear power is a good thing. Get those goddamn coal/oil plants shut *down* and replaced by clean and efficient nuke plants already.
Re:bloody nose
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ehm? This is modded funny? Nuclear powerplants ARE cleaner than coal/oil. A LOT cleaner. As long as it doesn't blow of course...
Clean and efficient nuke plants don't exists, and probably will never exist, because even if running your plant would be completely safe you'll have to deal with the nuclear waste. And this waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years. Could you take responsibility for such a waste? Do we have the right to leave such a devisee for our children, and their children, and their children, and their children,...
And even with the current rate of blowage vs megawattage, it's a shitload cleaner than fossil fuels.
Why did Russia enter the treaty?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Did the poster actually read the Kyoto Treaty?
Russia signed into the Treaty because under it, it has the ability to "sell" pollution levels to other countries that will exceed their specified maximum. THAT's why Russia's joined in. You think with their current condition they will ever get close to their specified max level?
Give me a break. "Picked up where the US has failed."
Kyoto blows
by
cartzworth
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It would have ravaged companies and our economy would be worse off if it was ratified. I'm glad it wasn't.
Fraser institute
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Might as well be a parody. Few informed people tae them seriously.
Yep...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They will be building more Chernobyls than ever!!!
The European police will be able to stop using those expensive nightvision cameras to catch criminals.
US failed? hardly
by
nursedave
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I would hardly say we 'failed.' We simply didn't agree with this stupid treaty, which is designed only as a wealth transfer device. And, Russia did not sign it because of an abiding desire to do right by the environment; it was blackmail, pure and simple, by the EU. As of 9 months ago, when I was living there, Putin was saying no-way, no-how, because he (rightly) figured it would cost Russia too much money. Guess the balance sheet of what they'll gain in their new EU deal will more than make up for their Kyoto losses.
--
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
They will fail
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The United States produces 60%+ of the world's pollution at the moment. Without them joining in it is moot. The goals can be never achieved. Sorry.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And how do you *know* all this to be fact.
About 10,000 years ago, the ground was covered by many meters of ice (Illinois). I would say the climate change from then to now was "global warming". And where was Kyoto in all this? And who was responsible for melting all that ice? And who will take responsibility if we head back to an ice age and could have done something about it way back in the year 2004, except for some very misguided folks who thought warming was bad.
cheers
Amendments to the Constitution
by
SeaFox
·
· Score: 1
Just because Kyoto is "taking effect" that doesn't mean that non-signers are bound by it. They are not. This is not like an amendment to the U.S. Constitution where a cetain % of support from the Congress and state governments forces the amendment on the entire country.
The amendment doesn't become law because Capitol Hill signs it that way. It becomes law because someone actively enforces it, and the majority of people choose to follow it.
Just as tyrants only remain leaders as long as the populace accepts their claim to power.
Without a system of consequences for non-compliance and a body to enforce that system, that has been accepted as having that authority by those involved, the rules will not take effect.
Prediction: Now that everyone has signed on the dotted line for the Treaty, and can't just suddenly back out, the consqences for breaking the treaty will be set to levels so low it will be more benificial to violate the treaty and face the consequences than follow it. Either that or nations will violate the treaty and nobody will do anything about it.
Saddam Hussein did not remain in power because we were unaware he was violating human rights, ect. He remained in power because he had no one to ultimately answer to. It was only once someone stepped out of their authority and took matters into their own hands that something happened.
What authority do the Kyoto signers all HAVE to answer to?
Nobody.
This really is looking like feel-good legilation on a global scale, just like spam laws being passed by state governments.
Re:Amendments to the Constitution
by
sabernet
·
· Score: 1
It was only once someone stepped out of their authority and took matters into their own hands that something happened.
...And became globally hated for it and will ultimately suffer for it.
That THIRD WORLD TERRORIST is a member of the BILDERBERGER group, planning MIND CONTROL by bouncing the HAARP signals off of CHEMTRAILS, Manipulating the FEDERAL RESERVE and denying you STATUS as a LEGAL PERSON (and your BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a receipt for this payment). INCOME TAX is illegal under the CONSTITUTION of the US and the BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, and only the "POWER OF THE COUNTY" can enforce the true constitution. You don't actually need a DRIVERS LICENSE because MAGNA CARTA guarantees the right to use the "public way". The KYOTO PROTOCOL is a branch of the ELDERS OF ZION, and by reducing greenhouse gasses, safeguards the performance of CHEMTRAILS in reflecting HAARP signals so they can continue using MIND CONTROL along with their friends in the PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION.
I'm sure there's even more crazy conspiracy theories out there...
Actually... I put quotes around "POWER OF THE COUNTY" because it's the english translation of the latin name of one of the right-wing white-supremacist militia groups, and around "public way" because I was quoting magna carta.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
KarmaMB84
·
· Score: 1
I assume you're talking about the propaganda induced belief that nationalism was the reason the first two World Wars were fought?
World War I was caused by thirst for power of LEADERS mixed with a system of alliances that created a time bomb in wich the question was not "will there be a massive war" but "when will we have the war?".
World War II was caused primarily because of the mistreatment of Germany after WWI. Europe turned Germany into their bitch, kept Germany beat down and extracted every penny from Germany. Germany's people did not like this. It was not a matter of nationalism but a matter of being beaten down over something a non-elected no longer existant government did. So they elected someone that said all the righ things and history marched on.
In a world where people think it's "bad" to be (insert whatever nationality here), it's only logical that we'd give them a big middle finger by being PROUD of being *who we are*.
I call BS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I have a question to all these anti-Kyoto Americans. If the Kyoto treaty was indeed a ploy aimed at hurting America's economy more than the other countries', and that Europe was purposefully out to get you...why the hell did they go ahead with it even after the US refused to sign it?
Remember: Europe and the countries that ratified the treaty (including China, which was exempt!) are choosing to put a small brake on their industries even though it gives the US an advantage in an increasingly competitive world.
Doesn't this boggle the mind of the "hurr hurr USA #1 all the other countries are out to get us" right-wingers? (sorry for generalizing, but it is my impression that right-wing Americans are the most paranoid and hateful of foreign nations) That those countries took an action that was about something else than increasing the GDP? I mean, I would assume this would fucking *short-circuit* your brains.
PS: The weather here sucks. It's been 15 degrees on average lately, which really sucks for playing outdoor hockey.
Hmmmm......you must be Canadian. Neither Americans nor Europeans would have problem playing hockey at 15 degrees.... though for entirely different reasons.
Neither Americans nor Europeans would have problem playing hockey at 15 degrees
Hmmm... Why are you assuming that most Europeans think 15F is cold? Besides Great Britain, I believe the rest of Europe has evolved to the Metric system.
I'm sure the rest of Europe is deeply offended about being lumped into the same category as Great Britain.
Besides Great Britain, I believe the rest of Europe has evolved to the Metric system.
The UK is no different and uses celcius too. In fact officially we are metric except for some minor exceptions such as the pint of beer, and miles as a measurement of distance (giving the bizarre miles per litre unit of fuel consumption). Nearly everyone knows both though. But don't forget that American units aren't all the same as Imperial Units (our old system) either. We have 20 floz to a pint and 1760 yards to the mile for a start.
Hmmm... Why are you assuming that most Europeans think 15F is cold? Besides Great Britain, I believe the rest of Europe has evolved to the Metric system.
Well, I'll take a random stab in the dark here and guess that you are American? The only place in the world that uses degrees fahrenheit, to my knowledge, is the US. All the rest of us use celsius (and I'm British so please don't start telling me that we use fahrenheit!). 15C is a great temperature to play what those of us in Europe call hockey, though you might be more familiar calling it field hockey.
However, assuming I'm correct, you would read 15 degrees as 15F and think hockey=ice hockey and since I'm pretty sure that 15F is below freezing you would not have any problem playing "hockey". Again, as far as I know, the only country in the world where hockey=ice hockey and 15 degrees=15C is Canada.
I'm sure the rest of Europe is deeply offended about being lumped into the same category as Great Britain.
I highly doubt it since it is a geographical fact that Britain is part of Europe so it would be about as stupid as getting offended that the earth is round or that the day is 24 hours long.
Canadian:) Humblest apologies - my only recollection of what system Britain uses was from a recent news articles with a bunch of old geezers complaining about being forced to switch the metric system because of EU standards.
This was an issue about4-5 years ago but i haven't seen anyone complain since then.
-- Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Signing it is like making a promise...
by
jayveekay
·
· Score: 1
Politicians make lots of promises. Promises are cheap ways to buy votes.
The more relevant question would be: How many countries have reduced their emissions over the last 1, 3, and 5 years? That indicates a real commitment, rather than just paying lip service to sway the gullible.
Look at Canada, for example. It signed. But Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have been growing every year. Canadians are not tightening their belts in order to reduce CO2 emissions. That would require sacrifice.
The "scientists" can't explain the cyclical nature of ice ages and now all of the sudden they are sure the climate is changing due to CO2 emissions?
Complete bullshit. Sure, the temperature might be rising, ice melting, etc. but to directly relate evidence A to bullshit conclusion B, is nonsense.
These are the same scientist that know squat about the weather in general and have extremely small data regarding global climate data as a whole from the past 4 billion years. They got about 50 years data and some ice core samples...whoopity shit.
You call that science?
Re:Force Grandfathered Coal Fired Plants to Modern
by
edrain
·
· Score: 1
I think (and hope) that you're right that avg MPG in autos will rise over the next 1/2 decade, but what I find particulary encouraging is the fact that the market appears to be driving that in large part. Dealerships couldn't keep the Prius on the lot and they were backordered for a long time. Hummer either has or is developing a hybrid, for cripes sakes.
I guess what I'm saying is that whether this is driven by regulation or by the market it's hard to argue that the result is undesirable. I'd be even more pleased if the latter ends up being the driving force, though.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And as another USA-ian, I fully extend my first amendment rights to say that you are a stupid fuckwitted ass muncher.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
ducomputergeek
·
· Score: 1
Actual, global tempatures have been rising (on average) since the last Ice Age some 10k years ago. Sure there have been global dips and rises for a few years, but the general trend has been upwards without any human intervention.
The atlantic conveyor has broken before with no man made help. As George Carlin said: (Paraphrase) "The earth has been here a long time. Its survived astriod impacts, etc. People say 'save the earth', I say the earth is going to be here long after we are. Its not save the earth, its save the humans".
Personally I find many in the enviromental movement that can't seem to understand that 98% of all species that has ever existed are no EXTINCT. Rather arrogant to thing we will be any different. Climate changes happen, impact from astriods happen, and we will either adapt or die. Its really that simple. Something to be said for "Eat, Drink, and be Merry for tomorrow we may all die".
-- "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Carbon dioxide is not odorless. It literally smells like pure pain, at high enough concentrations. The same olfactory nerve cells responsible for the sense of smell will send "a sharp sense of pain" to the brain if, for example, you take a big whiff of dry ice. Lung tissue will react the exact same way.
The same olfactory nerve cells responsible for the sense of smell will send "a sharp sense of pain" to the brain if, for example, you take a big whiff of dry ice. Lung tissue will react the exact same way.
Breathing ANY gas that cold will result in the perception of pain.
LK
-- "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
No, it's not the temperature: the MSDS for CO2 says, "Colorless, odorless in slight concentrations, pungent acid odor when concentrated"
At low concentrations, the gas is odorless. At higher concentrations it has a sharp, acidic odor. It will act as an asphyxiant and an irritant.
Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes. [source]
Oh honestly. That's true of pretty much every gas but the noble gases, because as long as you stick on the "at high enough concentrations," you've guaranteed that this gas is burning the flesh off of the cartilege.
Here's a hint for you. You can't smell pain. That pain isn't a smell. It's a pain. The reasons you can't smell anything but pain are 1) because the pain would drown out the smell, and 2) because the parts of your nose which do the smelling just got burnt off, causing pain.
It's a little like me accusing your attempt at criticism by specificity of giving me this headache, when in fact it's because a little bit of my soul and faith in my fellow man just died.
Lung tissue will react the exact same way.
Yeah, and lungs can't smell in the first place. Still think it's the smell of pain? (If posts could smell, at least in a more literal fashion than parent, then we might have a definitive answer...)
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
KarmaMB84
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Or maybe we know that the US Federal Government is not the country itself? hmmmm, radical notion indeed.
Dude, you can't think this way!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
> Who do you think gets hit hardest?
Who do you think can contribute more?
Seriously, dude. This is not about your country.
Your country does not count now: it's about the entire Earth ship.
Don't sink the entire ship just to have one more glass of champagne.
Re:Dude, you can't think this way!
by
Pentagram
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure I understand your point. I was trying to say that the people who are shouting that the treaty is unfair are the ones who live in the most industrialised countries. The treaty/is/ unfair, but biased toward those countries, not developing countries. I think a lot of the cries of "unfair!" are coming from people who don't understand it.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Jason+Earl
·
· Score: 1
That's funny, I don't think that I have ever met a Canadian or a Mexican that wanted to be referred to as an "American."
The whole USian (or whatever) is nothing more than a big fat crock of @#$%! More people refer to themselves as "Earthlings" than refer to themselves as being "from the American continent." In fact, I doubt that you can think of one person on the entire planet (who isn't a/. troll) that is confused by the term "American" referring to a citizen of the United States of America.
Heck, the English translation of the formal name for Mexico is the United States of Mexico. So in the surrealistic fantasy world where U.S. citizens are USians then Mexican citizens could be USians as well (since you are speaking in English).
Long story short, the English language doesn't parse like Python or Perl. There are exceptions big enough to drive a boat through. You can spend all day pointing out inconsistencies but no one with any friends is likely to care.
Looks like some house cleaning at the UN
by
Sai+Babu
·
· Score: 1
That wasn't the point...
by
benhocking
·
· Score: 1
The point was, and it was a very shallow one, that the shouting match is much, much funnier. Death has a tendency to sap an otherwise hilarious gunfight of much of its humor/humour.:)
Re:That wasn't the point...
by
corbettw
·
· Score: 1
Death has a tendency to sap an otherwise hilarious gunfight of much of its humor/humour.
That depends entirely upon who is doing the dying.
-- God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:That wasn't the point...
by
Roger+W+Moore
·
· Score: 1
That depends entirely upon who is doing the dying.
So please tell me which one is the funniest: when the policeman gets killed or when the suspect get killed? I'd certainly feel more for the copper but the other case is still a long way from funny in my book.
Or does the US actually produce more emissions per year than they do?
Re:Um, China?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Per capita?
You know what we should do...
by
Dewrf
·
· Score: 4, Funny
We should just build big domes around the countries that don't sign up for global enviremental isuess, why should the rest of the world have to put up with your poluction and give you the oxygen that the plants in the rest of the world makes.
Create your own oxygen and suck on your own polution if you don't want to play ball
-Jay
Bush is the WORST President at enviro. policies
by
katharsis83
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Check out the website of the NRDC, the Natural Resource Defense Center; it has a chronological ordering of Bush's actions against the environment:
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/
This series of events is from just ONE MONTH in December of 2002; on the website, there's hundreds of documented cases of environmental abuse by Bush:
"December 2002
EPA exempts oil and gas industry from stormwater pollution rules (12/30/02)
Bush administration backtracking on policy of 'no net loss" of wetlands (12/26/02)
Judge deals setback to Bush oil drilling plans in Utah (12/23/02)
Bush administration weakens federal program for cleaning up dirty waters (12/21/02)
Judge slaps restraining order on plan to dredge Snake River (12/20/02)
BLM denies drilling access in Colorado wildlife range (12/20/02)
Judge gives Department of Interior extension on manatee plan (12/19/02)
White House begins process of relaxing government regulations for industry (12/19/02)"
Once again, just a list of cases from one MONTH of his presidency; similar events occur every month.
Don't try to refute this by just saying the NRDC is full of hippies; if you have objections to their claims, please give counter-evidence.
Here's another interesting article I found from Rolling Stone online: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/stor y/_/rnd/1 100911430857/has-player/true/id/5939345/version/6. 0.12.1040 Perhaps the most damning accusation against the Bush administration from above article:
"Under the White House's guidance, the very agencies entrusted to protect Americans from polluters are laboring to destroy environmental laws. Or they've simply stopped enforcing them. Penalties imposed for environmental violations have plummeted under Bush. The EPA has proposed eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, which would drop staff levels to the lowest level ever. Inspections of polluting businesses have dipped fifteen percent. Criminal cases referred for federal prosecution have dropped forty percent. The EPA measures its success by the amount of pollution reduced or prevented as a result of its own actions. Last year, the EPA's two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration's refusal to carry out environmental laws."
This still not enough evidence? Just do a quick google search on "bush environmental policy." You'll literally see hundreds of websites crticizing his policies. This is one of the most hostile administrations to a clean America.
It isn't like the government can pitch in and subsidize modernizations that lead to a cleaner economy.
As if there's money left over after we subsidize Big Oil with our Iraq adventure for something as BOOOORRRRRING as the environment and the long term sustenance of the human race on the planet Earth. If there are any surplus funds, they should be used for something flashy, like a mission to mars and a moon base for our neocon elite leaders. The bonus? Such a moonbase will make The Rapture that much easier for Our Lord Jesus. And you KNOW that's gotta be good for the environment!
-- It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Obligatory Family Guy Quote
by
Thwomp
·
· Score: 1
"Yeah, the worst thing they have in England is drive by, arguments"
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
Wait until oil is $90-100 a barrel
by
melted
·
· Score: 1
And we may see CIA put a dictator in charge of Venezuela, and then suddenly realize he's evil and send troops there to overthrow the guy (and cash in on the oil, too). That's exactly what happened in Iraq. Why do you think this can't happen in Venezuela? On the other hand, the US would be pretty stupid to even attempt to pull off something like this against Russia. ICBMs only take about 9 minutes to get from there to the US, you know.
Actually, we (the US) do emit more CO2 than China
by
benhocking
·
· Score: 1
Here is data for China, and here is data for the US.
You'll notice that around the year 2000, China produced approximately 800 million metric tons of CO2, and the US produced approximately 1.5 billion metric tons of CO2. Since then, China has actually managed to decrease its emissions, and I believe ours have increased.
losing manufacturing and blue collar jobs
by
oliverthered
·
· Score: 1
So, your idea of utopia is when evryone works 24/7?
When my idea is that no-one 'works', everything is free so you don't give a shit that you only earn US$22/month.
Maybe that's a bit 'commie', but then isn't China supposed to be communist? $22 commie a month goes a lot further than $22 consumer a hounr.
-- thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Kyoto is a framework
by
sborgeso
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
One of the most important characteristics of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets up a framework for countries to work together on global warming issues. The point is less what it proposes to do today (the cuts it asks for are a drop in the bucket compared to what is actually known to be necessary in the long run) than that it bring all parties to the table with a framework to work within. The protocol wasn't set in stone when the US refused to sign it. There was plenty of room for negotiation. As the largest CO2 emitter in the world (and the world's only superpower), the US had a great deal of sway over exactly what the Kyoto rules were. What we walked away from was the global discussion on how to address a massive global problem.
When you look at the probable damages predicted from more extreme weather events, and rising sea levels and then consider that renewable energy is the only viable long term energy solution for the entire world of consumers, it becomes clear that the economic arguments against moving to renewables is noting more than FUD.
Finally, any new industry that requires substantial infrastructure will inevitably create massive numbers of jobs. Investment in renewable energy will easily produce more jobs than comparable investments in oil, coal, or natural gas. See for example this PDF for an analysis of the jobs that renewables would create.
Why are geeks so gullible?
Scientists can't come to agreement that there is "Global Warming" (tm), yet we're all supposed to react and respond? WTF ever happened to intellect?
Ok,and IANAR, Bushes scientific advisers said that the 'clean air policy' is a load of shit, or at least his version of it. Also, sulfur dioxide =acid rain nitrogen oxides = acid rain (and it gets you off your tits!)
mercury emissions = stupid people (well they must be too high then!)
Read the IPCC reports on climate change, not just the books trying, and failing, to debunk them, take a look at the global warming early warning signs map, and read the debunkings of where ever you got your views on climate change from (a good way is to do a google search on '"information source" debunked', where you fill in your information source's title. Climate change is real, it is dangerous, and it must be stopped.
No offense, but the IPCC doesn't have any business presenting speculation as fact which is what happened in the summary to their first report. As I mentioned before, we have signs that there's some global warming, signs that there's a historically unparalleled increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere, but we don't know enough to justify saying that human activity is responsible for global warming and that strongly restricting said activity will reverse global warming.
Well, lets say it took 100 years to get the ball rolling, and if we stopped dumping Co2 now it would take 300 years for it to stop. Now for the next hundred years the temperature is going to increase by 0.1 degc a year then 0.05degc for the next 200 years, that's a 20 Degree rise. We don't inherit the earth from our for-fathers, we borrow it from our children.
I don't believe that elevated levels of CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for the length of time you suggest. There will continue to be a residual heating effect because the oceans act as a heat sink (and hence keep the Earth's temperature slight below steady state) and would warm up some, but I just don't buy that it takes 300 years to get rid of the excess CO2 or that you'll see a 20 degree rise (Fahrenheit or Centigrade) due to CO2 release so far. The key reason is because natural sources and sinks of carbon dwarf manmade emissions.
My beef here is that you bandy around temperature increases without considered the opportunity costs from aggressively fighting something that we don't even is a problem yet. On the other hand, we do know that restricting the economy in such a massive way will limit economic activity. Over a century, that could mean restricting CO2 levels results in a substantially increased poverty rate and postponing important things like scientific progress, medical advances, infrastructure improvements due to the reduced economic activity.
As an example, suppose that the Kyoto treaty results over a century in roughly a hundred million more people living in poverty each year? Would the treaty be worth it? This is the sort of unintended consequences I see from the treaty and from CO2 restrictions in general.
28% Europe and FSU 24% United States 13% China
5% Japan (and 29% other)
If you like to split Europe, I'd need to split up the US. There's the red states and the blue states you know. California often acts like a separate country.
Re:cute breakdown
by
NetNifty
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
EU + FSU population is ~450 million, and US population is ~300 million.
The population of Europe + FSU (or Europe, for short) is ~730 million.
The population of EU + FSU is ~600 million.
Yes, by a factor of 2 (more if per capita)
by
Pentagram
·
· Score: 1
From another poster in this story:
China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita).
Arctic's warmed before
by
RogL
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Interesting article about conflicting / confusing global temperature data, mainly related to the poles. Things aren't as clear as you may think:
Odd warming and cooling trends, since 1917, warm in 1938, cooling down after 1940, warming back up again (maybe just returning to normal?) One pole's temperature moving the opposite of the other.
Just what I love, US controversy
by
sheehaje
·
· Score: 1
I've been holding back on posting on Slashdot for about the past 5 years (With a couple exceptions. I was on the forum under a different "handle" before, but I couldn't remember my e-mail address then if my life depended on it). In my time reading these forums I've seen a lot of good tech discusssion with a lot of answers and suggestions, and a lot of bad political discussion with little "insight" and little "solution".
So far:
The U.S.A. is Evil, or Great (KM or Miles may vary upon location on the Earth)
Pollution is Bad, Economic growth is therefore bad or good (if in my neighborhood), (KM or Miles may vary upon location on the Earth)
Economic growth is good, Pollution is Bad (this doesn't vary)
Logic is gone, and we can't go beyond 0's and 1's on Slashdot without a flamewar (this is varied only by few intelligent posts among thosands, and I claim to have little among the brightest posters)
Anyways, without further ado, here is my real post...
Where is a solution to this topic? Honestly I get depressed when I see a thread describing the end of life as we know it, but don't loose your job.
I think I speak for many when I say there is much confusion. I know that the Earth is changing, and from the posts on Slashdot I've read in my 5 years, it's not much different from what we would do to terraform a planet. Yet in our case we will add too much atmosphere and destroy life rather than foster it.
Then I've read posts that the Economy, not just U.S., but wordwide, is in such a state of flux, that maybe in 10 years I can't feed my family, or even heat my house.
Then I've read posts that say I'm gonna get ass cancer and skin cancer, but there will be a robot that can suck up dust on my carpet without my Wife yelling at me.
There are posts that say Kyoto is a great Global "policy" that will save all of human kind. At the same time it will make me poor, and I'll have to eat stale bread and dirty water.
What am I getting at?
I guess I'll ask Slashdot... As a U.S. Citizen, should I crawl under a rock, feed the world, lead the world, screw Bush, vote for Bush, still ride the bus, or maybe get a fuel efficient car... Drink Heineken or Grolsch (which is the better NL beer?), Should I write a song, and hope everyone hears it and holds hands like the old Coca-Cola commercial? Should I care about Kyoto?
I hope I get an answer soon. Politics are a great subject on Slashdot. Unlike the "ASK Slashdot: Should I use Linux, or stick with Windows?"
My Solution for the U.S.
This is all my own opinion, maybe formulated from years of listening to too much shit...
I think we should pull out of Iraq, pull out of every European Military operation we have. Protect our borders, and even those of Mexico and Canada where we can, and put more interest in fixing things on our side of the planetn (With South America in mind too). We should get less dependent on Oil, and create a whole new economy as leaders in new energy sources, and still crank out some excellent movies and computer games. We should pay more attention to family and what it means to have our best resource (our kids) jepordized by stupid political agenda. In my eyes, and from the sentiment I see, the world can go fuck themselves. We can pretty much isolate, suffer a bit, and rebound in a big way as far as what people think of us, and the things we can accomplish. And the rest of the world, while they are pondering what the hell the once "Superpower" is doing can clean up their back yard, and say, hey, they weren't that bad after all. This is my egocentric view, and I think my community, my neighbors are pretty damn good people. Bush and his cabinet may be asses, may geniuses, but hell, they think they are doing what is best. I voted for Kerry, and I want our troops home, and drinking in our Taverns again. I wish them safe voyages (or convoys)...
Ok... this was a spew post... but hell, Politics is not law, and not technology law. And without a good solution, like the one I just didn't propose, it doesn't make much sense on Slashdot, and sends my mind in 20 different directions.
Yes, I'm being facetious, but I'm also being a bit serious.
Here's another idea - find industrial sources of wasted CO2 and plant trees around them - or harvest the CO2. The Miller brewing company in Irwindale, CA comes to mind immediately - there's nothing surrounding the brewery but a quarry, interstates 605 and 210, and old US 66. And they brew shitloads of beer per month - that's a shitload of CO2.
1) When you cut down the trees, trap the carbon in a form that will keep the Carbon from becoming CO2 - make lumber, build houses, build wood flooring - don't burn the wood for heat.
2) Old trees absorb less CO2 than younger fast growing trees. Cut down old forests, make lots of lumber and picnic benches, and plant new trees. Kill the deer so they don't eat the young seedlings.
3) Keeping the forests younger and healthy and with managed harvesting will reduce forest fires, which release huge amounts of CO2.
Now there is a real pro-enviroment policy.
-- Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
Re:Here's an idea
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, you're being fecetious about "shitloads of beer per month - that's a shitload of CO2."
We didn't do this? I forgot exactly why, but I remember that it was a fairly good reason, something particularly wrong with the wording or something. Though I think we should have suggested a better version of it, you know, so people don't think we're just going to pump a bunch of CFC's in the ozone to spite them or something.
Now that I think about it that would be hilarious. Until we got skin cancer, anyway.
-- --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Crud! Why my frigging country has accepted it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm sick of Russian winter.Hail global warming!
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Russ+Nelson
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that it does so at HUGE expense; an expenditure of money that would be better spent adjusting to higher temperatures than trying to change them. After all, if we could stop hurricanes from reaching the US shore, we would be willing to spend $1B on each one. We don't do that because We Can't Change The Weather. All we can do is deal with it, and Kyoto wastes the money needed to do that. -russ
We also have no plan whatsoever on how we're actually going to IMPLIMENT the treaty either...
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Stiletto
·
· Score: 1
Patriotism is the belief that your country is the best simply because you were born in it.
So what if your side is wrong?
by
fmaxwell
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Honestly now, can we quite fucking the Kyoto Treaty as if it's some sacared cow and the environmental apocolypse will rain down upon us if everybody doesn't climb aboard and give it a blow job? I didn't list that stuff to prove you wrong. I listed it to illustrate the point that there are other factors that probably have far more influence than man ever could short of nuclear wepondry. You know, like nature itself?
You ignore the fact that there are far more reputable, peer-reviewed studies attributing global warming to man-made greenhouse gases.
But let's hypothesize that you are right. What happens if we enter into the Kyoto Treaty and it doesn't solve the problem? Well, we'll have reduced air pollution. Fewer people will have asthma and other respiratory problems. Many of the dirty fossil fuel powerplants will probably have been replaced by nuclear, cutting demand for fossil fuels. That hardly sounds like a bad thing.
Now I know that the big businesses that bought Bush scream that reducing air pollution will put thousands of people out of work. They said the same thing when tighter pollution regulations were put on cars in the early '70s. They claimed that there would never again be high performance cars. They said that no one would be able to afford cars. They said that fuel economy would suffer horribly. But look at the situation today. You can get a Corvette with 400hp (at the rear wheels) that gets over 22mpg. Or you can get a 300hp Subaru WRX that also gets 22mpg. There's less air pollution in urban areas (e.g., Los Angeles). And there are far more cars on the road today than there were in 1970.
Now let's turn it around and suppose that we do nothing and that global warming does turn out to be caused by greenhouse gases. In that case, we may see temperatures spiral out of control, species be killed in mass extinctions, and devastating severe weather that kills thousands and leaves even more homeless. In the worst-case scenario, much of humanity could be killed off.
I'd rather err on the side of caution, reduce pollution, improve the environment, and hope that it solves, or reduces, global warming.
What'd they leave out? CO2!
by
apsmith
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's politics. It's what's left unsaid that's the real killer. The so-called "clear skies" bill does little for real pollution control, and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about global warming. They're making do-nothingism sound good. Looks like they fooled at least one person.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
swv3752
·
· Score: 1
If you are not proud to be a Dutch Citizen, then perhaps you need to move to where you can be a proud to be a Citizen.
Citizenship is a choice. One can choose to move to the USA and become a US Citizen. I understand that some other countries allow foreign nationals to become citizens. If you are not proud of your choices, then you should be making different ones.
-- Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
He might be on to something...
by
Whyte
·
· Score: 1
(swallows Doctor O's crazy pills)
Let us not forget that Bruce Clinton was actually the silent partner and secret lover of Prescott Bush during the 30s as well.
Bruce also secretly funded the Nazi Impact Projection Project for Employing Ladies (NIPPEL) by capitalizing on favorable exchange rates between the deutche mark and the american dollar at neighborhood brothels.
And further there is proof that he used most of the proceeds to purchase a time machine, a fleet of black helicopters and a cloned baby jesus. All of which he delivered to Prescott on his birthday, September 11th.
Prescott's Uni-time Motion Project (PUMP) will be responsible for unleashing the Anti-Christ upon the world in the year 2012 when his time machine arrives to unleash it's fleet of black helicopters on all the unbelievers!
(Fight Club flashback)...or you can just stop bringing me any old piece of trash you find laying around.
-- --
No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
RTFA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Australia is a major coal producer and isn't signing up because it would fuck them over at the benefit of the Chinese and Indians. The same reason the US isn't doing it. All the Europeans will discover is that their industries will be shipped to those countries at a much faster rate.
Re:RTFA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hardly.
Pretty much the entire world is signing up except the USA and Australia. Sure it's convenient for us not to sign because of our own national interests, but if the USA was not there we'd be signing up for sure.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
swv3752
·
· Score: 1
He is showing disrespect for all US Citizens. I am calling him out on it.
-- Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
and just think
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
most of the global warming that occurred in the last century happened before 1950. OMG! we better do something now!!!!!!!!!!
Of course!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
why would anyone be proud to be Dutch anymore? You've let your country be overrun by the scum of Africa and the Middle East.
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Tiroth
·
· Score: 1
You aren't big on live and let live, are you? I agree that it is a bit silly but the point is it isn't a big deal, and it isn't an attack on your patriotism.
Whew !!
The Libs are out in full force on this one.
These posts read like a DNC convention.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Right, and everybody should listen to some know-it-all person on slashdot who calls themself "mumblestheclown" and calls people asshats.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Jordy
·
· Score: 1
What is this, is it an obligation to be proud to be a citizen of whatever country? I am dutch, and I am not proud because of that. In fact noone IMHO has the right to be proud because of whatever citizenship. Citizenship is something you get because of birth, so there is no merit whatsoever to be proud of.
I fail to see how it is wrong to take pride in something you are a part of. I vote. I participate in political discussions. I try and improve my community. I write my elected officials with my opinions on important issues. I am not a passive spectator that just "exists" in my country. Maybe you are and that's fine, but surely you can't be saying it is wrong to take pride in something you've helped improve, even in a small way?
Geez. Next you'll be telling me it is wrong to take pride in my company.
-- The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
I realise the US can (and probably will) tell the rest of the world to just go fuck itself, but those countries who have joined it in refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol (I am specifically thinking of Australia here) might just find themselves frozen out economically, as other nations struggle to meet the obligations they have agreed to.
As rising fuel prices are likely to cause some kind of a crunch in the US over the next few months, I can't see how well the US is going to fare, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of increased pressure to play ball.
So what?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
who's going to make the US comply with an accord we never signed? The UN? FUCK the UN. Buncha corrupt, scandal ridden assholes who can't even stop genocide in the Sudan and took no action against Hussein because they were on the take in the oil for food programme.
All you whiney fucks who think you can make us comply are certainly welcome to try.
China doesn't give its place for pollution too... Bejing is quite bad for air quality.. those poor athletes in 2008 But China doesnt meet the requirements to be in Kyoto if i'm not mistaken (developpement level?)
Oh, please mod this one up!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
*lol*
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You can spend all day pointing out inconsistencies but no one with any friends is likely to care.
And yet there you are, getting all excited about it. Pot kettle.
You know, global warming isn't necessarily going to warm evenly across the globe. While some areas will definitely get warmer, others might have their environment thrown off kilter in ways that are hard to predict. Here in the Great Lakes region of the USA, we're looking at the unpleasant prospect of more snow and rain from climate change. There is speculation that, if too many glaciers melt into the ocean and the water loses salinity (salt concentration) because of it, the water current in the atlantic "conveyor belt" that brings warm temperatures to the surrounding landmasses will shut down. This means a frosty future for your great-great-great grandchildren. Regardless of such a doomsday scenario, short-term warming in frozen areas isn't all that grand either - the permafrost ground turns to mush. What happens to structures built upon it?
Back to my original point, this is global warming we're talking about. It simply means that when you add up all the temperatures across the planet, the number is higher than the years before. This can mean 3 degrees warmer in Siberia, and 2 degrees colder in southwest Russia.
I'm sorry that our whole tangle with the Japanese doesn't count in your book. We lost way more troops than France did in the war. We had more injured troops than France had injured and killed combined. Also we did a lot of the work to bail the french out. I think that we earned our right to not say things about France.
You can see the numbers here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html
Re:Ironyhttp://slashdot.org/
by
nordi
·
· Score: 1
That percentage is not constant.
To quote from the BBC article that was linked (and quoted) in the/. article:
"Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level."
This sounds like a constant percentage to me. Do you want to deny obvious facts? And in case you mean that 5.2% will result in higher absolute number for bigger countries: duh! This is the point.
And that's the point why the U.S. did not ratify
by
rfc1394
·
· Score: 1
Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.
Note the term: Industrialized countries; none of the restrictions of the Kyoto treaty apply to third-world countries like China. They can slash and burn the environment all they want but industrialized countries like the United States are expected to sacrifice and suffer through severe cuts in emissions, but the non-industrialized countries get a free pass without restrictions.
If all the other countries agree to the same restrictions as they are demanding of industrialized countries, then let's talk about a treaty for that purpose. But don't ask for manifest unfairness and sacrifice for a few with nothing required of the rest.
-- The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
dunkelfalke
·
· Score: 1
and how exactly can you be proud of something you didn't achieve yourself?
p.s. pride goeth before a fall.
-- Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Why don't you vouch for hydrogen? It's much cleaner than nuclear fission.
Read this and tell me nuclear fission is all clean.
http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/genpatu/india/ JA DFINAL.pdf
Re:nuclear fission isn't clean
by
tranquillity
·
· Score: 1
Why don't you vouch for hydrogen? It's much cleaner than nuclear fission.
Hydrogen is just an engery carrier. And, sadly to say, a really bad one, because it's very difficult to transport. Hydogen is only as clean as the energy source it was produced with.
short term economic advantages for hundreds of years of a unstable and dangerous climate which threatens the whole of mankind.
Thanks uncle sam.
Best long term interests?
by
quarkscat
·
· Score: 1
The best long term interests of the USA is not to thumb its nose at the Kyoto Treaty.
Of course, turning the Arctic Circle into new shipping lanes can come in handy when most agricultural production of NA shifts to northern Canada. USA's real estate developers will have a field day touting "ocean front property" in Arizona. And the US Army Corp of Engineers will have several decades of new construction work to build dikes.
It would seem that the downside of ignoring Kyoto would have a huge impact on the rest of the world. Holding the USA responsible for the climactic devastation could prove to be far more expensive than the costs to comply. Considering that a majority of the world's population lives in coastal regions, the loss of habitat will drive up population density, strain availability of resources, and will likely spawn many new wars.
Re:Best long term interests?
by
JollyFinn
·
· Score: 1
Could someone please take a hit now so that rest of us would be saved. [And have a full scale nuclear war with united states right now.]
-- Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
"Industrialized countries", the term
by
gothmog666
·
· Score: 1
Why do you think "third-world countries like China" dont "apply" to Kyoto treaty??
USA has only 4% of world population but emits 25% of all air polution.
I didn't say that China did not ratify the treaty ("did not apply") I said that the restrictions do not apply to China. Beyond which, China is the #2 largest generator of Greenhouse gases after the U.S. but is not under any restrictions.
-- The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Re:You have it backwards
by
gothmog666
·
· Score: 1
You was the one who misunderstood it. The restrictions DO apply to China.
-- I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
We need this in a new category
by
mrmeval
·
· Score: 1
Shamanism
Since it doesn't fit in science.
-- I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long.
--brownkitty
Uhhh.... Except China is current exempt from its provisions. Nice try, though.
Kyoto Treaty is an attack on America
by
glad777
·
· Score: 0
If you think Americans will stand for this you are out of your mind. We won't and there will be a huge move to pull out of the fucking UN.
I would like to kick their asses in to the Atlantic and tell Kofi and company to swim fucking home while we do get in a little target practice.
Oh and to all you little Green/Pink and still Red commies fuck you. Your day is coming.
Long Live George Bush even if he is to soft on the goddamn muslim vermin.
Oh yeah and fuck Mikey More and the Hollywood vermin too download all their fucking movies and bankrupt them.
Re:MOD parent UP
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wrong. It *IS* very clear and not open-ended. All s/he said was that a legal paper is difficult to read for a layperson. IF you believe legal papers that are difficult to read for a layperson should be thrown out, we'd have to take out ALL laws on EARTH. Except maybe 3.
So what your saying is, as soon it's been proven that global warming is real,because we've all been fried, then, maybe in a few years time we will reduce co2 output by 5% just to shut you commies up.
So what your saying is, as soon it's been proven that global warming is real,because we've all been fried, then, maybe in a few years time we will reduce co2 output by 5% just to shut you commies up.
No. Pardon me for saying this, but you appear to be hysterical and irrational. My point is that we should have some solid proof that there's dire trouble before we impose restrictions on CO2 production, an action that I see impoverishing hundreds of millions of people.
Global warming isn't that dangerous now; we haven't shown that reducing CO2 production by humans will help; and the future costs of global warming against the costs of restraining economic activity aren't being rationally weighed.
Nuclear waste lasts hundreds of thousands of years. To get some perspective, tens of civilizations will rise and fall in that timeframe - and all of them will get the joy of rediscovering the great big steaming pile of radioactive crap we've left them.
Re: Wages, employment and trade.
by
xelah
·
· Score: 1
The reason jobs are being lost to overseas has to do entirely with labour costs, and nothing to do to with pollution controls.
Erm, nearly. Do you know what a trade deficit is and what it represents? It's the result of the US exporting fewer goods and services than it imports. It's doing this because it's borrowing a great deal from abroad. Borrowing from abroad is basically making a bargain with the rest of the world: 'if you send us more stuff than we send to you this year then we, in exchange, agree to send more stuff to you than you send to us at some time in the future'.
What you would expect to see in your economy when this happens is fewer tradeable goods being produced locally and more being imported. One obvious form of this is offshoring.
The borrowing of money from abroad sets up a capital flow from outside the US (from the lenders) to the US. Lenders have to buy dollars with their own currency before they can lend to you so this flow helps prop up the dollar. This makes foreign goods, services and labour look particularly attractive. If this flow is stopped, reversed (by making repayments) or is even just expected to reverse then the exchange rate will slide. That makes the foreign labour look a lot less cheap.
This is going to happen to the US sooner or later; foreign central banks (who hold a lot of dollar reserves) will stop wanting to lend. I'm not so sure exactly what will happen then - but I suspect it'll be a nasty mixture of rising interest rates (as the US tries to attract new overseas capital and increase domestic saving), a falling exchange rate (yes, even with rising interest rates), inflation (as the prices of imports rise), higher employment and reduced consumption (but increased GDP).
Unlike lead and other fun stuff the fossil fuel plants (such as internal combustion engine!) spew around, uranium will eventually turn harmless.
And never forget there's about 1:1000000 difference between amount of uranium vs coal/oil needed to produce same amount of energy.
Such relatively minor amounts can be dealt with. In fact are being dealt with. Get them into glass or ceramic compound and they'll stay put for quite reasonable geological time.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
swv3752
·
· Score: 1
It IS an attack on our ideals. Using such terms is an attack on the very fabric of our nation. There are worse things granted, but one fights all evils.
If I call you a jerk or worse, it is an attempt to degrade you. By failing to call me an American or US Citizen, you are attempting to degrade me. I will not idly let it slide.
-- Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
swv3752
·
· Score: 1
What do you mean? Yes, I was born an American, but I take the duties of Citzenship seriously. I vote, write my representatives, I discuss political issues with my peers. I choose to be a US Citizen.
-- Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
dunkelfalke
·
· Score: 1
i mean exactly that. it is like saying "i am a proud to be a male person"
you can only be proud of something you achieve by yourself. everything else is false pride.
-- Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Re: Wages, employment and trade.
by
DeepStream
·
· Score: 1
Sure, clearly there are a large number of economic factors which lead to discrepancies in labour costs around the world. I'm not totally convinced that the US trade deficit is the primary cause, although is certainly is a big problem that Americans ought to be concerned about.
My point was simply that I can't believe how many people fall for the "we can't sign the Kyoto Protocol because it is going to cost American jobs" argument. The reality is that the economic impact on the American economy as a whole would be minor.
impoverishing hundreds
by
oliverthered
·
· Score: 1
Like how has the human race servived up until now? Are you one of those people that only got told about the last couple of hundred years in history?
-- thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re: impoverishing hundreds
by
khallow
·
· Score: 1
Like how has the human race servived up until now? Are you one of those people that only got told about the last couple of hundred years in history?
Don't be ignorant. I'm aware of what has come before. What you may not be aware of is that life on Earth has progressed more in the last two centuries than since life began. Further, we can't just go back a couple of centuries. Even if you don't mind dooming a significant fraction of the human race to death through starvation, there's the matter of wasted opportunities.
You have to put forward a real argument. Survival in itself may be a worthy goal of the human race or of life on Earth. But there's more to the universe than just survival.
My point about global warming is that it isn't an urgent problem, yet it's being treated as if it were. Further, even with our ability to collect meteorological data and to process it, we can barely distinguish a warming trend. We're not "frying" here. We barely can see this. Second, given that the Earth's ecosystem has endured for hundreds of millions of years in a form similar to what we have now, there's good reason to think that the global warming problem isn't going to be that bad. We might experience rising sea levels and significant changes in regional climates over decades or centuries that would cause massive dislocation of people and ecosystems, but thoughtlessly imposing draconian restrictions on carbon output may be even worse.
Re: impoverishing hundreds
by
oliverthered
·
· Score: 1
Why isn't it urgent? How long until oil runs out? How long until we get a replacement? What will we, ourchildren or our grandchildren do then?
AS you say 'life on earth',well humans, have progressed a great deal over the last couple of centries, buy for what aim? So that our children pay more tax, have worse health care and super bugs? Or so that people can start to throw asside prejudice and greed and help one another?
Though I seem to remember a book a couple of thousand years old talking about the same, so maybe 'life on earth' hasn't progressed that much!
-- thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re: impoverishing hundreds
by
khallow
·
· Score: 1
Why isn't it urgent?
Because we're talking about something that will have just a marginal effect over the next century. Given that the theory of global warming is probably around 50 years old, I think we have time to think about it and come up with good plans.
How long until oil runs out?
Worst case, we'll start seeing a decline in cheap oil production within ten years. But we'll never "run out" of oil. It may get too expensive to burn for energy, but we won't run out. Coal at worst won't run out for centuries.
How long until we get a replacement?
We already have replacements. That is, we already have electric cars, nuclear, solar, and wind power.
What will we, ourchildren or our grandchildren do then?
I don't think it's that bad. There's a lot of unsavory stuff that's being passed on to future generations to deal with, but we are passing on a generally better world. All IMHO, of course.
AS you say 'life on earth',well humans, have progressed a great deal over the last couple of centries, buy for what aim? So that our children pay more tax, have worse health care and super bugs? Or so that people can start to throw asside prejudice and greed and help one another?
I don't know about taxes. Some places in the US have pretty low taxes. High taxes seem to be common through the history of human civilization. Good civilizations appeared to understand the value of low taxes.
Name any past time with better healthcare than now. And every bug was a superbug before the advent of antibotics.
As far as throwing aside prejudice and greed? Not going to happen. People are always going to act in their self-interest. You can either punish selfish behavior or harness it for the good of society. Capitalism does a good job of the latter.
Though I seem to remember a book a couple of thousand years old talking about the same, so maybe 'life on earth' hasn't progressed that much!
There are many books and religions that attempted to make humans better. Most of these have failed over the years because they were undermined from the inside. The philosophy might have been sound but the social structure grew rotten.
Re: impoverishing hundreds
by
oliverthered
·
· Score: 1
'time to think about it and come up with good plans.'
Well, any plan is better than none, most OSS project fail because, well we've got time to some up with a good plan...
We already have replacements. That is, we already have electric cars: Where does the electricity come from?
nuclear: We have a nuclear facility in the UK that recycles fuel, beacuse there ain't that much about.
solar: Yeh, right, at what logditudes?
wind power: Kill those birds baby, still you won't be able to have a hot coffee in the morning (if there is any coffee that is).
People are always going to act in their self-interest:
Like who, Nelson Mandella, Mother teressa? Linus torvals? It may be there 'self interest' but it's a hell of a lot of other peoples too. Just beacuse everyone else appears to be greedy and biggeted to you doesn't mean that you shouldn't set a good example. Selfishness shouldn't be encouraged, since being selfish is the oposite of being social how the hell can it ever be for the good of society.
books and religions: Ok, I'm not at all religious, I think that anyone that is needs there head looking at, maybe there mum forgot to tell them that god came in the same package that brought us the tooth fairy and santa. All that I was saying is that there are authentic texts over a thousand years old and the mention exactly the same situations, so it's hard to see how we have 'progressed'
-- thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re: impoverishing hundreds
by
khallow
·
· Score: 1
Well, any plan is better than none, most OSS project fail because, well we've got time to some up with a good plan...
Here's the alternative plan. Fund serious global efforts to document global warming, greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere, etc. Don't screw with the global economy which is raising billions of people out of poverty until you understand the threat, have a variety of strategies for fixing it, and have good projections of what harm it will cause. Otherwise, no plan is better than a bad plan.
Like who, Nelson Mandella, Mother teressa? Linus torvals?
Yes. Ultimately, did any of these people live a life that they didn't want to live?
It may be there 'self interest' but it's a hell of a lot of other peoples too. Just beacuse everyone else appears to be greedy and biggeted to you doesn't mean that you shouldn't set a good example. Selfishness shouldn't be encouraged, since being selfish is the oposite of being social how the hell can it ever be for the good of society.
I didn't say everyone is "greedy and bigoted". But rather that people help themselves or to help people or groups that they identify with. In particular, the person should be responsible for fulfilling their own needs and wants. For example, it shouldn't be my job to make sure you aren't selfish.
Also, by "selfish" behavior, I assume you mean behavior where I act to benefit myself and in the process impose a cost on you. If my action helps you and society in general (for example, most activities in Capitalism), then it shouldn't matter whether I did it to benefit myself or not.
Finally, "social" activities can be very harmful. For example, total war is a very social activity involving the cooperation of every member of society in a selfless way, but it's horribly destructive.
All that I was saying is that there are authentic texts over a thousand years old and the mention exactly the same situations, so it's hard to see how we have 'progressed'
These situations won't change over the next few thousand years either. The strong always have the option to take from the weak.
What you ignored is that now, the human race is the brain of Earth's ecosystem. For the first time, life on Earth has a growing understanding of what it is, the consequences of its actions, and a huge body of knowledge (in just the last fifty years) that doesn't come from genes or learned behavior. For example, we understand continental drift. We are delving into the mysteries of genetics. We see to the farthest reaches of the universe, and are the only multicellular species that has been *everywhere*. Whether it be in the deepest ocean, deep underground, outer space, or Anartica.
We have transportation that can reach anywhere inside of a day (with the creation of a suborbital industry it will soon be within an hour). We have computers that can perform tremendous calculations at incredible speeds most alien to Earth-based life. I can speak with anyone on the planet who has access to a phone.
But instead, you focus on moral games that will never change. Take from you or not. The choice remains no matter how we evolve or not.
wind power:
Kill those birds baby, still you won't be able to have a hot coffee in the morning (if there is any coffee that is).
The most deadly windmills kill roughly two to three birds per windmill per year. That's a lower rate of bird death than some plate glass windows. Or a feral cat. Your comments on my other energy options were equally vacuous.
I think you really need to look at your hysteria here. Maybe it will turn out that Kyoto was a timely prudent measure despite the economic costs it imposes and that the stonewalling of the US will cause tremendous harm down the road. I don't
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Teancum
·
· Score: 1
I am sorry that you've never heard of my country, dispite the fact that it is clearly marked on many maps and is the 4th largest country in the world geographically and 3rd largest in terms of population, unless you count the European Union as a country, which makes it the 4th largest.
America is the land located between Canada and Mexico, just as Columbia is the name of the country on the north end of South America.
The reason I call myself an American is because the name of my country is America, and the issues about North and South America as continents is a seperate naming issue. When I see the term USAian, I think that the speaker or writer is not only trying to be insulting, but is also suffering from a severe inferiority complex from being from either a European country that is trying to emulate America in being a part of a greater Europe, or from another country in "The Americas" that doesn't totally understand what my country is about and what the name of my country is. I also find the term "North American" to be equally insulting, but at least technically accurate when talking with citizens of some South American countries, unlike USAian.
Another way to look at it is that the USA is also the "American Union" just like there is the "European Union", and the government of America is open to any country that wants to join. That the American Congress has screwed up the procedure for doing so and made joining the American Union more of a liability than an asset at the moment is a seperate issue.
Re:This planet belongs to America, learn the rules
by
MachineShedFred
·
· Score: 1
I may be a tool in your eyes, but at least I give credit where it is due.
I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but let's at least hate him for stuff he actually did, rather than blame-shift what 100 people did, ass.
-- Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Ironyhttp://slashdot.org/
by
DunbarTheInept
·
· Score: 1
"Industrialized countries" is a euphamism for "highest bracket" in that bracketed system I was talking about. Make sure the facts say what you think they say before pretending to get all high and mighty.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Knowing what we are talking about.....
by
lucason
·
· Score: 1
You do realize that Kyoto is about greenhouse gasses, and NOT, I repeat NOT about ozone layers, UV rays or SP Factors.
Re:Science! Think of the science, children!
by
Teancum
·
· Score: 1
I know this is an old discussion, but I differ with your statement:
Patriotism is the belief that your country is the best simply because you were born in it.
I disagree. Many countries have a significant cultural heritage, and the countries that have survived more than a few year, or even a few mellenia have achieved some very significant accomplishments, and have some good reasons to honor and respect those who have gone before them. Also, if it weren't for those people who were there before (like your parents) you wouldn't be here now able to argue with me on/.
Many countries are more than just a name and a hunk of territory. There are also ideals and concepts that underlie the foundation of that country, and try to bring about changes that help to meet those ideals. There are many countries around the world that I greatly respect because of these ideals, like Switzerland, Israel, Egypt, and China. Obviously I could name others, but the point is there are usually defensable reasons to be proud of where you were born, of if you think your country sucks, try and find a country that will take you that you also agree with its ideals. That may also take converting to another religion, but that should also be expected if you are making that sort of transition and change in your life.
Slashdot Mirror
Or what?
The owls are not what they seem
That realy sucks...
Heh. "Looks like Russia has picked up where the U.S. failed".
Yeah. Because the US just loves pollution.
Anyone find it extremely ironic that groups of people who really hate Bush chastise Bush about the US losing manufacturing and blue collar jobs - and in fact whole companies - overseas, and that other groups of people who really hate Bush (sometimes the same groups, in fact) chastise Bush for not signing onto Kyoto, when those two positions in this context are essentially diametrically opposed?
We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing". Nations like China . That doesn't exactly level the playing field when we're losing manufacturing jobs to places like China like it's going out of style as it is. Further, the EPA, and the whole of the US government, is committed to the principles of Kyoto, but we will not ratify such an unbalanced agreement.
This isn't a bid to line pockets of corporate officers. This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw caution about potential global warming concerns to the wind. This means the US is trying to stay competitive in a global economy, where we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job. This is a hope to at least keep *some* of these jobs during a long period of economic transition.
Note to the US Kyoto activists: you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we lose jobs and US companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto. Yes, there's a lot of nuance, but I'm afraid that it's that simple.
(Hopefully, as economies equalize, a new industrialized West will manage to emerge from it, instead of being decimated by it in the meantime.)
The Kyoto Protocol on fighting climate change is to become a legally binding treaty on 16 February, the UN has said. - looks like USA doesn't give a rats ass about international laws and treaties, why would this be any different?
You can't handle the truth.
Law of what? Law of wasted time and effort and using popular science as an economic control tool, that's what Kyoto is the law of.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Blastoff! Conservative cnspiracy theories of UN world domination is a GO!
A bipartisan concensus that handicaping our economy relative to other countries was a bad idea may not constitute a failure.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I hear the treaty was too strict and costly to implement. I would rather work on pollution gradually and by ourselves then sign a world treaty that would hurt our economy.
Bush and Kerry refused to support this, I believe on the grounds there would be absolutely no feasible way to move the US towards the requirements listed. The cost would also be untenable.
Well they don't have to lower greenhouse emission. In the case of Russia, for example, hey can actually riase their current levels of emission since they had more meissions in 1990.
Also, most of the meat of this deal are based on carbdon ton credits. If the UK can't make their target they can "buy" a carbon ton of rainforest (defined as the amount of trees it would take to scrub 1 carbon ton from the air) and keep them from being destroyted to "even out" the carbon levels. Costa Rica is "selling" their national parks (which were not going to be cut down anyways) for this purpose.
This treaty is functionaly a joke if you are concerned about lowering greenhouse emissions.
Lots of ranting about how the US is just going to scoff at this "international law." But perhaps one point of clarification should be presented.
Treaties do constitute international law, but they are only binding on those nations which sign (and in the case of the US ratify) it. As such non-signatory nations who do not adhere to the terms of the Kyoto treaty are not in violation of any law.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
In related news, Canada is also doing its part.
Cars that are environmentally friendly may be coming to drivers in North America faster than anyone expected after the Canadian government pledged this week to a dramatic 25 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from all vehicles sold inside its borders by the end of the decade.
[alk]
To the best of my knowledge, neither one of these things has happened in the US. Therefore, I submit that it will not, in fact, become law.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I just don't get the US's non-participation in this treaty. Cutting pollution is good for the economy. Making green products requires a high level of technological sophistication which is supposed to be our specialty, right? If everyone is getting green and we have the sophisticated products necessary we make money, right?
I guess we'll just have to be happy shipping fibers and scrap metal and timber to Asia and getting back manufactured goods.
200 years ago we were a materials colony and market for a power on the other side of the Atlantic. Now we're a materials colony and market for a power on the other side of the Pacific.
Some progress.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Yo! Now we can usher in the global warming with the classic 90's style. Does this mean we can bring back Parachute pants as well?
Hey, not only are Russians nice enough to ratify the Kyoto treaty, they're also nice enough to develop a nuclear weapon program that could avoid any possible defense (in the rare event that missile defense could actually work).
Not only are they friends of the environment, but they could also destroy it better than anyone else!
FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
As Robin Williams said, "In England, if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun and you don't have a gun. If you commit a crime, the police will say 'Stop, or I'll say stop again.'"
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Why don't they have a 2005 target? Why did they set the implementation date so far into the future? If reducing CO2 emissions is important, shouldn't those concerned start reducing today?
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.
Great. So some nations will be putting out less CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
That's all fine and well, but they'll be emitting those gases from factories that are UNDERWATER. At least if they're anyhwhere near a coastline...
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
I see the denouncing of the Kyoto treaty as a SUCCESS for the US and failure for all of those nations that were stupid enough to ratify it.
Just food for thought.
-HJ
'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.'
y oto_proto col/items/1678.php
Fantastic! Just a couple questions:
1. What constitutes an "Industrialized" country?
2. What constitutes an "Emission" ?
3. Why those six particular greenhouse gasses?
4. Why 5.2%? Why not 10.2? Or 2.7?
5. Why 1990 levels? Why not 1980? 1994?
I tried to glean the answers from the protocol itself:
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/k
And, well, it's unreadable legaleese. It's like an obfuscated code contest, half the articles point to other articles and those point to other paragraphs. It looks like there's about two paragraphs of substance in it's 20 pages.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Everyone knows the world is going to end in 2012. The Mayans said so.
"It's not the despair, I can take the despair, it's the hope that's killing me!"
Russia wants in not because Mother Earth will weep if they don't sign, but because the treaty allows countries to sell their carbon credits for cash, and they stand to make a bundle.
Russia being Russia, my bet is that they will both sell their carbon credits and use them.
However, those of you who think that the whole Kyoto debate is about the USA should not lose sight of the more important fact:
Global Temperatures Will Continue To Rise as a result of CO2 emissions even if 100% of the world wholeheartedly adopted Kyoto TODAY.
All Kyoto does (and it is a big step, but nevertheless) is slow the RATE of growth. Politicians and other know-nothings will be patting themselves on the back saying "well, that fixed it!" It did no such thing--at most, it bought us a little time.. and a little is the operative word. Kyoto's significance is not so much that it has somehow lessened the problem - for all practical purposes, it has not. It's significance is that it works to effectively keep the problem from getting much, much worse.
..are either: a) tiny industrial forces or b) lying.
im glad the United States is will to stand up and say this is WRONG.
why should a country like china that has a BROWN CLOUD hanging over it be exempt? this is just a ploy to bring the US down.
Europe will probably violate the treaty right off the bat and go 'tee hee'
----------- destroy evil immediately!
The whole thing with the U.S. not signing the Kyoto treaty is very simple. The European countries simply cannot match our economic output. Of the industrialized countries, we have the cheapest labor force. Because of their lack of a cheap labor force (in relation to the US) and restricted space, it is not even feasible to produce goods that damage the small living space they have. This drives up costs. In order to remain competitive on the Global Market, they must get the big producers on the same playing ground. Of course they want the U.S. to sign, this put's our nation on the same productivity terms of theirs. This drives up our production costs and allows European goods to compete with American made goods. Now to the question of Russia. Why wouldn't they sign? Russia cannot compete with America anymore on the production scale. They cannot compete with China on the manufacturing scale (China manufactures the things we produce). Thus, caught in the middle, it is better for Russia to align with the European countries attempting to get America on the same terms. Moreso, joining the Kyoto treaty would cost America 5 MILLION jobs. Thats by the DEMOCRATIC estimate (the tree huggers). Would you join a treaty if it meant your job?
Turning a bolt for 17 years? How big is this bolt anyway? And wouldn't that tend to slow down the rest of the assembly line?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Remember the Bush family got their money from "io'll". Hence the theories about invading Iraq (what WMD?).
America sits on the biggest reserves of oil in the world as it is not used - buying (or raiding) from abroad to keep the nation afloat.
Soon, like 15 years time (maybe less) the oil will run out. But the USA's oil has never been used, and then THEY will be the only suppliers.
Mad Max? Madness of George, I would say.
Of course he doesn't want to endorse kyoto...
I hope that the countries that support Koyoto will label their goods as Koyoto-made or Koyoto-safe. Basically, they need to turn a perceived negative into a marketing positive.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Wasn't CA supposed to by law only have zero-emission cars for sale by last year.
Car manufacturers laughed when CA passed that law, especially since most SUV sales are in CA.
The US did the right thing. Not sign onto a law that will just be ignored.
While third world countries can pollute just as much as they want...Russia hardly even has enough industry for it to matter whether it joins or not.
then it would be a good thing that we did not sign on to this restrictive treaty. Some data is suggesting that the other planets in our solar system are experiencing global warming. Could this be due to a cyclical increase in the output of the Sun? I know, that many scientists are not convinced that the sun's warming cycle could cause all of the warming that we have seen, but this new information needs to be taken into account.
Since the USA is part of the UN, now that the treaty has been passed by the UN, does the USA have to comply? Or are they exempt since they withdrew in the first place?
**FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS
Luckily the most powerful nation in the world realizes that a few flooded countries matter little when compared to the prospect of losing a Few American Jobs.
Shortsightedness like this makes me think twice about having children (and the US is by no means the only offender).
Can you hear me, Major Tom? I'm not the man they think I am at home...
Russia has tons of oil, and the only thing preventing the US from going there in search of "WMD" is that Russia has WMD. If US designs a system to protect itself from these WMD, Russia will design a system to protect itself from the USA.
Don't ... plant's use CO2 to live?
... even still? I mean, just because Al Gore said it's possible doesn't make it so. Sheesh.
And isn't there a lot of speculation about global warming
Isn't 2012 supposed to be the year the world comes to an end, according to the Mayan IIRC.
It will just be incorporated into the "Made in China" sticker.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
The US has more nukes than the rest of the world put together.
The US has more Bio/Chem agents than the rest of the world put together.
The US is the only country to ever use the former in a war.
What was that about destroying stuff?
The "or what" part does not apply to the U.S. from what I understand.
But personally I'm happy to be able to say that I live in a country which agreed to this.
There's something about the idea that a number of countries would work together to make the world a better place that appeals to my sense of ethics.
We (i.e. the US) are now, officially, politically right of Putin's administration. That's pretty fucking amazing.
... is that countries who pollute more than they did in 1990 must pay money to those that pollute less than their "fair share" or "quota" if you will.
The idea is that heavy polluters will be taxed and this money will go to poor (mostly 2nd and 3rd world ) countries that signed up. This money they are flooded with is *supposed* to help the 2nd/3rd world skip the dirty forms of production (pollution) and skip to the cleaner ways, much as many of these countries skipped over landlines and went straight to cell phones.
The problem with this wonderful idea? Most countries are in nature good, but a very large majority of leaders in the countries that stand to benefit from this are corrupt and will just use the money for whatever-the-hell-they-feel-like.
So why did russia join in? Don't they stand to lose a crapload of money?
No! Russia's economy has gone to such shit that their pollution is much lower than what it was during 1990. The fall of the ruble and privatization of factories has forced many many to close down, resulting in a net loss (and a relatively large one, if i'm not mistaken) of pollution output. Enough so that Russia falls in with those who will actually EARN money for signing this treaty. I'm just surprised it took Pooty Poot so long to realize this.
Meaning if you were a huge polluter in 1990, you don't have to do shit to meet the treaty, and instead get to sell your pollution "rights" to other countries that have gone through growth in the past 14 years.
And the UN still thinks this is a good treaty.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Umm, who said this is a failure on the U.S's part? Sounds like a good success to me!
...and the participants will all lie. Does anyone really believe that the EU, Russian, etc folks are going to comply? This is like the recent EU/Iran accord about nuclear weapons. Does anyone really believe Iran will keep its promise?
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
Instead of not ratifying it, Bush and his people should absolutely ratify it, then instead of using $200 Billion to fight a pointless war, use, hell, maybe $1B to subsidize tax credits for industries that clean up their act. It's very simple. The US has got the money (this morning Bush was authorized to raise the national debt to levels unheard of in history). Why not use some of that money for cleaning up the air & water instead of dropping bombs? The companies themselves could use the tax credit to remain competitive with developing countries, AND we could all live healthier. I don't see any downsides.
I don't respond to AC's.
Britain
Canada
China
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
South Korea
Spain
And now Russia.
Wow. So seven of the eight G8 nations have signed up to something that the US maintains would cripple them? Either the rest of the world is hopelessly naive, or the current US administration is obsessed only with making themselves and their corporate backers grotesquely large short-term profits, and fuck everybody else.
Which could it be?
You must think in Russian.
This will be another united global movement towards bettering our existance and America will surely ignore it.
No, Kyoto does NOT place higher standards on the U.S. Any country that polluted as much as the U.S. would be held to the sane standards. There only happens to be one country causing like 40% of the world's pollution.
WWJD? JWRTFM.
they've ratified Kyoto, and now it's going to be law (on Feb 16).
Law, huh? More like hopeful suggestion if you ask me. The UN isn't worthless, but when it comes to enforcing anything, they're like a newborn baby.. no teeth.
What is your penile percentile?
1. The parent is NOT redundant I posted at 6 minutes after the item went up. At that time no visible posts covered the same ground.
2. Overrated? At 2? At 1? I guess the right wingers don't want to see a post they disagree with. Sorry, you may not agree with it, but its worthy of discussion as the replies would indicate.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Just because it might not be entirely up to man-made emissions does NOT mean that
Looking at your argument again, what the hell ARE you trying to say?
It seems like whatever the bush administration is doing for the enviroment is working because he got elected again... so ignoring the enviroment will probably work until its completly destroyed.
but... saving the enviroment would be too hard because that would mean we dont need iraqi and saudi oil. oh that means that we didnt have to go to war with iraq but that means hallaburton doesnt get free money
KARMA POLICE ARREST THIS MAN HE TALKS IN MATHS- radiohead
I'm sure most of Big Western Europe will honor the terms of this treaty in much the same way they are honoring the terms of the Eurpean Union economic agreements, by forcing others to do what they cannot. France, Germany and others run budget deficits in flagrant violation of European law while trying to enforce those rules on the new members from the East. I am sure Kyoto will be no different as it is economically improbable (or even impossible) that they will be able to maintain the terms of Kyoto.
have just released a lot of hot air....
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
WTF is a USA-ian? Do you mean United States of America Citizen? If you are not proud to be a US citizen, then there are procedures to divest yourself of your citizenship. I whole-heartedly endorse you to do so.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
I couldn't help thinking that we've had an awfull lot of sun spots lately. Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High
The simple fact is that there is a muhch stronger coorelation to sun spots and weather patterns than there is to human behavior and cliamte.
Maybe American "greed" is causing the sun to flair up too!
Besides the point that the UN has no way of enforcing something like this, please note that it's in the US consitution that:
a) The US has given itself the right to enforce any of its law anywhere in the world.
b) No foreign laws will be enforceable in the US.
Kyoto is just whishful thinking.
To all you brainwashed americans who won't face the facts and take responsibilty for your own behaviour with the lame excuse that actually doing anything about reducing pollution is just too expensive or will cost a few american jobs...
How much money and jobs do you think a new ice age might cost? What sort of dent to your family budget and quality of life might total ecological shutdown cause?
You Dumbasses...
Sorry to burst your liberal bubble
"There exists exemptions to the Third Convention for "High Contracting Parties" to this convention. In the case of a conflict between a signatory and a non-signatory the signatory shall remain bound until such time as the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention." I don't believe 'Al Qaeda' is a signatory party to the Geneva Convention.
Capital Idea
...get onboard with this, those polar icecaps on Mars might be saved!!!
I'd like to know where that number came from?
The reason why Russia changed its mind on Kyoto is that they will make a lot of money from it. See here.
So they can sell off credits for 30% of the emissions that they don't even produce anymore anyway, which would result in a net gain in greenhouse gases.
Too bad Russian is also making a new kind of nuclear missle. (Sounds like a Cruise missle - not actually new)
Hey won't the nuclear explosions cause some global warming?
I'd personally like to buy you all a coke.
pssst...most countries entered it to profit from the shell game they will play with their vouchers..
Come 2012, and the UN tried to force the US to do anything, the US would take that as a threat, or worse, an undermining of mineral resourse interests the US have outside their shores.
They would defend this vigourously.
Interpret this how you will.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
5% mandatory import tariff by every kyoto signers to *ALL* imports of nonsigners.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
F*** yeah! You tell 'em pinkos, cooter! Prolly some sorta jeff gordon fan, tha'un. Now where'd ellie-mae put my Skoal?
> How many 'other countries' are giving aid to countries abroad?
Plenty. Japan for example give millions.. and without pretending oil in exchange.
>How many other countries liberate people from dictators?
Your definition of "Liberate" is killing thousand of innocent civilians? Or are you talking about the killed iraqui rebels who were defending his own country? Maybe those your army deny medical attention.. or food?
How about tomorrow, i don't know, China for example, decide to "liberate" you? You'll thank to them for bombing your house, killing your friends and rape your daughter? You should. After all is "the american way"!.
JP
Clinton waited until the last month of his 8 year administration for the EPA to draft changes to the grandfathering of coal fired plants and the Clean Air Act. Bush cancelled that directive and has since instituted a new directive. And the utilities with these plants have moved forward with plans to add scrubbers.
You just don't submit legislation or directives without a plan by the utilities to implement. And I think that is where the greenhouse gas issue has to be treated with "credits". Utilities can buy tracts of forestland and keep it as such - i.e. no logging. There is no magic bullet technology to convert coal-fired plants to non-greenhouse gas. It just doesn't exist!!
The only reasonable thing that can be done along with the "credits", is to raise minimum requirements for MPG in automobiles and trucks. I see that happening during this administration.
under Kyoto. So does Norway. How in the world does this treaty make any sense? It's not about protecting the environment at all. It's about limiting countries.
Text of Kyoto TreatyThose people are math-challenged, or those who are trying to spin. The US would have, for the forseeable future, been a buyer on the carbon market. So yes, we'll be out of the carbon market, in the sense that we won't be paying other countries for the privelege of doing what we're doing now.
As for Russia, they did not sign out of altruistic purposes. They did because their current carbon emissions are over 30% below that of 1990, the benchmark for establishing the carbon market. This is the case not because they have developed clean fuel, or learned to reduce consumption, but because their economy completely imploded. So basically, Europe won't change much, nor will Russia, but the rest of Europe will end up paying Russia money.
That's why Russia ratified. It's free money. Why wouldn't they do it?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Guess what? I'm a Canadian too,a nd I don't recall making you "our" spokesperson!
Based on US response to immediate crises around the world you will be bombed into submission and a puppet government installed. Is this better than trying discussions first?
Except, by capita, the US provides less foreign aid than almost any other western nation.
Further, about half of it is in arms to Israel and the other is Monsanto grain "licenses" to developing nations.
>How many other countries allow their people to own property?
What a narrow minded guy! You actually think USA is the only country where "property" exists.... i'm guess american's high schools have the worst education after all... or you are just a moron.
JP
"How much money and jobs do you think a new ice age might cost?"
see, in a free enterprise enviroment the question is:
"How much money and jobs do you think a new ice age will create?"
Beside, The Kyoto agreement is designed to put the burden on successfull industrialized nations. Point in fact 300 million american 'waster' is nothing compared the BIllions of people who won't be held accountable.
WHat we need is a plan that takes emerging 3rd world nations and let them enter a modern industrialization with modern equipment and not go through years of waste.
Plese bear in mind that 'energy usage' from the us are for a very large country (it take energy to move stuff, including the things that moves stuff) with a decent level of living.
WHen electris cars can be charged in 5 hours and travell 500 miles, and be as safe and confortable as a sedan, then you'll see Americans change to enviromentally safer form of transportation.
DId you know there is LESS pollition in LA then there was 25 years ago? with more cars on the road?
SO we are making strives toward better enviromental standards.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Rush in? Tell that to the victims of the Blitz. Where was the USA when Poland was invaded? When the tanks swept into Paris? The USA only got involved in WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed."
Well, are you for or against preemtive action? Make up your mind, you soft-headed fool.
The Kyoto protocol was based on some dubious science. While it's pretty clear that human activity has boosted CO2 levels to record levels, and there's strong evidence that global warming is occuring, the two aren't properly linked. For example, it hasn't been shown that reducing CO2 levels will reverse global warming. Another possibility is that increasing solar output is responsible for global warming not human activity. There's some evidence that the IPCC study (I am unable to find the "first assessment" report on the web) that the Kyoto treaty is based on was presented in a misleading light (eg, the summary of the report doesn't agree with the body of the report).
Second, only reduction in CO2 production is considered for the Kyoto treaty. Some work has been done on carbon sequestration. While these methods may prove infeasible, it seems absurd to ignore them in the treaty.
Further, developed countries have to cut back, but underdeveloped ones do not. I wonder how long this disparity can continue before we see countries withdraw from the treaty. In particular, I suspect that Russia will withdraw once it has entered the WTO (apparently the carrot used to lure them into the treaty by the EU).
No cost/benefit analysis has been performed. Is it really better to restrain economic activity rather than to deal with the costs of global warming due to greenhouse gases? The apparent reduction in economic activity that would be experienced by the EU (the most likely ones to comply with the treaty) might mean a significant drop in global standards of living.
Here's an idea -- prove your assertions. Don't Think That Capitalizing Each Word Makes You Right.
It's amazing to me that the people who think Kyoto will do something act like they're the "big thinkers" of our society. But if you'd really think for a minute, you'd see that the Earth and the Sun (not humans) have everything to do with Global [Warming|Cooling], and we're along for the ride. Scary, but get used to it.
Which one does the UK fall under then? They agreed to a 12.5% cut on 1990 levels by 2012, a target which they've already met (managed it four years ago).
In Communist Russia the treaty signs you!
that the US understands the Geneva convention better then you.
IT doesn't apply, and if it did they could hang the prisoners.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We (US) are going to be pariahs for not signing on. But people dont respond by pointing out WWII debts. They were never going to be repaid, we knew it going in.
The treaty was not ratified, by us. It will be ignored by China, because they want to build a bigger economy than the US. It will be ignored by Russia because of the pervasive amounts of corruption in the system. Im sure some of the smaller EU nations will abide by it. But they have a nation that has a more highly concentrated population, that already embraces public transportation.
The US needs to defend its position by developing the alternative. If we produced a affordable fuel-cell power it would justify our not signing.
Homer Simpson said Solar Power is pipe dream.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
Please show me where in the Kyoto protocol the words "China" or "developing countries" appear. Oh, I see, they don't appear in the treaty at all. Because the categories of countries are based on how much pollution those countries emit, not based on whether they are "developing" or whether their human rights record is bad enough to exempt them. When China pollutes as much as the US does, they will move to the same category as the US.
What, does someone invade you or something?
Ok, so your country signs this treaty agreeing to lower em, but what if it doesn't happen or a country flat out refuses to comply?
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
So everyone does understand, don't they, that, scientifically speaking, Kyoto is only
the first small turn of the steering wheel on the
Titanic, and at least 10 turns of the wheel would be required to steer clear of the "global warming" iceberg. (How's that for a mixed metaphor.)
In other words, we have to globally reduce to
less than half of 1990 emmissions levels, and
using real math, not funny political math,
to stop the growth of CO2 levels in the
atmosphere.
Here's to a good start on the turnaround anyway.
Cheers.
Now let's hope the US is as embarrassed as
it should be about being the one remaining
unrepentant energy pig on the planet.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
there the leader, they have all those windmills making wind...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And I think the attitude, "Nobody else matters," is suicidal and self defeating.
That statement fundamentally reduces to "Nobody matters," when you aggregate it over an entire population unless you take the stance, "Everybody matters,". Everyone can't just exclude themselves from the population, so either nobody matters or everybody matters or some matter more than others; then who do you choose who matters?
I believe everybody matters, and because of that, *I* matter. And because *I* matter, then we have to look out for ourself. A cleaner, safer, world is in my best interests, and it's got a nice side effect that it is also beneficial for everyone else.
GPL Deconstructed
For those of us who have gone over there. We know that Cities in China are far far more poluted than cities in the US. Polution is more than just CO2 of course.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
How about China and India? Surely they've got some industries driving up greenhouse gas...
Absolutely right that Kyoto does not solve the problem. The first global trade agreement did not form the WTO. It is a first step on a thousand mile journey. If you're going to refuse to take that first step because you think it's going to stop there, or if you're going to wait for a measure that does everything at once, forget it. Head in sand.
And what of people who claim the science is not conclusive yet? When UCS and others claim it is? What happens if the scientists are right and the earth warms up killing polar bears and half of all life on earth? Will the global warming deniers then blame the scientists for not being conclusive enough?
f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmng
You might be interested in looking at a U.N. history of the Kyoto Protocol (including the actual text). The groundwork for the treaty was laid in 1995, and continued through 1997. In 1998, despite significant misgivings about the treaty by the (then) Clinton administration, the administration presented the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. It was rejected by the Senate on a vote of 98-0.
Hate Bush all you want--believe all the wacko conspiracy theories you like. But the U.S. rejected Kyoto while he was governor of Texas.
Yes, yes, the sky is falling! Just like it was in the 1970s when we had only 20 years of natural gas left. Environmental hysteria is old, we don't care anymore. Study after study of unsubstantiated claptrap has left people apathetic about the environment. If the so called environmentalists want to actually make people concerned about things, they could at least come up with some reality-based information rather than alarmist crap that is always proven false later. People who continually spout junk science actually undermine the cause of environmentalism. I know that hysteria is supposed to get peoples' attention, but after time it just annoys them and makes them tune out.
Didnt the US pass a law which makes the promotion of semitism a condition for getting good marks from the US?
What is it we ask of them? Chop your peepees?
Eat bagels?
Since when is it our government jobs to promote people who believe in the bogeyman?
You want to pray? Thats your effing problem. Believe in the tooth ferry if you want but I do not think that promoting religion is a governments job.
Its bad enough we have our own little nuthouse in Utah, no we have to serve the israelis too.
We all have our thoughts on what is a useless law. My neighbour the biker thinks the helmet laws are useless too.
GIRLS: A spanking! A spanking!
DINGO: You must spank her well. And after you have spanked her, you may deal with her as you like. And then, spank me.
VARIOUS GIRLS: And spank me. And me. And me.
DINGO: Yes, yes, you must give us all a good spanking!
GIRLS: A spanking! A spanking!
DINGO: And after the spanking, the oral sex.
GIRLS: Oral sex! Oral sex!
GALAHAD: Well, I could stay a BIT longer.
"Looks like Russia has failed where the U.S. succeeded"
Fixed!Your statement is merely a smokescreen.
The issue then is: Regardless of how or why the climate changes, do we have the resources to affect it to our benefit?
Because to not affect it to our benefit when we have the power to would be rather a waste I think.
Put it more locally: If you could make your life better, would you?
GPL Deconstructed
that Russia ratified Kyoto pretty just solely to get support from several EU nations in their attempt to join the EU? They didn't do it out of some desire to help the environment. It was politics. (Even NPR's story about Russia's ratification said that this was the reason.)
This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
we dont play!!!!!!!!!
Get a free ipod.
Considering that the bulk of China's population has no real income let alone any ability to paticipate in air pollution.
One thing this treaty is not doing is preventing the widespread pollution of the ground and water by other means, of which China and many of the former Soviet states excelled at.
The "50%" item is just an estimate, worst case scenario, in no way is it provable. Hell one of the hurricanes hitting Florida this year was thought to have pushed an endangered species of Turtle to near extinction... Nothing works better to build up excitement than to use extremist examples.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I hate to break the news to everyone but Kyoto is too little to late and whether the US signs it or not is irrelevant. You can expect things to start to change politically when climate issues begin to negatively affect people's lives (particularly voting people) on a large scale which probably won't be too long from now. Maybe that's some solace to those who are so concerned about the situation now. Oh and you'll always have the "I told you so" card to play.
**insert favorite profound quotation here**
I don't doubt that many of the people in Russia are against it. Russia hasn't exactly been the world's beacon for representative democracy lately. But just for the record, although it isn't really known who the people who are financially backing Envirotruth.org are, we do know that ExxonMobil was one of the contributors. Keep a few large grains of salt on hand while reading the site.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
So I guess it was Governor Bush of Texas that rejected the Kyoto treaty in 1998?
You, sir, are an idiot.
(PS - The US Senate is who ratifies treaties, and they voted against it 98-0. If you don't like it, fire your Senator.)
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Your economy is no where as healthy as you might think. Already there have been articles coming from within Canada about what is going to be needed to pay for the universal health care, which is anything but free. Estimates of it consuming nearly 40% of Quebec's budget by 2010 are not that far off from reality. I suggest you start looking into government and independant studies about the situation up there. Apparently you are either not looking or failing to see it. Don't take it as a slight to Canada, I have friends in BC and they are worried about what is coming in the future. One comment that I found interesting is a push to have nurses replace Doctors for some treatment programs and that isn't a direction that will go over lightly.
Your economy is also heavily dependant on US trade, hence when the US economy picks up as it has been for 2+ years there is a recipricol effect for the region.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Who knows? Perhaps the Viking probes, the Mars Rovers, and all of the other dozen or so spacecraft that have crashed on Mars have released all of that pollution and nuclear waste to start damaging the environment on Mars as well.
There are a number of things that could be causing substantial changes in the Earth's global climate picture, and man-made pollution is only one of them.
I conceed that there are local environments that have changed substantially from 10,000 years ago, or even 200 years ago, and that local environment is different directly due to human influence. Witness Los Angeles, where the first settlement in that location died off to the last person due to a lack of water, and now there is a city of over 10 million people living there (with suburbs, etc.) It is a city that wouldn't exist except for modern (20th century+) technology. Cities like Ur and Basra have also changed their local environment, and in those cases the changes are positively ancient in nature, because the original changes happened several thousand years ago.
There are also some very notable situations where the local environment has not only improved, but improved so substantially that criticisms are totally unwarrented. Most notable in this regard is Pittsburg, PA, where in 1880 the smoke was so thick that you couldn't see more than 1/2 a city block anywhere within city limits. And the Ohio river was so polluted that every fish in it was dead, with oil slicks a very common sight, and almost no plant life at all along the banks of the river. If you go to that same city today, with many more people living there than in 1880, the skies are almost always clear except when it rains, and the rivers are clean enough to fish in (I'm not sure I'd try to eat them, but at least the fish are living there now). I could give similar stories about Minneapolis, NYC, Liverpool, and other 19th Century industrial centers where the environment is in much better shape on a local basis now than in the late 19th Century. And this is stuff we have data on, unlike the 19th Centry satellite telemetry monitoring the ozone hole in Antartica.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a spokesman for our country. I know that we have our problems, and I'm very aware that there are a lot of differing viewpoints in our country. I'm simply trying to express that our country as a whole does what it can to help others, improve the world in the way that we know how and that the majority of Canadians are happy with who and what we are. There is always someone who is going to disagree with any piece of legislation that passes or doesn't pass. But we have ratified Kyoto, and on the world stage we are doing very well for ourselves.
I apologize if I came off as pretentious in my previous post.
This is not a sig.
Huh? Russia will never join the EU. Why would they? Economic protection? No. The EU is competition. Military cooperation? No. See previous. They only joined the Council of Europe (a de facto prereq for EU membership) in 1996. Most likely they ratified Kyoto to line up with treaty memberships as part of the COE. Serbia will join the EU before Russia and that isn't even projected as a possiblility until 2030 according to Serbia itself.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
We failed to recognized that this treaty is in our best interest. No matter how many jobs we lose in the short term, the cost (in dollars) of coping with a damaged ecosystem will be higher.
Furthermore, this will put us technologically behind in energy generation and resource management. We're going to miss out on a big part of the next industrial revolution. Similar to what happened when US automakers fail to keep up with Japanese automakers.
Sometimes conservatism hurts business, and this is one of those times.
-Ryan C.
So put it more plainly - you believe they are cooking the numbers? Then come out and say so and stop implying what you believe to be true.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So what if we all would agree that every person would have 80% of allowanse of what was in 1990 by average of *entire* population of earth. So that USA would need to cut to 1/10th their carbon dioxide emissions. Hey if you would sign kyoto your per capita allowance would be double compared to europe!
You are biggest polluter of entire world 1/4th of CO2 emissions. Russia and china combined are as large polluter as you are. USA pollutes 50% more than EU while EU has 50% bigger population so think about fairness, when kyoto would give americans a far bigger share of the CO2 allowance than anyone else. Think about fairness.Your per capita allowance is ten times any developing country.
Besides china HAS reduced its CO2 emissions levels. And what you could say about its ECONOMY has it grown or reduced during the process?
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
The best strategy when you don't like your country's laws is NOT to leave, but to try to fix them. Leaving is the absolute last resort. Leaving is only appropriate when there's no hope of changing people's minds. The love it or leave it attitude is extremely stupid. Yes, I just called you stupid. Your post proves you are.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
What happens if the Earth warms up and it has absolutely nothing to do with human activity? What then? Because if the Earth is warming, that is the most logical first conclusion. Instead, what we get is that any measurable change in the Earth's climate MUST be the fault of those evil, evil humans who are destroying God's Eden paradise, where the deer and the bunnies are best friends and speak English to each other when those evil defiler Humans aren't there to shoot their mothers. (That's for the hippies and Michael Moore fans who might believe that "Bambi" was a documentary).
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
Yes, that's the beginning of Robin's monologue.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
What is this, is it an obligation to be proud to be a citizen of whatever country? I am dutch, and I am not proud because of that. In fact noone IMHO has the right to be proud because of whatever citizenship. Citizenship is something you get because of birth, so there is no merit whatsoever to be proud of.
This kind of illogical pride generates nationalism, which in turn generates war and conflicts.
There is no Global warming.
The U.S. is right not to sign Kyoto.
I agree that it's all politics.
CleptDomainiac's motto... Only steal from the best.
The adminstration has done this. Its recent, but its a step in the right direction.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I assumed Robin was stretching the truth, at the very least. Also, of course, this is a very old monologue. (Not that they didn't have guns, then, either, but probably fewer of them had guns.) I believe Robin was just trying to be funny, and was taking a few liberties in that pursuit...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
fuck everybody else
we r the US, we fuck you, we invade you, we polute you. Have a nice day... *sight*
An Irish comedian who years ago had a TV in the UK told a joke like this:
500 years ago, if you was homosexual, you would be tortured, burnt with red hot branding irons, hung, drawn and quartered.
300 years ago, if you was homosexual, you would be tortured, burnt with red hot branding irons, and hung
100 years ago, if you was homosexual, you would be tortured, abused, thrown in jail on bread and water until you died. 50 years ago, if you was homosexual, you would be jailed in the most embarrassing way (and all secrets would be public) so the shame would kill you. 20 years ago, if you was homosexual, you will be abused and be pushed out of normal life... but you lived. 10 years ago, if you was homosexual, it was accepted if you stayed in the closet. Today, if you are homosexual, you have rights! In 10 years time it we be MANDATORY to be homosexual, OR ELSE you will be be tortured, burnt with red hot branding irons, hung, drawn and quartered and shagged.
Yeah, just find a federal judge and say the following sentance:
"I hereby renounce my citizenship of the United States of America." That's it, and you don't technically have to sign anything even. I think you can also do this to a U.S. consul or diplomat for the same effect, or scribble something to that effect and send it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. A postcard would do just fine that way as well.
BTW, I am not a USA-ian, I am an American and damn proud of it. Thank you swv3752 for pointing that out. I live in America and am a citizen of one of its states. Unfortunately there are many people who can't figure out that the country of America even exists.
The only reasonable thing that can be done along with the "credits", is to raise minimum requirements for MPG in automobiles and trucks.
Watch such legislation be a windfall for holders of patents on processes used in hybrid vehicles. Then watch such patent holders gain leverage in Congress and get U.S. legislators to Sonny Bono the relevant patents to 30 or 40 years instead of 20.
The main reason that jobs are being outsourced to other sections of the globe is because the cost of labor in the US is high. We have minimum wage laws that prevent us from hiring people at the low wages that people in third world countries are willing to work for. Remember, their cost of living is a lot less as well. Also, remember their average quality of living is a lot lower, too.
As an aside, I wonder if people who scream against outsourcing are the same people that will chatise you for not giving a quarter to a homeless man. In the former, at least the money is going to someone who is willing to honestly work for it.
Overall, you only need to look back over the last several hundred years to realize there have been constant and often, much more drastic changes in economies and job distribution as technology advances have allowed for more effecient organizations of said economies. Have these left mankind as a whole in a worse condition? If you only look at the immediate effects, you might say yes but I see that there has always been an adaption that occurs to handle whatever real problems are presented by the change. Things have always stabalized at a higher level.
...and Poland, don't forget Poland!
To any Canadians reading this: we know that you don't approve of our lifestyles or our choices, but you're still one of our best friends. Noone gets to you without fighting us first. Remember, though, that we're spending over $700 per person per year more than you to defend our two countries. Yes, you guys have managed to do some pretty neat things with your tax revenue, but we could probably use that money for some nifty projects of our own if we weren't using it for mutual defense.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I don't believe 'Al Qaeda' is a signatory party to the Geneva Convention
:-)
No. They didn't. But we did. Get it? Besides despite their plainly wrong worldview, they all are citizens of some sovereign nation on this planet and covered by a fuckload of other treaties as well as such. If you are going to walk the walk and talk the talk as a freedom-loving nation, you have to do it whole hog. It is called 'credibility.' Conservatives talk a lot about this notion, but often possess not a single ounce.
What's it say in the Bible? Do no practice evil nor wear evil's garments. Something to that effect. Shooting prisoners is evil. Talking your way around the fact that a prisoner was shot is evil. But what American bothers to read the Bible anyway? Oh, wait. Me.... I love how conservatives hate situational ethics except in their own situation.
Insert Strawman Argument about John Kerry here. I wrote Kucinich in. Now there's a credible patriotic American.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
As much as I hate to credit Bush with good judgement, especially in respect to the enviornment I think he may be correct about the Kyoto treaty. I realize that most enviornmentalist and liberals strongly support the Kyoto treaty but often they seem not to look past the fact that it is a pro-enviornment international agreement. Good policy deciscions, enviornmental or not, need to be based on a detailed estimation of the effects not simply warm feelings about the intended goal. It is not uncommon for economic and societal regulation to have paradoxical effects and actually encourage the opposite of their intended consequence and I fear Kyoto may be such an example.
In particular the danger with Kyoto is that it places legal caps on emissions from developed countries while enforcing no such requirements on third world countries. There are non-binding targets but realistically few third world countries are going to sacrifice economic development for a non-binding CO2 emissions target. I can't really say I blame them, certainly if I was living in poor squalid conditions I would not take kindly to my government sacrificing my chance to earn a better wage because the industrialized countries dumped too much CO2 into the air when they were trying to modernize.
The economic consequences now seem fairly obvious. A plant built in a first world country, party to the Kyoto treaty, is likely to require a more expensive emission control system or the purchase of emissions credits in addition to the already high price of labor. Therefore Kyoto is likely to simply encourage the building of CO2 emitting plants in third world countries on whom the treaty is not binding. Even if some provision of the treaty or national law prevents the company in question from building such a plant themselves it will only be a short time before investors in china or elsewhere realize they can produce widgets much cheaper and construct a factory to supply them.
Now if the effect of the treaty was simply to move jobs and plants overseas I would have no problem with it. I think the idea that americans (or your favorite first world nation) should keep jobs rather than giving them to desperatly poor third world nations is downright selfish. The claptrap that these jobs, who the people in the third world seem to overwhelmingly prefer to their former employment, are somehow actually bad for the residents of the third world is just a flimsy cover story so liberals don't feel squeamish about supporting organized labour. Admitedly there are cases where companies have moved in and abused the local population, and we need to be carefull about totalitarian regimes like china joining forces with multinational corporations to exploit their citizens. However, it is arrogant and insulting to suggest that the citizens of a democracy like india are not perfectly capable of deciding if a corporate factory or plant is to their national detriment or benefit.
Loss of jobs, though probably the concern of the Bush administration, is not the real danger. More disturbing is the prospect that by further encouraging factory relocation to the third world we actually increase CO2 emissions. Already most first world countries have some emission control requirements but by increasing the cost of emissions significantly we will push many plants and operations over the line where relocation guarantees a significant increase in profit. However, once in a third world country they will have even less incentive to curtail CO2 emissions thus potentially increasing global CO2 production.
Admitedly this is probably much more of an issue for the US, because of it's more liquid markets and production, than it is for europe. Also europe may already be affected by this problem with factories moving the the USA. So while european nations signing the Kyoto treaty may result in a reduction of CO2 emissions it is quite possible that the long term effect of a US signature would be to *increase* emissions by encouraging factories to locate in areas wi
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
what it says. And that is taking a lot on faith. As the Bush administration doesn't keep its word very often. And these 3 emmission are not the primary greenhouse gases, so their effects aren't going to make much of a difference.
A company led by competent leaders will always attempt to choose the path leading to the greatest efficiency at generating profit, within their means. If we reduce the efficiency of the company, it may not be as profitable, or maybe not profitable at all.
If a company is operating at a net profit margin of $400K per year, and new requirements require a $500K/yr additional cost, with no net-profit return, the sensible thing for the company to do is to liquidate assets as soon as possible and dissolve. Thus, jobs are lost, not created.
If the new requirement adds a cost of $300K/yr with no addtional return, that reduces capital available for investment and development by that amount. Thus, jobs resulting from investment (such as research and construction) are lost.
Both cases above result in a net loss of jobs.
If energy costs increase overall, that increases the costs for all customers without adding anything positive to the output, probably resulting in more lost jobs by the energy customers than the energy provider will add.
By the way - Outsourcing is when a company hires someone else to do the work. Offshoring is when a company moves an operation or function overseas. Offshoring is more likely to result in net domestic job losses than outsourcing.
"Global Temperatures Will Continue To Rise as a result of CO2 emissions even if 100% of the world wholeheartedly adopted Kyoto TODAY."
4
Absolute bullshit. Even the IPCC and the various IPCC reports Kyoto stems from admits that a fully ratified and supported Kyoto will make a negleible difference in anthropogenic global warming. And the anthropogenig (human-made) global warming is a willy nilly 0,38% of the complete global greenhous egas contributions.
Try researching what you're talking about before talking about it. Here's just a tiny bit to chew on: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/17/15110/519
The problem is that it penalizes countries that started reducing their emissions _BEFORE_ 1990. Now if you were polluting like hell back then, reducing your emissions is easy...
This is actually what happened to Finland. Stupid politicians. It would have been totally fine to just ignore the treaty and just announce that we were unilaterally doing the equivalent thing except using the peak emission year of the 80's as the basis.
Russia didn't accept because of good foreign policy. Maybe only partially. They accepted because they pollute less now than their target and they can sell the rest of their pollution quota and make money.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Chicago Climate Exchange. Now, we just have to get more companies to sign on.
'Chicago Climate Exchange,® Inc. (CCX®) is a self-regulatory exchange that administers the world's first multi-national and multi-sector marketplace for reducing and trading greenhouse gas emissions.'
Oooo the 6.2 billion people who are not American are shacking in their boots. Heres hoping the nuke that takes out Washington DC is a French one.
I don' t find it ironic. I just call it politics. I don't think it hypocritical to want balance on both the issues. You seem to gloss of the whole outsourcing issue by relating it solely to environmental policy. There are many factors affecting the lost of manufacturing jobs in the US and it is not just EPA policy. Our high wage is also a reflection of the higher cost of living in the US. Everything from health care to gasoline is up. Most of our jobs go to countries, where either there is spartan labor laws (heard of sweat shops) or many services are provide by the government (socialism/communism). Moreover, the Bush administration has thrown out alot of environmental regulations in addition to rejecting Kyoto and we are still losing jobs. Ultimately, we simply want a way to make a living and raise a family. But, we also want this planet to be habitable for our children. Both these concerns have to be weighed and given a balanced priority. It is not being finicky but rather a consequence of the times in which we find ourselves. Our leaders should have some insight on the best direction we should take that balances those priorities. Sadly, I don't think this administration posesses that quality.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Woah there fella. He is just avoiding offending Canadians/Mexicans/etc by using the term American. No need to fly off the rocker.
Wow, talk about selective reading. In that same article, they mention that it is known that human activities have been shown to make a difference in the climate.
Who actually believes that you can make statements about small (0.5%) variations in a system...
If I understand you, you're trivializing the temperature variations that have been mentioned, and equating them to an insignificant change just because they don't seem large numerically? Those small changes, if doubled or tripled (or contrary-wise, halved or divided by three), would have gigantic ramifications on our lives, both in the way we live, and the way the things around us live, upon which we depend; and that's ignoring their current effects as-is.
I suppose it highlights the difference in opinion, and the the subsequent dif
ference in interpretation.
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)
Jobs and environmental rules are not mutually exclusive. This line of reasoning is often used by people who opose environmental regulation.
/cleaning up as a cost to
I used to be an environmental engineer, and saw first hand how companies view running operations cleanly
minimize, public health/right thing be dammed. To view it any other way is to be niave. Government regulations serve to increase the cost of polluting enough it becomes economically better not to pollute.
Not to mention who knows how NOT ratifiying the treaty will effect US exports (will Kyoto Nations be able to slap a stiff tarif on goods the US produces because we pollute to much so trading with us is unfair(I'm not claiming to be an expert on that incredibly complex WTO contract, who knows what in that thing)).
In short much like NAFTA, these contracts and accords have an almost impossible to predict impact on economies.
Kyoto may not be perfect but its a start. To bad the US isn't going to be part of the solution and didn't work to make something that they found more palatable.
The US is committed to the principals of Kyoto?
Is that why the EPA is trying not to regulate "greenhouse" gasses as a pollutants???.
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=101241
So, sorry, relief isn't coming from there.
Ratifing nintendo at their base in kyoto will make people more happy and a peaceful world.
Remember you can't spell tokyo without kyoto.
You seem to have overloaded your misinformation inhibitors.
If you are proud to be an US-Citizen today you either don't follow any news or are totally ignorant.
Linux is not Windows
World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.
To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.
What does that mean? Life on planet Earth isn't sustainable at the current population level at anything near the current lifestyle enjoyed by most people in industrialized nations.
We have some really hard choices coming up:
- Reduce the population. Drastically - like to a worldwide level of maybe 100 million people.
- Accept a lifestyle more in line with a Bangladeshi farmer for everyone on the planet. You don't get to use any energy you didn't produce.
- Start planning on the survival of the human race based on getting resources from places other than just Earth. And start doing something about this soon.
Of course, the last item is the one that makes sense - we're not going to do either of the other two. Unfortunately, until we get over the "it might be dangerous" we need to start making people understand the other two alternatives do really exist.Come on, folks, can't you see that waste products are being created at a rate faster than they are naturally recycled? What does that mean?
So you live in a state in America. Which country? Last time I checked, both North and South America consisted of a large amount of separate countries.
(do you see the difference between "american" and "USA:ian" now?)
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
Mod story = -1
Clinton didn't like the Kyoto treaty any more than Bush. He didn't sign it either
Seriously, it adds nothing useful to the discussion.
Yes, commodoresloat, you are an "it" -- bigoted fucking dumbasses like you are things, not people.
(do you see the difference between "american" and "USA:ian" now?)
United States of Mexico = Mexico = Mexican
United States of America = America = American
Or are you suggesting that USM:ian somehow makes sense?
The Landmine Ban Treaty (would hurt the weapons industry).
The US does not export land mines.
"Looks like Russia has picked up where the U.S. failed..."
It's amazing what ones choice of words can tell you about the person who wrote this story. Failure? Failure assumes one wanted to be involved in the first place. No, don't be so self-centered, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about national policy in general. The US didn't want to be involved in Kyoto period. There was no failure. There was no effort, policy or want to join Kyoto. And as long as we're being unbiased, maybe it was because of studies such as this:
The Sun is Getting Hotter
G lobal warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtm l?xml=/ne ws/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/i xnewstop.html
Or this:
Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
T he Sun, Stanford University Sunspots are plentiful nowadays A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.
They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.
This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.
Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the invention of the telescope. They provide the longest-running direct measurement of our star's activity. The variation in sunspot numbers has revealed the Sun's 11-year cycle of activity as well as other, longer-term changes. In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.
This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. Ice core disc, Epica Ice cores record climate trends back beyond human measurements It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/386975 3. stm
Or possibly even (and slightly more combative):
Global Warming Activists Studiously Ignore History's Cycles of Warming and Cooling
The latest pseudo-scientific parlor game is pretending that the Little Ice Age didn't happen. We're supposed to ignore the historic reality that the world's mean temperatures dropped sharply by 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit from about 1300 AD until at least 1850 AD and fell perhaps a freaky 9 degrees below today's average temperatures in the 13th century.
Let's pretend this well-documented spasm of freezing cold, advancing glaciers, and terrible storms did not freeze the Viking settlers on Greenland to death or create Europe's "year without a summer" in 1315, when crops failed and created massive famine. The silly game of "hide the Little Ice Age" is being played to support the g
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I tend to agree with the first poster, if it doesn't benefit the US then to hell with it.
WE should be looking out for OUR best interest, not some other 2 bit countries..
( likewise, they should be looking out for their best interest.. equal opportunity here )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The rest of the world is naive.
You sir are a tool. Enjoy your tooldom.
The reason I like kyoto is that it spells out for the layman to see: Nuclear power is a good thing. Get those goddamn coal/oil plants shut *down* and replaced by clean and efficient nuke plants already.
Did the poster actually read the Kyoto Treaty?
Russia signed into the Treaty because under it, it has the ability to "sell" pollution levels to other countries that will exceed their specified maximum. THAT's why Russia's joined in. You think with their current condition they will ever get close to their specified max level?
Give me a break. "Picked up where the US has failed."
It would have ravaged companies and our economy would be worse off if it was ratified. I'm glad it wasn't.
Might as well be a parody. Few informed people tae them seriously.
They will be building more Chernobyls than ever!!!
The European police will be able to stop using those expensive nightvision cameras to catch criminals.
I would hardly say we 'failed.' We simply didn't agree with this stupid treaty, which is designed only as a wealth transfer device. And, Russia did not sign it because of an abiding desire to do right by the environment; it was blackmail, pure and simple, by the EU. As of 9 months ago, when I was living there, Putin was saying no-way, no-how, because he (rightly) figured it would cost Russia too much money. Guess the balance sheet of what they'll gain in their new EU deal will more than make up for their Kyoto losses.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
The United States produces 60%+ of the world's pollution at the moment. Without them joining in it is moot. The goals can be never achieved. Sorry.
And how do you *know* all this to be fact.
About 10,000 years ago, the ground was covered by many meters of ice (Illinois). I would say the climate change from then to now was "global warming". And where was Kyoto in all this? And who was responsible for melting all that ice? And who will take responsibility if we head back to an ice age and could have done something about it way back in the year 2004, except for some very misguided folks who thought warming was bad.
cheers
Just because Kyoto is "taking effect" that doesn't mean that non-signers are bound by it. They are not. This is not like an amendment to the U.S. Constitution where a cetain % of support from the Congress and state governments forces the amendment on the entire country.
The amendment doesn't become law because Capitol Hill signs it that way. It becomes law because someone actively enforces it, and the majority of people choose to follow it.
Just as tyrants only remain leaders as long as the populace accepts their claim to power.
Without a system of consequences for non-compliance and a body to enforce that system, that has been accepted as having that authority by those involved, the rules will not take effect.
Prediction: Now that everyone has signed on the dotted line for the Treaty, and can't just suddenly back out, the consqences for breaking the treaty will be set to levels so low it will be more benificial to violate the treaty and face the consequences than follow it. Either that or nations will violate the treaty and nobody will do anything about it.
Saddam Hussein did not remain in power because we were unaware he was violating human rights, ect. He remained in power because he had no one to ultimately answer to. It was only once someone stepped out of their authority and took matters into their own hands that something happened.
What authority do the Kyoto signers all HAVE to answer to?
Nobody.
This really is looking like feel-good legilation on a global scale, just like spam laws being passed by state governments.
That THIRD WORLD TERRORIST is a member of the BILDERBERGER group, planning MIND CONTROL by bouncing the HAARP signals off of CHEMTRAILS, Manipulating the FEDERAL RESERVE and denying you STATUS as a LEGAL PERSON (and your BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a receipt for this payment). INCOME TAX is illegal under the CONSTITUTION of the US and the BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, and only the "POWER OF THE COUNTY" can enforce the true constitution. You don't actually need a DRIVERS LICENSE because MAGNA CARTA guarantees the right to use the "public way". The KYOTO PROTOCOL is a branch of the ELDERS OF ZION, and by reducing greenhouse gasses, safeguards the performance of CHEMTRAILS in reflecting HAARP signals so they can continue using MIND CONTROL along with their friends in the PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION.
I'm sure there's even more crazy conspiracy theories out there...
I assume you're talking about the propaganda induced belief that nationalism was the reason the first two World Wars were fought?
World War I was caused by thirst for power of LEADERS mixed with a system of alliances that created a time bomb in wich the question was not "will there be a massive war" but "when will we have the war?".
World War II was caused primarily because of the mistreatment of Germany after WWI. Europe turned Germany into their bitch, kept Germany beat down and extracted every penny from Germany. Germany's people did not like this. It was not a matter of nationalism but a matter of being beaten down over something a non-elected no longer existant government did. So they elected someone that said all the righ things and history marched on.
In a world where people think it's "bad" to be (insert whatever nationality here), it's only logical that we'd give them a big middle finger by being PROUD of being *who we are*.
I have a question to all these anti-Kyoto Americans. If the Kyoto treaty was indeed a ploy aimed at hurting America's economy more than the other countries', and that Europe was purposefully out to get you...why the hell did they go ahead with it even after the US refused to sign it?
Remember: Europe and the countries that ratified the treaty (including China, which was exempt!) are choosing to put a small brake on their industries even though it gives the US an advantage in an increasingly competitive world.
Doesn't this boggle the mind of the "hurr hurr USA #1 all the other countries are out to get us" right-wingers? (sorry for generalizing, but it is my impression that right-wing Americans are the most paranoid and hateful of foreign nations) That those countries took an action that was about something else than increasing the GDP? I mean, I would assume this would fucking *short-circuit* your brains.
Hmmmm......you must be Canadian. Neither Americans nor Europeans would have problem playing hockey at 15 degrees .... though for entirely different reasons.
Politicians make lots of promises. Promises are cheap ways to buy votes.
The more relevant question would be: How many countries have reduced their emissions over the last 1, 3, and 5 years? That indicates a real commitment, rather than just paying lip service to sway the gullible.
Look at Canada, for example. It signed. But Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have been growing every year. Canadians are not tightening their belts in order to reduce CO2 emissions. That would require sacrifice.
The "scientists" can't explain the cyclical nature of ice ages and now all of the sudden they are sure the climate is changing due to CO2 emissions? Complete bullshit. Sure, the temperature might be rising, ice melting, etc. but to directly relate evidence A to bullshit conclusion B, is nonsense. These are the same scientist that know squat about the weather in general and have extremely small data regarding global climate data as a whole from the past 4 billion years. They got about 50 years data and some ice core samples...whoopity shit. You call that science?
I think (and hope) that you're right that avg MPG in autos will rise over the next 1/2 decade, but what I find particulary encouraging is the fact that the market appears to be driving that in large part. Dealerships couldn't keep the Prius on the lot and they were backordered for a long time. Hummer either has or is developing a hybrid, for cripes sakes.
I guess what I'm saying is that whether this is driven by regulation or by the market it's hard to argue that the result is undesirable. I'd be even more pleased if the latter ends up being the driving force, though.
Battling Beasts
And as another USA-ian, I fully extend my first amendment rights to say that you are a stupid fuckwitted ass muncher.
The atlantic conveyor has broken before with no man made help. As George Carlin said: (Paraphrase) "The earth has been here a long time. Its survived astriod impacts, etc. People say 'save the earth', I say the earth is going to be here long after we are. Its not save the earth, its save the humans".
Personally I find many in the enviromental movement that can't seem to understand that 98% of all species that has ever existed are no EXTINCT. Rather arrogant to thing we will be any different. Climate changes happen, impact from astriods happen, and we will either adapt or die. Its really that simple. Something to be said for "Eat, Drink, and be Merry for tomorrow we may all die".
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Carbon dioxide is not odorless. It literally smells like pure pain, at high enough concentrations. The same olfactory nerve cells responsible for the sense of smell will send "a sharp sense of pain" to the brain if, for example, you take a big whiff of dry ice. Lung tissue will react the exact same way.
Or maybe we know that the US Federal Government is not the country itself? hmmmm, radical notion indeed.
> Who do you think gets hit hardest?
Who do you think can contribute more?
Seriously, dude. This is not about your country.
Your country does not count now: it's about the entire Earth ship.
Don't sink the entire ship just to have one more glass of champagne.
That's funny, I don't think that I have ever met a Canadian or a Mexican that wanted to be referred to as an "American."
The whole USian (or whatever) is nothing more than a big fat crock of @#$%! More people refer to themselves as "Earthlings" than refer to themselves as being "from the American continent." In fact, I doubt that you can think of one person on the entire planet (who isn't a /. troll) that is confused by the term "American" referring to a citizen of the United States of America.
Heck, the English translation of the formal name for Mexico is the United States of Mexico. So in the surrealistic fantasy world where U.S. citizens are USians then Mexican citizens could be USians as well (since you are speaking in English).
Long story short, the English language doesn't parse like Python or Perl. There are exceptions big enough to drive a boat through. You can spend all day pointing out inconsistencies but no one with any friends is likely to care.
No confidence vote for Annan
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
The point was, and it was a very shallow one, that the shouting match is much, much funnier. Death has a tendency to sap an otherwise hilarious gunfight of much of its humor/humour. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Or does the US actually produce more emissions per year than they do?
We should just build big domes around the countries that don't sign up for global enviremental isuess, why should the rest of the world have to put up with your poluction and give you the oxygen that the plants in the rest of the world makes. Create your own oxygen and suck on your own polution if you don't want to play ball -Jay
Check out the website of the NRDC, the Natural Resource Defense Center; it has a chronological ordering of Bush's actions against the environment:
r y/_/rnd/1 100911430857/has-player/true/id/5939345/version/6. 0.12.1040
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/
This series of events is from just ONE MONTH in December of 2002; on the website, there's hundreds of documented cases of environmental abuse by Bush:
"December 2002
EPA exempts oil and gas industry from stormwater pollution rules (12/30/02)
Bush administration backtracking on policy of 'no net loss" of wetlands (12/26/02)
Judge deals setback to Bush oil drilling plans in Utah (12/23/02)
Bush administration weakens federal program for cleaning up dirty waters (12/21/02)
Judge slaps restraining order on plan to dredge Snake River (12/20/02)
BLM denies drilling access in Colorado wildlife range (12/20/02)
Judge gives Department of Interior extension on manatee plan (12/19/02)
White House begins process of relaxing government regulations for industry (12/19/02)"
Once again, just a list of cases from one MONTH of his presidency; similar events occur every month.
Don't try to refute this by just saying the NRDC is full of hippies; if you have objections to their claims, please give counter-evidence.
Here's another interesting article I found from Rolling Stone online:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto
Perhaps the most damning accusation against the Bush administration from above article:
"Under the White House's guidance, the very agencies entrusted to protect Americans from polluters are laboring to destroy environmental laws. Or they've simply stopped enforcing them. Penalties imposed for environmental violations have plummeted under Bush. The EPA has proposed eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, which would drop staff levels to the lowest level ever. Inspections of polluting businesses have dipped fifteen percent. Criminal cases referred for federal prosecution have dropped forty percent. The EPA measures its success by the amount of pollution reduced or prevented as a result of its own actions. Last year, the EPA's two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration's refusal to carry out environmental laws."
This still not enough evidence? Just do a quick google search on "bush environmental policy." You'll literally see hundreds of websites crticizing his policies. This is one of the most hostile administrations to a clean America.
It isn't like the government can pitch in and subsidize modernizations that lead to a cleaner economy.
As if there's money left over after we subsidize Big Oil with our Iraq adventure for something as BOOOORRRRRING as the environment and the long term sustenance of the human race on the planet Earth. If there are any surplus funds, they should be used for something flashy, like a mission to mars and a moon base for our neocon elite leaders. The bonus? Such a moonbase will make The Rapture that much easier for Our Lord Jesus. And you KNOW that's gotta be good for the environment!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
"Yeah, the worst thing they have in England is drive by, arguments"
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
And we may see CIA put a dictator in charge of Venezuela, and then suddenly realize he's evil and send troops there to overthrow the guy (and cash in on the oil, too). That's exactly what happened in Iraq. Why do you think this can't happen in Venezuela? On the other hand, the US would be pretty stupid to even attempt to pull off something like this against Russia. ICBMs only take about 9 minutes to get from there to the US, you know.
You'll notice that around the year 2000, China produced approximately 800 million metric tons of CO2, and the US produced approximately 1.5 billion metric tons of CO2. Since then, China has actually managed to decrease its emissions, and I believe ours have increased.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So, your idea of utopia is when evryone works 24/7?
When my idea is that no-one 'works', everything is free so you don't give a shit that you only earn US$22/month.
Maybe that's a bit 'commie', but then isn't China supposed to be communist? $22 commie a month goes a lot further than $22 consumer a hounr.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
One of the most important characteristics of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets up a framework for countries to work together on global warming issues. The point is less what it proposes to do today (the cuts it asks for are a drop in the bucket compared to what is actually known to be necessary in the long run) than that it bring all parties to the table with a framework to work within. The protocol wasn't set in stone when the US refused to sign it. There was plenty of room for negotiation. As the largest CO2 emitter in the world (and the world's only superpower), the US had a great deal of sway over exactly what the Kyoto rules were. What we walked away from was the global discussion on how to address a massive global problem.
When you look at the probable damages predicted from more extreme weather events, and rising sea levels and then consider that renewable energy is the only viable long term energy solution for the entire world of consumers, it becomes clear that the economic arguments against moving to renewables is noting more than FUD.
Finally, any new industry that requires substantial infrastructure will inevitably create massive numbers of jobs. Investment in renewable energy will easily produce more jobs than comparable investments in oil, coal, or natural gas. See for example this PDF for an analysis of the jobs that renewables would create.
Are you one of those religious nuts that still believe that Man was created by the hand of God.
Try some magic mushrooms, you can get them online easy enough, and they should sort out your psychiatric problems.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Ok,and IANAR, Bushes scientific advisers said that the 'clean air policy' is a load of shit, or at least his version of it.
Also, sulfur dioxide =acid rain
nitrogen oxides = acid rain (and it gets you off your tits!)
mercury emissions = stupid people (well they must be too high then!)
How does that help reduce Co2 emissions?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Let's try again:
28% Europe and FSU
24% United States
13% China
5% Japan
(and 29% other)
If you like to split Europe, I'd need to split
up the US. There's the red states and the blue
states you know. California often acts like a
separate country.
From another poster in this story:
China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita).
Interesting article about conflicting / confusing global temperature data, mainly related to the poles. Things aren't as clear as you may think:
"If you look at the long term records, the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today," says Christy. He cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70 degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the Arctic were 1937 and 1938.Odd warming and cooling trends, since 1917, warm in 1938, cooling down after 1940, warming back up again (maybe just returning to normal?) One pole's temperature moving the opposite of the other.
I've been holding back on posting on Slashdot for about the past 5 years (With a couple exceptions. I was on the forum under a different "handle" before, but I couldn't remember my e-mail address then if my life depended on it). In my time reading these forums I've seen a lot of good tech discusssion with a lot of answers and suggestions, and a lot of bad political discussion with little "insight" and little "solution".
So far:
The U.S.A. is Evil, or Great (KM or Miles may vary upon location on the Earth)
Pollution is Bad, Economic growth is therefore bad or good (if in my neighborhood), (KM or Miles may vary upon location on the Earth)
Economic growth is good, Pollution is Bad (this doesn't vary)
Logic is gone, and we can't go beyond 0's and 1's on Slashdot without a flamewar (this is varied only by few intelligent posts among thosands, and I claim to have little among the brightest posters)
Anyways, without further ado, here is my real post...
Where is a solution to this topic? Honestly I get depressed when I see a thread describing the end of life as we know it, but don't loose your job.
I think I speak for many when I say there is much confusion. I know that the Earth is changing, and from the posts on Slashdot I've read in my 5 years, it's not much different from what we would do to terraform a planet. Yet in our case we will add too much atmosphere and destroy life rather than foster it.
Then I've read posts that the Economy, not just U.S., but wordwide, is in such a state of flux, that maybe in 10 years I can't feed my family, or even heat my house.
Then I've read posts that say I'm gonna get ass cancer and skin cancer, but there will be a robot that can suck up dust on my carpet without my Wife yelling at me.
There are posts that say Kyoto is a great Global "policy" that will save all of human kind. At the same time it will make me poor, and I'll have to eat stale bread and dirty water.
What am I getting at?
I guess I'll ask Slashdot... As a U.S. Citizen, should I crawl under a rock, feed the world, lead the world, screw Bush, vote for Bush, still ride the bus, or maybe get a fuel efficient car... Drink Heineken or Grolsch (which is the better NL beer?), Should I write a song, and hope everyone hears it and holds hands like the old Coca-Cola commercial? Should I care about Kyoto?
I hope I get an answer soon. Politics are a great subject on Slashdot. Unlike the "ASK Slashdot: Should I use Linux, or stick with Windows?"
My Solution for the U.S.
This is all my own opinion, maybe formulated from years of listening to too much shit...
I think we should pull out of Iraq, pull out of every European Military operation we have. Protect our borders, and even those of Mexico and Canada where we can, and put more interest in fixing things on our side of the planetn (With South America in mind too). We should get less dependent on Oil, and create a whole new economy as leaders in new energy sources, and still crank out some excellent movies and computer games. We should pay more attention to family and what it means to have our best resource (our kids) jepordized by stupid political agenda. In my eyes, and from the sentiment I see, the world can go fuck themselves. We can pretty much isolate, suffer a bit, and rebound in a big way as far as what people think of us, and the things we can accomplish. And the rest of the world, while they are pondering what the hell the once "Superpower" is doing can clean up their back yard, and say, hey, they weren't that bad after all. This is my egocentric view, and I think my community, my neighbors are pretty damn good people. Bush and his cabinet may be asses, may geniuses, but hell, they think they are doing what is best. I voted for Kerry, and I want our troops home, and drinking in our Taverns again. I wish them safe voyages (or convoys)...
Ok... this was a spew post... but hell, Politics is not law, and not technology law. And without a good solution, like the one I just didn't propose, it doesn't make much sense on Slashdot, and sends my mind in 20 different directions.
How about planting a whole lot of trees?
Yes, I'm being facetious, but I'm also being a bit serious.
Here's another idea - find industrial sources of wasted CO2 and plant trees around them - or harvest the CO2. The Miller brewing company in Irwindale, CA comes to mind immediately - there's nothing surrounding the brewery but a quarry, interstates 605 and 210, and old US 66. And they brew shitloads of beer per month - that's a shitload of CO2.
This sig no verb.
We didn't do this? I forgot exactly why, but I remember that it was a fairly good reason, something particularly wrong with the wording or something. Though I think we should have suggested a better version of it, you know, so people don't think we're just going to pump a bunch of CFC's in the ozone to spite them or something. Now that I think about it that would be hilarious. Until we got skin cancer, anyway.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
I'm sick of Russian winter.Hail global warming!
The problem is that it does so at HUGE expense; an expenditure of money that would be better spent adjusting to higher temperatures than trying to change them. After all, if we could stop hurricanes from reaching the US shore, we would be willing to spend $1B on each one. We don't do that because We Can't Change The Weather. All we can do is deal with it, and Kyoto wastes the money needed to do that.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
1. US emitts ~21%, china ~13%. Which is larger? Which has the largest population?
2. Europe is still not a country.
We also have no plan whatsoever on how we're actually going to IMPLIMENT the treaty either...
Patriotism is the belief that your country is the best simply because you were born in it.
Honestly now, can we quite fucking the Kyoto Treaty as if it's some sacared cow and the environmental apocolypse will rain down upon us if everybody doesn't climb aboard and give it a blow job? I didn't list that stuff to prove you wrong. I listed it to illustrate the point that there are other factors that probably have far more influence than man ever could short of nuclear wepondry. You know, like nature itself?
You ignore the fact that there are far more reputable, peer-reviewed studies attributing global warming to man-made greenhouse gases.
But let's hypothesize that you are right. What happens if we enter into the Kyoto Treaty and it doesn't solve the problem? Well, we'll have reduced air pollution. Fewer people will have asthma and other respiratory problems. Many of the dirty fossil fuel powerplants will probably have been replaced by nuclear, cutting demand for fossil fuels. That hardly sounds like a bad thing.
Now I know that the big businesses that bought Bush scream that reducing air pollution will put thousands of people out of work. They said the same thing when tighter pollution regulations were put on cars in the early '70s. They claimed that there would never again be high performance cars. They said that no one would be able to afford cars. They said that fuel economy would suffer horribly. But look at the situation today. You can get a Corvette with 400hp (at the rear wheels) that gets over 22mpg. Or you can get a 300hp Subaru WRX that also gets 22mpg. There's less air pollution in urban areas (e.g., Los Angeles). And there are far more cars on the road today than there were in 1970.
Now let's turn it around and suppose that we do nothing and that global warming does turn out to be caused by greenhouse gases. In that case, we may see temperatures spiral out of control, species be killed in mass extinctions, and devastating severe weather that kills thousands and leaves even more homeless. In the worst-case scenario, much of humanity could be killed off.
I'd rather err on the side of caution, reduce pollution, improve the environment, and hope that it solves, or reduces, global warming.
It's politics. It's what's left unsaid that's the real killer. The so-called "clear skies" bill does little for real pollution control, and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about global warming. They're making do-nothingism sound good. Looks like they fooled at least one person.
Energy: time to change the picture.
If you are not proud to be a Dutch Citizen, then perhaps you need to move to where you can be a proud to be a Citizen.
Citizenship is a choice. One can choose to move to the USA and become a US Citizen. I understand that some other countries allow foreign nationals to become citizens. If you are not proud of your choices, then you should be making different ones.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
(swallows Doctor O's crazy pills)
...or you can just stop bringing me any old piece of trash you find laying around.
Let us not forget that Bruce Clinton was actually the silent partner and secret lover of Prescott Bush during the 30s as well.
Bruce also secretly funded the Nazi Impact Projection Project for Employing Ladies (NIPPEL) by capitalizing on favorable exchange rates between the deutche mark and the american dollar at neighborhood brothels.
And further there is proof that he used most of the proceeds to purchase a time machine, a fleet of black helicopters and a cloned baby jesus. All of which he delivered to Prescott on his birthday, September 11th.
Prescott's Uni-time Motion Project (PUMP) will be responsible for unleashing the Anti-Christ upon the world in the year 2012 when his time machine arrives to unleash it's fleet of black helicopters on all the unbelievers!
(Fight Club flashback)
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Australia is a major coal producer and isn't signing up because it would fuck them over at the benefit of the Chinese and Indians. The same reason the US isn't doing it. All the Europeans will discover is that their industries will be shipped to those countries at a much faster rate.
He is showing disrespect for all US Citizens. I am calling him out on it.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
most of the global warming that occurred in the last century happened before 1950. OMG! we better do something now!!!!!!!!!!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
Dress Like a Target!
You aren't big on live and let live, are you? I agree that it is a bit silly but the point is it isn't a big deal, and it isn't an attack on your patriotism.
Whew !! The Libs are out in full force on this one. These posts read like a DNC convention.
Right, and everybody should listen to some know-it-all person on slashdot who calls themself "mumblestheclown" and calls people asshats.
What is this, is it an obligation to be proud to be a citizen of whatever country? I am dutch, and I am not proud because of that. In fact noone IMHO has the right to be proud because of whatever citizenship. Citizenship is something you get because of birth, so there is no merit whatsoever to be proud of.
I fail to see how it is wrong to take pride in something you are a part of. I vote. I participate in political discussions. I try and improve my community. I write my elected officials with my opinions on important issues. I am not a passive spectator that just "exists" in my country. Maybe you are and that's fine, but surely you can't be saying it is wrong to take pride in something you've helped improve, even in a small way?
Geez. Next you'll be telling me it is wrong to take pride in my company.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
As rising fuel prices are likely to cause some kind of a crunch in the US over the next few months, I can't see how well the US is going to fare, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of increased pressure to play ball.
who's going to make the US comply with an accord we never signed? The UN? FUCK the UN. Buncha corrupt, scandal ridden assholes who can't even stop genocide in the Sudan and took no action against Hussein because they were on the take in the oil for food programme.
All you whiney fucks who think you can make us comply are certainly welcome to try.
China doesn't give its place for pollution too... Bejing is quite bad for air quality.. those poor athletes in 2008
But China doesnt meet the requirements to be in Kyoto if i'm not mistaken (developpement level?)
*lol*
And yet there you are, getting all excited about it. Pot kettle.
You know, global warming isn't necessarily going to warm evenly across the globe. While some areas will definitely get warmer, others might have their environment thrown off kilter in ways that are hard to predict. Here in the Great Lakes region of the USA, we're looking at the unpleasant prospect of more snow and rain from climate change. There is speculation that, if too many glaciers melt into the ocean and the water loses salinity (salt concentration) because of it, the water current in the atlantic "conveyor belt" that brings warm temperatures to the surrounding landmasses will shut down. This means a frosty future for your great-great-great grandchildren. Regardless of such a doomsday scenario, short-term warming in frozen areas isn't all that grand either - the permafrost ground turns to mush. What happens to structures built upon it?
Back to my original point, this is global warming we're talking about. It simply means that when you add up all the temperatures across the planet, the number is higher than the years before. This can mean 3 degrees warmer in Siberia, and 2 degrees colder in southwest Russia.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
When the Americans lose 270,000 civilians in a war then they will be allowed to make disparaging remarks about other countries.
Oh, and the French also lost 50% more military casualties than the Americans in the European Theatre during the second world war.
That percentage is not constant.
/. article:
To quote from the BBC article that was linked (and quoted) in the
"Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level."
This sounds like a constant percentage to me. Do you want to deny obvious facts? And in case you mean that 5.2% will result in higher absolute number for bigger countries: duh! This is the point.
Uhhh.... China has ratified the treaty as well.
If all the other countries agree to the same restrictions as they are demanding of industrialized countries, then let's talk about a treaty for that purpose. But don't ask for manifest unfairness and sacrifice for a few with nothing required of the rest.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
and how exactly can you be proud of something you didn't achieve yourself?
p.s. pride goeth before a fall.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
The right to sell huge numbers of them cheap to the third world.
Why don't you vouch for hydrogen? It's much cleaner than nuclear fission.
/ JA DFINAL.pdf
Read this and tell me nuclear fission is all clean.
http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/genpatu/india
short term economic advantages for hundreds of years of a unstable and dangerous climate which threatens the whole of mankind. Thanks uncle sam.
The best long term interests of the USA is
not to thumb its nose at the Kyoto Treaty.
Of course, turning the Arctic Circle into
new shipping lanes can come in handy when
most agricultural production of NA shifts
to northern Canada. USA's real estate
developers will have a field day touting
"ocean front property" in Arizona. And
the US Army Corp of Engineers will have
several decades of new construction work
to build dikes.
It would seem that the downside of ignoring
Kyoto would have a huge impact on the rest
of the world. Holding the USA responsible
for the climactic devastation could prove to
be far more expensive than the costs to comply.
Considering that a majority of the world's
population lives in coastal regions, the loss
of habitat will drive up population density,
strain availability of resources, and will
likely spawn many new wars.
Why do you think "third-world countries like China" dont "apply" to Kyoto treaty??
USA has only 4% of world population but emits 25% of all air polution.
Besides, China DOES "apply".
I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
I didn't say that China did not ratify the treaty ("did not apply") I said that the restrictions do not apply to China. Beyond which, China is the #2 largest generator of Greenhouse gases after the U.S. but is not under any restrictions.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Shamanism
Since it doesn't fit in science.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Uhhh.... Except China is current exempt from its provisions. Nice try, though.
If you think Americans will stand for this you are out of your mind. We won't and there will be a huge move to pull out of the fucking UN. I would like to kick their asses in to the Atlantic and tell Kofi and company to swim fucking home while we do get in a little target practice. Oh and to all you little Green/Pink and still Red commies fuck you. Your day is coming. Long Live George Bush even if he is to soft on the goddamn muslim vermin. Oh yeah and fuck Mikey More and the Hollywood vermin too download all their fucking movies and bankrupt them.
Wrong. It *IS* very clear and not open-ended. All s/he said was that a legal paper is difficult to read for a layperson. IF you believe legal papers that are difficult to read for a layperson should be thrown out, we'd have to take out ALL laws on EARTH. Except maybe 3.
So what your saying is, as soon it's been proven that global warming is real,because we've all been fried, then, maybe in a few years time we will reduce co2 output by 5% just to shut you commies up.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Nuclear waste lasts hundreds of thousands of years. To get some perspective, tens of civilizations will rise and fall in that timeframe - and all of them will get the joy of rediscovering the great big steaming pile of radioactive crap we've left them.
Erm, nearly. Do you know what a trade deficit is and what it represents? It's the result of the US exporting fewer goods and services than it imports. It's doing this because it's borrowing a great deal from abroad. Borrowing from abroad is basically making a bargain with the rest of the world: 'if you send us more stuff than we send to you this year then we, in exchange, agree to send more stuff to you than you send to us at some time in the future'.
What you would expect to see in your economy when this happens is fewer tradeable goods being produced locally and more being imported. One obvious form of this is offshoring.
The borrowing of money from abroad sets up a capital flow from outside the US (from the lenders) to the US. Lenders have to buy dollars with their own currency before they can lend to you so this flow helps prop up the dollar. This makes foreign goods, services and labour look particularly attractive. If this flow is stopped, reversed (by making repayments) or is even just expected to reverse then the exchange rate will slide. That makes the foreign labour look a lot less cheap.
This is going to happen to the US sooner or later; foreign central banks (who hold a lot of dollar reserves) will stop wanting to lend. I'm not so sure exactly what will happen then - but I suspect it'll be a nasty mixture of rising interest rates (as the US tries to attract new overseas capital and increase domestic saving), a falling exchange rate (yes, even with rising interest rates), inflation (as the prices of imports rise), higher employment and reduced consumption (but increased GDP).
Unlike lead and other fun stuff the fossil fuel plants (such as internal combustion engine!) spew around, uranium will eventually turn harmless.
And never forget there's about 1:1000000 difference between amount of uranium vs coal/oil needed to produce same amount of energy.
Such relatively minor amounts can be dealt with. In fact are being dealt with. Get them into glass or ceramic compound and they'll stay put for quite reasonable geological time.
It IS an attack on our ideals. Using such terms is an attack on the very fabric of our nation. There are worse things granted, but one fights all evils.
If I call you a jerk or worse, it is an attempt to degrade you. By failing to call me an American or US Citizen, you are attempting to degrade me. I will not idly let it slide.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
What do you mean? Yes, I was born an American, but I take the duties of Citzenship seriously. I vote, write my representatives, I discuss political issues with my peers. I choose to be a US Citizen.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
i mean exactly that. it is like saying "i am a proud to be a male person"
you can only be proud of something you achieve by yourself. everything else is false pride.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Sure, clearly there are a large number of economic factors which lead to discrepancies in labour costs around the world. I'm not totally convinced that the US trade deficit is the primary cause, although is certainly is a big problem that Americans ought to be concerned about.
My point was simply that I can't believe how many people fall for the "we can't sign the Kyoto Protocol because it is going to cost American jobs" argument. The reality is that the economic impact on the American economy as a whole would be minor.
Like how has the human race servived up until now? Are you one of those people that only got told about the last couple of hundred years in history?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I am sorry that you've never heard of my country, dispite the fact that it is clearly marked on many maps and is the 4th largest country in the world geographically and 3rd largest in terms of population, unless you count the European Union as a country, which makes it the 4th largest.
America is the land located between Canada and Mexico, just as Columbia is the name of the country on the north end of South America.
The reason I call myself an American is because the name of my country is America, and the issues about North and South America as continents is a seperate naming issue. When I see the term USAian, I think that the speaker or writer is not only trying to be insulting, but is also suffering from a severe inferiority complex from being from either a European country that is trying to emulate America in being a part of a greater Europe, or from another country in "The Americas" that doesn't totally understand what my country is about and what the name of my country is. I also find the term "North American" to be equally insulting, but at least technically accurate when talking with citizens of some South American countries, unlike USAian.
Another way to look at it is that the USA is also the "American Union" just like there is the "European Union", and the government of America is open to any country that wants to join. That the American Congress has screwed up the procedure for doing so and made joining the American Union more of a liability than an asset at the moment is a seperate issue.
I may be a tool in your eyes, but at least I give credit where it is due.
I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but let's at least hate him for stuff he actually did, rather than blame-shift what 100 people did, ass.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
"Industrialized countries" is a euphamism for "highest bracket" in that bracketed system I was talking about. Make sure the facts say what you think they say before pretending to get all high and mighty.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
You do realize that Kyoto is about greenhouse gasses, and NOT, I repeat NOT about ozone layers, UV rays or SP Factors.
I know this is an old discussion, but I differ with your statement:
/.
Patriotism is the belief that your country is the best simply because you were born in it.
I disagree. Many countries have a significant cultural heritage, and the countries that have survived more than a few year, or even a few mellenia have achieved some very significant accomplishments, and have some good reasons to honor and respect those who have gone before them. Also, if it weren't for those people who were there before (like your parents) you wouldn't be here now able to argue with me on
Many countries are more than just a name and a hunk of territory. There are also ideals and concepts that underlie the foundation of that country, and try to bring about changes that help to meet those ideals. There are many countries around the world that I greatly respect because of these ideals, like Switzerland, Israel, Egypt, and China. Obviously I could name others, but the point is there are usually defensable reasons to be proud of where you were born, of if you think your country sucks, try and find a country that will take you that you also agree with its ideals. That may also take converting to another religion, but that should also be expected if you are making that sort of transition and change in your life.