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.'"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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: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?
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.
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: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: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: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: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
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
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.
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
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Isn't that fact widely known by everyone? Look here.
Re:Consequences?
by
mike260
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, you guys hadn't paid your dues in years; you stumped up the ~$1bn you owed just after 9/11, if memory serves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
-- mt
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
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.
"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.
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
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.
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"
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).
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%.
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.
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.
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: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
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.
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.
-- mt
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.
Re:Consequences?
by
SilentOne
·
· Score: 2, Informative
How about backing up some of this with links to news articles that aren't from Foxnews?
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
(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
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
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.
Isn't that fact widely known by everyone? Look here.
Actually, you guys hadn't paid your dues in years; you stumped up the ~$1bn you owed just after 9/11, if memory serves.
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.
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 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
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/.l earskies.html "The Clear Skies Initiative will cut air pollution 70 percent...save American consumers millions of dollars.
As well as this page http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/c
* 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.
Well that's my two cents.
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.
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!
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.
mt
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.
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.
"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.
Mod story = -1
Clinton didn't like the Kyoto treaty any more than Bush. He didn't sign it either
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.
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:
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
mt
(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.
How about backing up some of this with links to news articles that aren't from Foxnews?