Slashdot Mirror
Kyoto Protocol Comes Into Force
Cally writes "The controversial Kyoto Treaty regulating CO2 emissions finally comes into force today. The BBC has several stories and backgrounders, and notes that international pressure is now mounting on the USA to take action as well, as the scientific consensus is well established. A key question is whether the US economy will benefit relative the rest of the world, with some arguing that new technologies such as clean power generation and energy efficient appliances will provide an economic boost."
Looking at the question of 'will USA gain a relative economical advantage' is missing the point - it IS clear that there are certain economic disadvantages - ensuring that our children have a decent world left will have some costs.
First Emission!
If the war on terrorism is to continue then decreasing our reliance on oil (which comes from the Middle East) should be a priority.
There is no denying that oil revenue undoubtably finds its way into the hands of those that wish evil against the US. Clean technologies reduce our need to funnel more money into that part of the world.
Cally, why is that the question? As long as it doesn't break (by itself) the US economy, wouldn't it be just better for the future (our kids, our children's kids, etc.) to work on a better environment? An uninhabitable world would be far worse for the economy, I reckon. Or did I misinterpret those few lines?
"Want some rye? 'Course you do!" - Return to Zork
The only people saying so are scientists, and we all know that someone with an MBA would know more about this sort of thing.
US Good / US Bad ./ will decide
The basic American claim that the treaty is unjust towards wealthier nations, while benefits countries like China and India, is true. There can be no argument that the US would be restricted much more than the #2 consumer of petroleum, China, under Kyoto. The question is, can the will of the world force the US into a position that it views as unjust towards itself? It's a thorny one, but recent history suggest that the United States will not be swayed by foreign legislation. Thus the financial incentive is the best hope of Kyoto ever being ratified by the US.
If Europe wants the US to ratify Kyoto, all they have to do is make the dollars and common sense will follow. One side is right here, and one side isn't. If Europe is right, and this does create a financial windfall, the US will follow. If the US is right, and Europe's economy suffers greatly, they will withdraw from Kyoto.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
A key question is whether the US economy will benefit relative the rest of the world,
It doesn't matter whether a country's economy benifits from this. The safety of our Evironment is more important than the economy of a country.
So we better start getting really creative, really fast. Otherwise we'll have nothing to sell anyone.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
This is going to be a very very replied-to story, and at the end of the "discussion", no one's mind will be changed.
welcome our new Kyoto Treaty overlords! (It had to be done ;-)
No, but seriously, this is a good thing (tm). Why newer (http://www.solardepot.com/) ways of generating power isn't used, is beyond me.
"If it can be thought up, there exists at least one person trying to make it happen for real" - Phil
There is plenty of other news coverage of this. As I type this (2pm UK time) it's still the lead story on Murdoch's Sky News satellite TV channel. Although this is known to be generally right of center (by UK standards) the tenor of their reporting is much the same as the BBC's, with respect to the whole "pressure mounts on the USA" aspect, and the fact that the science has reached the status of accepted fact in popular discourse. (I know there are still plenty of areas of legitimate debate, disagreement, and continuing research amongst real scientists, but the basic thesis that anthropogenic CO2 can affect, and IS already affecting global climate is about as solidly accepted as anything gets in the public mind - over here at any rate.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Err, Providing a wikipedia entry to support something like this isn't good considering how biased/wrong wikipedia can be. Especially since this topic has so much to do with USA and this is so controversial in USA (although everyone outside knows the truth) and Wikipedia is virtually controlled by US people (editors).
This is pure FUD. The scientific consensus, if anything, is that the models currently used for global warming don't backdate, that global warming seems to be more natural than man-made, and that it seems odd that the data shows temperature increases dating back to before the Industrial Revolution, when for all intents and purposes human emissions were nil. You can't cite one highly suspect website and make up the claim that there's a "consenus" where none exists in your favor. This isn't science, it's feel-good eco-politics.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
How do you guys think the US would have reacted if the situation was turned around? (I.e. the US was pro-Kyoto).
Underholdning.info
Every time we get a story like this, a bunch of people write in about how global warming isn't happening, or if they accept that, then they write about how it's not certain* that it's caused by us.
;-)
Please PLEASE can people like this read the links, and read about the consensus. If they have specific points to rebutt with the evidence then this is interesting (especially if they have training in the area).
I'm not a climate scientist myself and so I feel a bit hestitant about posting anything on these topics. It would be nice if the self-appointed 'experts' who take over these threads would behave in the same way, and let those of us who are interested in learning more read comments from people who actually know what they're talking about. This does not mean you have to agree with Kyoto (it's clearly flawed in some areas), nor that you have to believe that global warming is our fault, but you should have some damn good facts and links!
*of course nothing can ever be proven to be certain in science, only disproven, but you all know what I mean.
Which source of greenhouse gas should we eliminate?
- fossil fuel burning
- deforestation
- rice paddies
- landfill sites
- Cowboy Neal
We're talking about the country which doesn't admit smoking causes cancer until ~ twenty years after it's proved. Then we don't admit second-hand smoking causes cancer until... wait have we admitted it yet? Wait, we're still using land-mines?
Calling the Kyoto treaty unfair is irrelevant. Pointing out other countries engaging in the same ignorance as our own is irrelevant. The US drags its feet when it comes to international and social issues. I don't know which is more depressing.
I hate to have to keep doing this: This not a troll. This post contains only facts (except the ~ twenty is a guess). If you feel a violent reaction to this post I suggest you start thinking before you post.
The second round of Kyoto starts in 2012 and will try to lure in those emerging countries like China and India. The omission of China and India is the big reason why the US isn't going for Kyoto.
Bush will never force the industry of his country (including power generation) to conform to the Kyoto accord. It's bad business.
In fact, he passes laws that relax the current regulations on pollution. His not-so-aptly-named "Clean Skies" initiative allows coal-fired generating stations to increase the amount of pollution they produce in favour of dumping more wattage on the grid.
This sort of behaviour disgusts me. I live in Toronto, and although we have a busy airport and traffic corridor, we don't produce nearly as much pollution as our neighbours to the south. Nanticoke generating station generates enough power for the city of Toronto without running at full capacity. It produces less emmissions than a plant half its size in Detroit. It does this with not-so-new-but-expensive technology that is invested in in favour of oh, say, being able to breathe.
I went down to D.C. recently, and when I left on the plane, looking east, I couldn't tell where the ground ended and the sky began. It was a disgusting layer of brown that looked like it spanned five hundered meters in the air... probably more.
I hope someone manages to bring sanctions against the Bush administration. His lack of regard for anything not minted or drilled or slipped into his pocket is disgusting.
Karma: Raspberry Kiwi
I think it's better to stick to these agreements in the long run: it is both an intuitive an scientific fact that (oil) supplies will run out sooner or later. If we reach near that point without well-developed alternative technology and infrastructure, that would be a bigger disaster.
It comes at a price perhaps on the short term, but it gives a number of benefits: not only can alternative energy resources potentially come cheaper than conventional ones, it is a given that a worldwide demand for these will grow at some point in the future. Having technology, research and patents ready gives a major economic edge... it is exportable technology after all.
So.. I don't think it will damage the U.S. economy that much within the next 10 years or so, but it will be relatively damaging in the sense that reliance on foreign technology and resources remains.
see a Text Widget
The sad thing is that the damage is already done. No matter how you put it we've already messed up the planet pretty bad. (Not just CO2, overfishing the oceans, killing off the corals, cutting down the rainforests etc.) Now all we really can do is try to minimize the damage ahead. In any case it's going to take hundreds of years to achieve an ecological balance, if at all possible any longer.
It's just profoundly sad that the majority of the people of this world still don't get it and still don't care. Unless we manage to change soon the collective war casualties of the world will pale in comparison to the ones of the potential ecological disaster ahead.
Personally I'm optimistic, if I weren't I would never have wanted to have kids.
.: Max Romantschuk
the air. A new .... no wait, never mind, somebody just farted.
6F 9E A9 1E 96 9F 74 27 ED B8 81 6D 0C 4E 1E 78
My other Sig is a 229.
I believe the impact of such treaty is minimal. But it will do have an impact. I never saw anyone saying this, but I strongly believe this treaty actually WORSEN the global warming effect in the first decades, due to the reduction of the global dimming effect. It's easy to expect this once you realize that, in the 3 days following sept.11th the temperature ranges spiked, and that was the most abrupt change of such measurement ever recorded.
BTW, it's interesting to note that global warming does not mean that all the globe will be warmer. Just the average world tempeature. Some regions will be much colder than they were before, due, for example, to a change/reduction on the gulf stream.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Yeah, screw those developing nations without stable economies, just let them rot.
Some nations can't afford the changes requried, they would be *devastating* to their already fragile situations. They need time for their economies to grow and stabilize before they can make such changes.
The US, and the rest of the 1st world nations, on the other hand, CAN afford to make some changes without collapsing their entire economic system.
Like it or not, China is still a developing nation, even if has 5x the population of the US.
For those who work in academic fields, funding means a lot. It shouldn't be that way but it is.
And when a scientist does a study that your funding source didn't like, no more funding for that scientist. Anyone who thinks that science is immune from politics isn't paying attention.
So called "Developing nations" dont have to conform to it. China the 2nd largest economy and our #1 economic competitor is a "Developing" nation? That just doesn't make sense.
China's only recently joined the WTO. I suspect the criteria may relate to that? I sympathise with your position: I'm prepared to support Kyoto (I'm UK resident), but I'll reevaluate that support if countries like China seem set to remain out "forever".
This is where the serious fun begins.
China is on track to build 562 new coal fired plants in the next 8 years. India is looking at building 213 plants. The US 72...The US does not matter in this equation, talk about China and India. Any gains in CO2 emmissions are buried by 3rd world increases.
The controversial Kyoto Treaty
This is the same way as Christian Fundamentalists in Kentucky et al describe Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Quick Summary: Everyone in the world thinks that someone has to be done about pollution. Except the biggest polluter.
Basically this is the same as elements like the Chemical and Biological non-proliferation treaty (objected to by the US), the International Criminal Court (objected to by the US) and a host of other good ideas that the US President objects to because he didn't think them up.
The US Approach of "Build Bigger SUVs and let our kids sort out the mess" is a disgrace to the 21st Century on a par with any other act of wilful destruction that can be conceived. The US is deliberately increasing its pollution rates and refusing to do anything about it. This already causes increases in deaths in the US an abroad due to breathing disorders and toxic poisoning.
And if its about the economy, how about trimming that massive debt George ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
let the farmer become the "oil" barrens of the 21st century and let them grow hemp for biodiesel production.
I believe estimates state that if 25% of all crop land was hemp, the USA would be self sufficiant. Not to mention, give farmers a "true" cash crop.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
When the vikings first discovered Greenland, they called it that because it was a green and relatively pleasent land. That's not a description that one would use today, despite the effects of a supposed global warming. The point is that climate change has always been a feature of the Earth, especially in the last few thousand years. Its seems to me that the USA are, for once, in the right.
Modern nuclear power is cleaner, safer, cheaper and more efficient than it ever was, yet we continue to build toxic, filthy fossil fuel plants. Why?
Because of the relentless, unscientific green PR campaign that's portrayed every nuclear plant as a Chernobyl in waiting. Wind, sun and waves are not always an option, and anti-nuclear campaigning has left no choice but fossil fuels.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Thomas Friedman's has written a column about it. Interesting argument in fact on why the US should have to use alternative energy sources.
FWIW, pressure is also mounting on the Australian Prime Minister to ratify the protocol.
He is arguing that "it would be against the national interest for Australia to sign the Kyoto protocol on climate change". (quote from ABC.net.au)
"Until such time as the major polluters of the world - including the United States and China - are made part of the Kyoto regime, it is next to useless and indeed harmful for a country such as Australia to sign up," he said.
The headline for the article on the ABC site is "Signing Kyoto virtually worthless: PM".
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Well there is none.
My point people love to post how much energy solar produces but never speak of the fact that you can only get that energy for part of the day.
If I was there school teacher I would make them write
Solar power is intermittent.
100 times on the chalk board.
Indeed, it doesn't. Your #1 economic competitor is not China, it's the European Union (actually, the US isn't even the world's #1 economy any more, the EU is).
You should ask yourself why the EU is the main driving force behind Kyoto. Maybe because they found out Kyoto would actually be a boon to their economy?
Passing rapidly over the political ramifications of this obviously grossly illegal act (whoever carried it out), it is interesting to note that oil prices have gone up over $1 since the news broke in the last few minutes. hmmm here's a chart that might bear watching.
If (if!) this is a deliberate attack by the US, then George Bush must be out of his tiny mind.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The amusing thing is, if I recall correctly, the Kyoto Accords do absolutely nothing about gasses far worse than CO2 for pollution and greenhouse effects that the US no longer touches, yet quite a few signers of the accords themselves are quite happy to continue spewing into the air.
...its all in the presentation. If the C02 campaign is met with hostility, typical human reaction is to 'follow suit'. However, if its greeted with acceptance and change, I don't think the American economy would suffer. I believe what we're looking for is the "magic pill" to make all our problems go away - in this case, there is no magic pill. We have generations of abuse to clean up and may take just as long as it did to mess this environment up in the first place! Granted, our kids may not have it easy, but if we start soon and work hard at it, we can leave them a world slightly cleaner than what we had.
I've been living in Houston, Texas for quite some time and only recently, have I actually started feeling the effects of the environment. I've noticed it to be warmer than usual, the air has a funny undertone to it, and I've been having various respiratory problems.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For those of you who skipped civics, the Senate would have to ratify the treaty and during the Clinton administration they voted 99-0 in a symbolic vote against it. It is a dead issue and beating it again isn't going to change anything.
Kyoto will fail sooner than you may think due to Peak Oil. Nations will want to get as much energy as they can get and nobody will care if that energy is harmful to environment or not.
Do not forget that 20% of the world population uses up the 86% of the energy of the world. As people in China and India, the two most populous country in the world, want to live like us the price of energy will rise and Kyoto will be ignored.
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
If the war on terrorism is to continue then decreasing our reliance on oil (which comes from the Middle East) should be a priority.
... said programs of course to be cancelled and replaced again a couple of years before delivery with something else, rinse, wash, and repeat until the oil reserves have gone completely dry). That is something the oil plutocrats simply cannot abide, and, having seized control of the United States government, will not allow.
There is no denying that oil revenue undoubtably finds its way into the hands of those that wish evil against the US. Clean technologies reduce our need to funnel more money into that part of the world.
Yes, but the oil companies are not run by fools or idiots, unfortunately. Why do you think they staged a coup d'etat in the United States in 2000, and possibly again in 2004?
Sane public policy would have us moving away from oil (and not cancelling vialbe programs that would have given us tangible results in three to five years, and replacing them with grandios programs that probably won't deliver in ten to fifteen years
So no, we won't be joining Kyoto anytime soon. Sorry, folks.
It may mortify me personally as an American to see what my government is doing, but as the odds of my vote even counting continue to decline I don't see much I can do about it, except gripe here on slashdot and send letters for my representatives to ignore.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
A key question is whether the US economy will benefit relative the rest of the world, with some arguing that new technologies such as clean power generation and energy efficient appliances will provide an economic boost.
bah, it doesnt fucking matter what economic impacts it has. we need to stop tampering with our one and only environment at whatever costs. we only have one planet and if we fuck it up, we have nowhere to run. why are we playing with our own extinction here?
[1] unless he's assassinated in office, which, for the sake of the rest of the world, many of us fervently hope for...
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
We had a guest speaker in our department last year that talked about how engineering and politics don't end up meshing well together, and that Kyoto was a prime example.
/
http://ficp.engr.utexas.edu/celectures/schwartz
(should be some converted powerpoint and video)
In the first third of the lecture he talks about how Kyoto is a politically designed document, and not a sensibly designed document in terms of engineering. The choice of a base year (1990, I think) for emission reductions is particulary bad for the US, since emissions reductions plan were already in effect. Countries in Eastern Europe and Asia had little or no emissions control at the time, so they have reduced their emissions greatly over the past 15 years. It's almost as if they US is getting penalized for being proactive earlier. To reduce US emissions by as much as Russia has to would be crazy. The US already had catalytic converters in cars in 1990, are they supposed to have two sets now? The same goes for manufacturing emissions controls.
I'm not saying that the US shouldn't sign it or they shouldn't have at least gone back to the negotiating table, but it's just not as simple as "Americans don't care about the environment." Why should Americans have to pay to cut down emissions an additional 10 percent when a large portion of the world is getting credit for cutting their first 10?
(10% is a made up number, didn't have time to look up the exact stats)
It would be ilogical to impose a blaket emission on all countries as the USA would like. Developed countries have been poluting the world for the last 150 years.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
Is there some significance to February 16 that I'm not aware of, or did they throw a dart at a calendar?
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
The US doesn't suffer easily
Err: The US doesn't suffer rivals easily
because the MBA's know that if they can save enough money, they'll be able to buy a nuclear shellter and fill it with canned fresh air and canned fresh food before it disappears.
They are calling it preparing the future of our childrens.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Even if our oil/carbon deposit dependence isn't causing global warming, the world's reserves are still going to run out in the near/intermediate future. We'd better get to work on alternative methods while we still have the energy to do so, otherwise we'll be scrambling at the last minute while the world spirals into a huge energy crisis.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
with some arguing that new technologies such as clean power generation and energy efficient appliances will provide an economic boost
Well, it's pretty clear that it provides an economic boost to the people who are in the business of developing technology. The open question is whether adopting Kyoto (or rather participating in the development of a modified Kyoto). would boost the productivity economy as a whole. A lot depends on the time frame you look at, and assumptions you make.
There's no doubt in my mind that failing to endorse Kyoto means that Europe and Japan will become the technology leaders in emissions reduction, energy efficiency, and possibly even alternative energy technologies. US companies (meaning companies that do most of their business in the US) on the other hand will invest their money in other things, which will presumably pay off in other ways. I think it's fair to say that US companies will lag in these particular areas.
The key question, which nobody can answer for sure, is whether energy efficiency, emissions reduction and alternative energy technologies are going to be more signficant in the long run than the other things that Amercian business are going to be investing in.
I personally think there is a good chance that they will be the most important technogies of the twenty-first century, dwarfing computer technology or even biotechnology. Oil stocks are finite, and our first world life style, upon which all else depends, is very energy intensive. Furthermore companies by their nature look at quarterly or annual results, not the tweny year timeframe this becomes important in. As a person in my mid 40s, I fully expect to live another 40 years, in twenty of which I expect to live on my investments. Therefore I'm very interested in the performance of companies twenty plus years out.
Of course, if you take an even longer viewpoint, it may be that after Europe and Japan invest heavily in first generation technology, the US companies may be able to leapfrog them the way other countries have leapfrogged the US in wireless technology, by investing in a second generation technology without having concern for the existing infrastructure investments. However, (a) I don't expect to be alive long enough to benefit from this and (b) I think it might be doubtful whether this will happen at all.
I don't think the US is poised to maintain its leadership in technology as a whole throughout the twenty-first century. There were circumstances in the twentieth century that made US technolgoical dominance possible, but they are gone now, and there is no serious interest in doing what would be necessary to maintain US leadership.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
previously covered on slashdot: Renewable Energy From Algae?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The treaty addresses carbon emmissions and the like which != pollution in general. Some of the worst polluted areas in the world are in China.
America OTOH has seen its water and air quality increase astoundingly since the 1970's. We have higher emissions because we have, in total economic terms and per capita terms, more industry than any other country. And yes, we have many more cars. But car emissions can be addressed without gutting America industry in favor of allowing the Chinese and Indians to ramp up their industrial economies at our expense.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Just to clarify what wasn't quite mentioned in the articles:
Kyoto countries account for 55% of 'Greenhouse Emissions' together, and the USA accounts for 36%.
Population wise, the USA makes up 4.6% of the world. I don't know about the combined populations of Kyoto countries but it includes the 3 greatest populations: China, India and the EU which means Kyoto countries make up at least 45% of the worlds population.
In the worlds economy (don't know how this is calculated) the USA makes up 30% and the EU 23%, Japan 14%, China 3.2%. Which puts Kyoto countries' economies at at least 40% of the world
Source is mostly BBC, not sure of the accuracy.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Oil doesn't just "come from the Middle East." Some of what we use comes from there, but it's certainly not the only source, or even the main source.
I agree there's a demand for better, cleaner energies, and a reduction of reliance on foreign energy sources. It's just better to be more self reliant.
But currently, the US produces 40% of the petroleum it uses (according to the API.) The remaining 60% of imported petroleum comes from these countries.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
The problem with the Kyoto treaty is not just the economic devastation it would entail in the USA, it is the blatant unfairness in it (although diplomacy requires the Bush admin never to mention that.) The 1990 date was chosen by Europeans not as a fair reference but because it was an easy target for them. Since 1990 the Soviet Union has dissolved and with it an enormous, archaic (heavily polluting) industrial base. Germany almost makes it's quota by removing all the Trabants alone.
So, as a US citizen and speaking for our government let me propose a deal. Agricultural subsidies are also world problem and both Europe and the USA must take action. So I propose this deal, you slash your subsidies to zero and we'll do nothing and then the USA will sign the Kyoto Treaty (they are both equally fair.)
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Actually, it is worse for America because of legislation passed by the Dems. and Clinton. The short of it is companies that could have been getting the stuff slowly in order with Kyoto were whacked off at the knees. The legislation passed said, "if you change one piece of equipment, you have to bring ALL your equipment up to emissions code X." So power plants that were running on coal did not gradually replace their equipment with more efficient/cleaner turbines and stuff because the cost was not for just the one upgrade, it was for a complete rework.
1. Point gun at foot, 2. Pull trigger
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
The Bush administration is still riding on many of Clinton's (pro business almost republican) economic policies. ... no.
They have also loosened environmental laws, that will in turn increase pollution by businesses rather than shrink them in the long term.
I don't think the US has any real incentive to join Kyoto- The US has always been a very inward looking country- only 9% of the GDP comes from trade- Do they care what Japan and Canada have to say?
I think it's one more reason people will hate America.
Bush will not let one American job be eliminated due to environmental concerns. As he'd much rather have all American jobs eliminated by giving them to cheap foreign workers.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Republicans: Sure, Iraq's elections aren't perfect, but they're the first step on the road towards true democracy....
Republicans: Since the Kyoto treaty isn't perfect, but is a first step on the road towards a solution to global warming, we'll stay out...
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
Countries who implement the treaty should have the right to impose tariffs on imports from countries that do not, on the assumption that polluting countries can produce goods more cheaply than those who must comply with emissions standards, and so cheap imports would otherwise kill local producers.
This is why I am against free trade. Protectionism isn't always bad, and free trade isn't always good.
Oh dear, I saw the title and the brain read 'Kyoto Protocol Comes Into Farce'. Brrrrr. Talk about premonitions.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
The notion of effectively throwing out a lot of existing hardware and replacing it with new, more energy efficient hardware produced by a diverse group of companies should have economists and politicians licking their fingers.
Instead, they are listening to a tiny number of very powerful lobbies: the car companies, the oil companies, and the power producing companies. For them, of course, the move to energy efficient technology means that they have to make investments, investments that they would rather take as profits (or at least not have to borrow in order to make).
But that's just it: if those investments were made, it would provide a huge economic boon that would help the economy greatly, creating just the kinds of jobs we like: manufacturing, high-tech, design, software. It would also be an opportunity to modernize our aging infrastructure in many industries, as well as provide the necessary pressure to de-subsidize automobiles and support a modern and convenient system of public transit (which yields yet more jobs and other benefits).
Don't you wonder about motives? So to whos profit is it to buy in to Kyoto? (Sadly, in this world that is the only real question.)
a) + Public perception - Politicians seen as being environmentally proactive ergo more votes.
b) + Public perception - Big business moves unsightly production plants offshore allowing them to look squeaky clean at home. Ergo profit.
c) + Public perception - Big business has valid excuses to move into 3rd world countries. It is no longer about cheap labour, it is about saving the atmosphere. Ergo profit.
Is there anything beyond Public Perception?
a) Permanent solution - NO. As human population grows so will its effect on the environment. Kyoto is a delaying tactic environmentally BUT a profitable one.
b) Near term solution - NO. Will any nation HAVE to reduce its greenhouse gas production? No. Many have promised but a change in administration can easily bring about a cessation of participation.
Irony - The only really honest players have been the U.S. They are clearly worried about economic impact and see that as having a higher priority than the atmosphere. You may not like it but you know where they stand. As for the others, do you really believe their stated motives? If so, see above para.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Last night on CBC's The Hour, I believe David Suzuki came out and called the US a rogue nation.
This is a fair reflection of the developing consensus around the world. This has been especially notable after the US failed to support a world court.
What's most bizarre is that the US will end up losing out because of this. Japan is becoming a leader in solar, Germany and Denmark for wind. As prices become competitive against even natural gas, they will gain a tremendous advantage.
There are other examples, but those are just the most obvious. So much for another American century...
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
I know of no prediction that CO2 emissions may result in an earth which is not suitable for human life.
The worst predictions are that there may be a positive feedback resulting in the Earth going back to a more normal state (rememberring that we are currently in an interglacial in an ice age), which would screw up current human societies massively.
I.e. it is a matter of economics on both sides -- is the expected economic damage of acting greater or less than the expected economic damage of not acting.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
There was another scientific theory that attained "scientific consensus," and everyone who was anyone believed that life as they knew it would end if something was not done. As a result, massive programs were undertaken to ensure that this would not happen. Connecticut was the first of the United States to enact laws, in 1896. The Carnegie Institution funded research into solutions starting in 1904. In 1910, a centralized research facility was set up, and in 1924 federal law was passed to further curtail the effects of this theoretical phenomenon.
Although we can look back and clearly see that the consensus was wrong, at the time the methods and results were almost universally believed to be entirely legitimate science. Detractors, no matter how credible or scientifically convincing, were either ignored or ridiculed for deviating from the broad scientific consensus.
Of course, the United States was, at the time, only the second most active nation in its attempts to curtail the effects of the disaster impending for all of humanity. Germany was more ambitious and probably more successful in its advances of eugenics, the theory essentially that the gene pool is decaying and needs to be carefully maintained by selective breeding, specifically excluding those "unfit" to carry on the race.
Consensus has exactly as much weight in science as it does on the playground: the only effect is that those who dare disagree (no matter how correct they are) are beaten up and called names. If that's the kind of support you use to justify your beliefs, then you have no place in science. Unfortunately, global warming believers have taken their place regardless of its nonexistence. And they win you over by fear ("Humanity will not survive!") and by false dichotomy ("If you're not with us, you're against the environment!"). (See Wikipedia's list of logical fallacies, quite a few of which apply to arguing that global warming is reality and not just a theory.)
The US didn't join Kyoto because Kyoto is meaningless, not because the US is anti-environment. (And whether the latter is the case or not depends on a lot of factors, but is irrelevant to this discussion nonetheless.)
"You should ask yourself why the EU is the main driving force behind Kyoto. Maybe because they found out Kyoto would actually be a boon to their economy?"
Just like software patents, right?
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
If the US did sign the Kyoto treaty(which it won't), would naturally occuring CO2 emitters be included?
CARB-compliant states have recently banned the registration of diesel passenger vehicles. (CA, MA, NY, VT, ME)
Diesel is a good technology, but the complaint is that it produces more smog and particulate emissions. Even if you go low-sulfur or biodiesel, you still have to convince the industry to accept the tradeoffs.
That's not to mention that biodiesel is cheap right now, because it's not popular. If it was a standard, and in demand, and an infrastructure was set up for it, the pridce would increase considerably.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
Okay, it took about 40 years before we saw the current global warming trends, trends that started in the 1960's.
Give me half that time, 20 years, and show me some sort of significant climatic change from those countries that have signed on to this treaty. I also need an accounting that those countries have adhered to the protocol. Give me those two things and I will put pressure on my congressmen to accept this treaty.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Whether or not we have more to gain, we certainly have more to lose from global warming than most. The US has a particularly favorable climate for agriculture. Some countries may actually benefit from a climate change, but rolling the climatic dice again is unlikely to be in America's interest.
Somehow so many right-wing arguments, in foreign, domestic, economic, and social policy, wind up comparing the US with the worst company. I wonder why that is.
Personally I'd rather aspire to try to find and follow the right course. I have reservations about Kyoto too, but in my world there's middle ground, and not every question of policy comes down to finding a corner that we can back ourselves into. Moral courage, when it comes to something like global warming, isn't about walking away from the table because China's not playing fair.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Junk Science has a couple of counters up, one detailing Kyoto's costs and one the benefits it's estimated to provide. You may find them interesting. . .
So.. it has come to this
Funny, I read the Wikipedia article and it doesn't look like there's much of a consensus at all. In fact, it looks like there is so much that we don't know that to definitively state anything about climate change is to speak from one's lowest sphincter.
Wired's latest issue has an article on how the US should be switching to nuclear power. It's fairly lengthy, but very interesting. You can find it online: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.h tml
And the treaty is based on levels established in 1992. Russia signed on only because they will make billions selling their polution credits.
It had absolutely nothing to do with the treaty having any sort of merit.
The Treaty has been a dead issue since before it ratified. The joke is that Bush couldn't get it through the Senate if he wanted to. Al "Earth in the Balance" Gore proved that.
your a fool if you think there is still not enough evidence that the weather isnt changing. They can see dramatic changes over the last 10 years letalone the 10years before that an so on.
There seems to be some confusion as to why the US doesn't like Kyoto. Some people say we're selfish, we're corrupt, incapable of reason. If you're going to hold to that, then don't bother reading on, because no rational discussion is possible.
Much of the US's industry is already being moved to China. It's hard to compete with slave labor. Since Kyoto doesn't hold China to the same standard to which we would be held, the Kyoto treaty would exacerbate an already bad situation. While it's true that China will eventually be held to the same standard, by that time most US industries will have already moved there. They aren't going to just move back once enforcement levels are equal. The US will not sign a treaty which would do that much damage to our economy. And this isn't just a Republican issue. When the treaty came before the Senate in the late 90s, it was voted down 99-1. We are concerned about emissions, but we'd like to take care of the problem without destroying our industrial capacity.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Yes, I'm glad that global warming is a universal truth, and that there are no nay-sayers.
Science deals with theories and their (in)validation. Consensus is an irrelevant, and quite idiotic, term typically used by people who like the current state of affairs and prefer not to deal with things such as methodology. Typically (even) scientists (the consensus) have ridiculed new ideas when they have diverged from the "well known" state of affairs.
The theory that human activities are contributing to the global warming is generally accepted as validated by all scientists (who deal with the matter). How much of the increase is caused by humans and how much i natural variation there is no consensus whatsoever on. Not even close.
The consern among scientists who are skeptical to the Kyoto agreement is not as the most vocal environmentalists claim, that kyoto is trying to solve a non-existing problem, but that the solutions proposed by Kyoto, are not going to slow down global warming by any measurable factor since the part of the warming we see that is caused by GHG is lower than "consensus" claims, and that the Kyoto agreement provisions will have no real effect. With the kost of Kyoto being very high, perhaps (these scientists say) we should look at other, and more cost-efficient alternatives.
Sadly religious fever have gripped the community on this issue, and sane debate is impossible, as can be seen by the insane attacks on, for example, Bjorn Lomborg.
The American Enterprise has an article on why the Kyoto deserved to die.
Reasons:
1. Kyoto "Would have exempted China and other developing nations entirely (despite the fact that their growing emissions would have swamped the reductions from the developed nations)."
2. "Long before President Bush acted, this approach had been rejected by the U.S. Senate in a vote of 95-0, which is why President Clinton never submitted the treaty for ratification."
sportsdot
The slashcode sports site
Please state your REAL reason and not some sorry excuse. The Environmental Systmes Analysis group of Wageningen University (Dr. Carolien Kroeze e.a.) has done research into the energy needs of India and China and how they can cope with it. They found that they can INCREASE energy production and at the same time (!) seriously DECREASE emissions if they take the right measures. These include switching from coal to gas, reduce (immense) losses in the electricity distribution network, use energy efficient equipment at the end user. This does not have to be expensive to reduce 50% of emissions, without pain. And contra popular belief, nuclear energy does not play a role in the scenarios. US is behaving quite irresponsibly in the international arena, not only re: Kyoto. In stead of waiting for disasters to happen and trying to live wasfully as long as possible, with a painful end, they should rather cooperate with the rest of the world now and take less painful measures now. And also prepare for oil prices to boom, as we are approaching the max soon and after that the prices will go up drastically.
The treaty is only as good as the countries behind it. It's more of a warm fuzzy feeling treaty because the moment it's easier for a country to stop abiding they will do just that. It's not like we're going to go to war against a country for not abiding by the rules. The U.N. certainly won't enforce them and if they did, bulk of the enforcement would be on the U.S.
I'm not trying to troll here but this is my perspective of the whole thing. I'm all for being more environmentally friendly, my feeling is that we will achieve this over time but hopefully before it's too late.
The best possible outcome I could see of a US backed treaty would be that we force new technology to the market sooner out of demand vs luxury.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
If you need to so skeptic then why is the Kyoto bad? Wouldn't the quality of the air be enough for you to consider the kyoto protocol?
The USA NOT backing the Kyoto Accord? Whoa, big shocker there! And I always thought the republicans were big environmentalists. Environmentalist mentality doesn't work in the US because, quite frankly, anyhthing "environmentalist" usually has a bad effect on the stock-value of big industry. Besides, everyone knows that global-warming is caused by cows(Canadian ones) farting and marijuana smoke!
And in other news, every nation party to the Kyoto protocol exceeded their allotted supply of C02 emissions today...
"regulating CO2 emissions"?
"Excuse me, sir, we're with the CO2 Police, and we just noticed that was your 302nd exhale of the day..."
-- Just another unsolicited opinion... from the Peanut Gallery.
As an American, I think that reducing our dependence on foreign oil, reducing smog in our cities, reducing acid rain, and the likely benefits of spinoff technologies are all far more compelling reasons to pursue a new energy strategy than the unproven theory that the alleged increase in global temperature since the beginning of the indusrial age is due to human activities. Environmentalists have become overly dependent on the global warming argument to advance their cause in the same way that Bush was overly dependent on WMDs to justify going into Iraq. In both cases, there are a lot of other good arguments in favor of the position. Environmentalists ought to be highlighting other benefits of a new energy economy in case global warming turns out to be their equivalent of Iraqi WMDs.
+ Countries exempt from the Kyoto's requirements, (China), or have previous rediculous levels grandfathtered in (Russia), can use Kyoto credits as a source of income while never lifting a finger to lower their emissions.
...and another thing I forgot to add: I believe that one day we _will_ all be driving electrical cars because there simply isn't any oil left to burn. And when we walk out on the streets we will sniff the fresh air and hit ourselves for not switching decades earlier.
Whether global warming is real should not be an issue. The warming already exhibited trends below the low-end of the IPCC's predictions. It is also far less than the climate change we have experienced in the past: Near East devastation in 1200BC, shifts of the Sahara, end of last Ice Age, etc. The real threat, IMHO, is in cataclysmic disasters. Preventing/mitigating them is part of how we can weather out global warming.
Regional disasters devastating populations are inevitable in most places - tsunamis, asteroids and continental supervolcanoes among others. Cities and whole coastlines should be protected with seawalls, especially coastal industrial zones. The economics of building the walls (they are considerable) are beside the point: How much does it cost to replace Manhattan? Or the whole east coast, if that volcano in the Canary Islands breaks apart? Beckerman in "through green colored glasses" makes the calculation for seawalling Bangladesh to prevent and control their seasonal flooding, it would cost about $16 Billion which is comparable to a good monsoon's damage.
Kyoto is mainly for taxing the industrial countries/companies through carbon trading. Obviously, interests here in the US are against that. (This is bipartisan - the Senate refused to vote on it, 99-0) Kyoto speaks nothing of disaster mitigation, a far, far bigger issue than a 1-degree increase in global temps. If this temperature rise is ongoing/accelerating, those in power would have to reach a consensus on some kind of radical action - it is not going to happen with the entrenched interests worldwide. That leaves it to citizens and corporations, so go ride your bicycle.
And please think about seawalls.
Josh
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Funny how anything that could hurt the USA is fairly popular. Kinda like the UN.
And hey, 10 out of 10 scientists that want to make a statement about global warming agree....
Look, if you are not a practicing climatologist, being a scientist gives you no more credibility on Kyoto and global warming than me, who knows more about parents basement climates and has consensus on many IT and pron issues.
with some arguing that new technologies such as clean power generation and energy efficient appliances will provide an economic boost."
That sounds like the classic broken window scenario. That's the economic fallacy where breaking a window adds to the economy because you hire a window repairer, and also pay for all the people who built his tools and supplies. It doesn't consider that you might have spent that same money on other useful things that add to the economy, but not in a way that's supplying an artificially-induced demand.
And if its about the economy, how about trimming that massive debt George ?
What debt? You are looking at the numbers? Don't worry about the numbers. Numbers are for people who don't believe in god, and europeans.
How comes the deficit is so high? The terroirists are playing with our numbers. Don't worry about our numbers, they have no meaning.
How comes Bill Gates is getting a huge paycheck based on company changes he made after we cut the tax on corporate dividends while taxes for the average person who doesn't own millions and billions worth of shares are going higher? You are looking again at the numbers. Why do I need to keep repeating myself? The numbers have no meaning.
How comes I bankrupted a few companies while giving others to eat up my costs? You are looking again at the numbers. Stop doing it.
What do you mean Saddam wanted to sell oil for Euros and not Dollars if we would have lifted an embargo because of price pressure due to oil shortages. He could have been more profitable? It's again because you are looking at the numbers. Stop fucking looking at the numbers!
Boys, go get him! He has weapons of mass destruction.
George W
Robin Willaims ( Impersonating G.W. Bush ): "I was at the Coyote-conference..."
Then why should they care whether we go along with it, if it will be good for their economy without us being involved.
Or is it only "good for their economy" if we shackle ourselves the same way?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
See http://www.crichton-official.com/features/features _spoonbending.shtml for details.
what changes? That hurricans became fewer? That the coldest peroid in the 20th century lay in the 1990ies? That weather extrems are rarer at present? What DO you mean?
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
If that's true, why is enforcement necessary? If this is truly a desirable course of action which will only have a positive effect, why must companies be forced to undertake it? Why aren't they doing it voluntarily, if it's so obviously the best and most profitable thing to do?
Gosh, did you even bother to read the rest of the message? Existing large companies would be forced to make massive investments in new hardware, something that cuts deeply into their profits. The jobs and economic benefits accrue to companies that are currently fairly small but that have the technology. Since the existing large companies have the political clout, their preferences get heard.
This is the same question I ask statists about taxes, which are collected coercively under the same bogus justification.
I'm not sure what you mean by "statists" or "collected coercively" (aren't taxes by their veyr nature coercive?), but, in general, the purpose of taxes is to pay for public goods. Public goods are things that the market will not produce efficiently on its own, things like research, the environment, and national defense.
You may be living in a dream world where public goods don't exist, but their existance and fundamental importance to economic systems is about as much of a fact as gravity or light in physics.
yeah, because the US FORCED other nations to comply with this insane treaty. Hence they are free riding. Give me a break.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Thank you.
It's the same reason that one of my friends (who happens to be remodeling a home), won't bring their house up to code elictrically--or even install somthing simple like a 220volt outlet. ANY electrical work that is done MUST be inspected by a master electrician (licensed) and MUST bring the ENTIRE house up to code.
Therefore, he does nothing, thereby endangering both himself and his wife much more than if they could just do some of the work (or hire an electrician to do a portion of the work).
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
always slightly worried about the waste by-products of nuclear power stations, over and beyond the stuff they use for nuclear bombs. With a half-life of how long? Thousands of years? Millions? Would you like a radioactive waste dump on your door-step?
The longer the half life is, the less radioactive it is, and hence, the less dangerous. Think about it. If something's really radioactively 'hot', it'll decay all it's going to decay within minutes to weeks. If you're around it during that time period, you're fucked.
If something decays very slowly, the dose it gives is very low- it just says that way for a long, long time.
And the obvious solution to avoiding radiation dose from waste.... STAY AWAY FROM IT.
I work at a nuke plant. In a couple years we'll be putting 15 year old used fuel in huge casks and storing them outside because our spent fuel pool is getting full.
Considering that, as a nuke worker, I'm well aware of the dose rates given off by heavily shielded used fuel (basically nothing), and the health effects of certain dose thresholds.....
I'd WOULD let them store it in my back yard for the right $$$.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
That surrounds the global warming thing, take a look at Bjorn Lomborg, and specificly his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. This book, and Penn Gillette said, pissed off environmentalists more than a Ford Excursion with only one person in it.
Basically Lomborg went and analized all the environmental data that the popular environmental movement had been screaming about to see if it supported their conclusion. He concluded it did not, and wrote a book about it called The Skeptical Environmentalist which taked about all this and accused the environmentalists to cherry picking their data and ignoring results that didn't support their conclusion.
Well as you might imagine, the environmentalists weren't happy about this and attacked him on all sides. Eventually, it got brought up before the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. They investigated Lomborg's work and concluded that he had done just what he was accusing people of: selectivley grabbing data, failing to exercise proper scientific rigor, and basically ignoring things that didn't agree with his conclusion. They called his work "systematically one-sided".
However that's not the end, in 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation found that, indeed, the DCSD was guilty of just what they were on Lomberg's case about. They'd taken a single critique of his work, relied on it as fact without any validation or consideration of rebuttals. In 2004 the case was ended against Lomborg.
Now the point here isn't to try and claim that either side is correct because, honestly, I don't know. The point is to show the amount of politics flying around in this, and the difficulty in getting a straight answer on anything. There is a clear disagreement about how to interpret the data we do have, and lots of name calling and sleight of hand going on.
Anyone who thinks they have the complete, cut and dried view on this situation is wrong. As the parent noted, science isn't free of politics and here you can see it in action.
Kyoto may be a start, but one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse emissions is aviation. Yet Kyoto specifically excludes international aviation.
This favours small countries (such as GB) with little domestic aviation over large countries (such as the US, Russia, China, etc) where much of the aviation is domestic.
Personally I would have all aviation, domestic or internation, included.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
The Zero Emissions Treaty (read last half) is a starting point, being something that anyone actually emitting might follow.
Kyoto is, was, and will be a joke until the day it is disbanded (ten or twenty years hence, I forget exactly). Hardly anyone participating will actually have to reduce emissions at all, and will instead get credits (see: Russia). I'd sign on board any plan that dumped a free pile of money in my lap too!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This was rated flamebait, but should have been rated insightful.
Hehe, using USian steel as an example isn't a good one - just look at the massive subsidies that were in place to prop up their huge inefficiencies compared to their European competitors until the WTO ruled them illegal.
An issue nicely summarized in the article:
"Canada, one of the treaty's first signatories, has no clear plan for reaching its target emission cuts. Far from cutting back, its emissions have increased by 20% since 1990."
So how are we (Canadians) going to get every Canadian person and business to reduce their emissions by 20% in 7 years? And Japan is "unsure" about 6%? I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, I'm all for each individual sucking it up and unselfishly changing their lives.
But really, how will we do it? Strick laws? Penelty/Reward programs? Tax deductions for extremely compliant citizens? And what about the impact of a 20% reduction of emissions on the economy? Likely quite huge!
Lots of questions and doubt in the mind of many Canadians, I'm sure. But no need to worry so much, fellow Canadian, because you can take comfort in the fact that we have "NO CLEAR PLAN"!
When I was in high school pollution was causing the next "ice age." You know, global cooling. Well, that failed so they jumped on global warming. In about 10 to 20 years it will be the coming ice again. This is a normal cycle. Not to say pollution is not bad, but Kyoto was specifically designed to destroy the economic power of the USA. By letting China, Mexico, et al pollute all they want negates the intent anyway. We called them on their little ruse to destroy us. They have to go back to the drawing board now. As soon as Canada and Europe discover how stupid they have been they will abandon it too. What we need is a global treaty that EVERYBODY follows.
Hardly. The Globe is warming, but the reasons are not those supported by left wing pundants, whose only solution to anything is Socialism... government control over everyone's lives.
The "scientific" study used 5 years ago to support the the Kyoto conference has been shown to be sham, with cooked and trimed data and faulty conclusions. Using computer models to predict weather 50 years in advance, a task Dr Loranze proved to be impossible for times extending beyond a week into the future, is not science, it's propaganda. This is especially true when one considers that constants in the models are chosen specifically to give the desired results. Even when you use 7 such models and and average them the results are no better. If it were, then Meteorologists could forcast storm locations for the coming summer and give residents advanced warnings. In fact, they can't even accurately predict if the rain front passing through the county next to yours will drop rain on your house.
Volcanoes, cows and the biosphere inject many times more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity does, and water vapor is 7 TIMES the green house gas that CO2 is.
There is better correlation between the current global warming and Solar activity. Historical data indicates this phenomenon is a cyclic event and we just happen to be on the crest of a hot cycle. Three hundred years ago there was a mini ice age and London had no summer. Were the left wing pundants around then they would have been screaming their heads off about "Nuclear Winter", just as they were doing 30 years ago. Notice, their solutions 30 years ago are the same they offer today.... a modern version of East Germany.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I might be wrong here but... I believed that the US *redrew* themselves from the treaty, didn't they? Didn't Clinton sign the treaty but one of the first thing W. Bush did when he entered the White House was to cancel USA's participation, saying that the country's economy was more important? While it might be right, this is incredibly short-sighted (ie: what good will the economy do if the world is ravaged by disasters?).
Mmm...I love a good Kyoto, especially when it's been in a warming pact for 2 to 3 hours. It's nice and tender that way. Yummy.
Shouldn't this article be posted in politics instead of science?
Direct away from face when opening.
That is the question.
The fact is that the world is populated my animals that exhale C02 and is powered by combustion of fuels that use carbon and oxygen to provide resources necessary to feed 6-8 billion people and untold billions of domestic animals. Greenhouse effects are a logical result of the way the planet works and the number of mammals on it (cram 5 people in a car on a cold day and see how warm it gets for a simple example).
If humans can even reverse grenhouse processes, which I doubt, there are going to be some radical questions to be answered:
- who gets their standard of living reduced to pre-industrial levels?
-How do you reduce the human population of the planet below 4 billion?
-How do you feed the existing population when Kyoto rules drive down the agricultural efficiency of the nations that produce 80% of the world's food? (this could be the answer to the previous question)
-How do you relocate populations out of ecologically damaging cities and spread them over a wider area to reduce environmental impact?
-How do you get the environmentalists to allow Nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels? (world energy requirements grow every year, it has to come from somewhere).
-How do you measure the environmental impact of industrialism relative to the production of environmentally friendly products? Example, the industrial infrastructure necessary to produce a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is just as damaging as that needed to produce a fossil fuel vehicle. The process of building a computer and all of its parts is one of the most environmentally damaging around, even though the end product seems rather tame.
I guess the big question is who gets to be forced into 3rd world subsistance conditions (or forced to stay there) and who gets to stay inside the limo?
Oh no! There appears to be global warming on Mars! Won't somebody think of the Martian children and stop the evil industrialized nations from polluting Mars?! Send the Hollywood elite there immediately to protest!
--- Bad news for America, good news for Democrats
Good news for America, bad news for Democrats
"Crichton then goes on to make the classic error of confusing 'weather" and "climate.'"
I had read their responses to Crichton several weeks ago, and nothing seemed "ad-hominem." These are detailed rebuttals to fiction. Whereas the non-detailed fiction is not supported by real science. It's sad when biographies matter more than the science, but your response is hollow. Can you site an scientists working with conflicting models of climate?
It appears the climate is changing by many different measurements. What is not clear is that humans have anything to do with it.
We've had numerous ice ages and warm eras on the planet before humans even existed.
Scientists can't explain that yet, much less link human activity into the equation.
Of course it's only common sense to take care of the environment but most of what I've seen is junk science. It's along the lines of "a glacier is retreating...so your SUV is bad."
This is purely political. The planet will be here doing just fine long after all humans are dead.
-Nazz
I beg to differ. It has gotten significantly warmer in the area where I live. Very noticably warmer. I'ld say on average 5-10 F warmer. The growing season for crops has been extended by about two weeks. P.S. I live near Podunk, Iowa.
To Isolate "The growing season for crops has been extended by about two weeks." Global warming allows us to grow more food! Interesting, wouldn't you say? Seems like everyone talks about the negatives and not about positives that are happening?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
FACTS:
-CO2 is not the most prevalent Greenhouse Gas, that title belongs to Water vapor at 95%
-CO2 makes up 3.618% of total Greenhouse Gases (H2O-95%,CO2-3.618%,CH4-0.36%,NO2-0.95%)
-85.22% of atmospheric CO2 comes from natural sources, 14.78% comes from man-made sources.
-Therefore man-made CO2 (targeted by Kyoto) represents only 0.117% of all atmospheric Greenhouse Gases.
-If every country on earth signs Kyoto, and everyone follows it perfectly, and everyone holds CO2 at those levels permanently even though Kyoto expires in 2012, then by 2050 Kyoto is expected to have altered the predicted global mean temperature by 0.07 degrees. (Less than the margin of error for measuring global mean temperature)
-The United States is a net carbon sink, i.e. it absorbs more CO2 than it produces every year.
OPINION:
Kyoto has nothing to do with Global Warming, and everything to do with Global Politics. You can debate the political goals all you want, but trying to win that debate with a 'Save the Earth' argument is a fraud.
I grew up with the worries of global cooling. In the graduate engineering air pollution classes, carbon dioxide's spectral absorption band was reported already near saturation - very low sensitivity to more. Only CO2's higher mass molecule remained a factor. Crichton and others have long pointed out how the 1995 IPCC draft report was altered to convert "uncertainty" into a "consensus" for GW. Another example of intellectual dishonesty is the [http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-MedievalGlobalW arming.html treatment Mann has given his critics].
e s_quote05.html
I think that GW'ers still do not properly address astrophysical and geological processes. Also anyone who has worked with simulators realizes that emprical fudge factors are used liberally, that whole processes may not be treated adequately if at all (unkown or not well understood), and that their predictive value, without repeated validation cycles (xxx yrs?) or starting from a *complete* set of fundamental equations, is bunk.
I am more concerned about coal vs oil & gas, because the US has a lot, coal is relatively cheap and it is loaded with heavy metals, particulates and nucleotides. Coal use is the real policy issue to the US. Timing (a last resort?), adequate clean up and competitive economics are crucial to the US if another competitve energy cycle doesn't emerge. Don't worry about the oil & gas useage, you'll be competing with several billion prosperous Asians for it; it will all get used anyway.
I think Crichton has it [http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speech
right also in this speech] where he points out that the current version of "environmentalism" is a religion. I think many engineers are bigger and better environmentalists - working something other than their mouths and vacuum tubes. I liked the reviews on Crichton's book "State of Fear" and plan to read it.
Thought: If the 10% (100,000 ppm) decline in magnetic field (atmosphere retention, modulation of the ionospheric reflection) is more important than 100 ppm increase in CO2, if we are going through pole reversal (through/near magnetic zero, -90% more) what then? Before you go blow a few trillion, please make sure you have some hard facts addressing or prioritizing real problems. You might really miss the economic resources later. Lonnnggg term, I vote for aneutronic power sources (e.g. p-B) or space (D-T, D-D fusion or solar).
Actually AC, when I posted that there *WERE* no other quotes.
I very carefully said that I was interested in other viewpoints, as long as they had links and proof.
But then you were probably too busy being disgusted to look at posting-dates, and read my comment weren't you?
The United States is now the main global threat.
This is not because her people are evil. It is because the American Experiment has gone awry. The original intent of a multi-state "United States" was to retain enough sovereignty at a local enough level that people could voluntarily form groups with which to conduct grand living experiments founded on freedom of association. This system of free association-founded experimentation to discover what works and, by implication, what does not work for various peoples, has somehow been hijacked by central government, and meaningful experimental variation has been quashed.
The consequence is a treasonous monster actively denying the freedom of not just the US citizens but of the entire world to live.
It is no coincidence that the de facto government of the United States, in violating the right of its people to freely associate, is violating he natural. This monster is attacking its own source -- the people's sovereignty, which is, itself, founded in the laws of nature and of nature's god as described in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:
Citizens of the United States must not allow this travesty to continue. Freedom of association means voluntary association which means when someone pollutes the environment they are creating a situation in which others are not being left alone to conduct their lives as they see fit -- their desire to not participate in the US's experiment is being violated.
The same goes for any experiment that spills over its borders. If you want to conduct those kinds of experiments you should go set up separate ecosystems -- ultimately in space where they have a minimum chance of interacting with others.
What this means is that all terrestrial living experiments should give priority to traditional indigenous societies. Technological civilization should ultimately leave earth to the indigenous peoples, and conduct its grand experiments elsewhere.
Seastead this.
I know this may sound like flamebait, but I'll say it:
The only way we'll be able to even come close to Kyoto standards, and the reason that those eco-friendly French are able to do so, is by going nuclear. The coal plants we currently utilize create more pollution and more radiation (yes, radiation) than equivalent nuclear plants would.
So what's it going to be, you technology savvy hippies? Kyoto and nuclear? Or no Kyoto and no nuclear?
A couple of facts:
1) Automobiles account for 5% of the pollution in this country. SUVs make a very small percentage of this number - remember that the next time someone starts harping on SUVs.
2) Airplanes pollute an automobile equivalent of a 30,000 mile trip with each flight. Think about that the next time you book a flight.
3) The cost, energy and materials that currently go into solar panels actually create more pollution than that solar panel will save in it's lifetime. Hopefully further advances in solar technology will help.
4) The truth is - we're running out of oil. For the rest of our lives, oil is going to go down in supply and up in demand. Nuclear is our only choice.
The bulk of CO2 emmissions are natual. Plate Tectonic activity being the major culprit. Volcanos erupt and sub-oceanic plate move and release the bulk of CO2 into the atmosphere. But then the Global Carbonic Acid cycle can and does handle this volume with ease.
Not sure if there have been enough studies to conclusively say but it looked like quite a large study.
The US on the other hand will have to reinvent itself completely in only a couple years. Even cities will have to be rebuilt from the ground up (try doing that 100 mile daily commute in a world where gasoline is 10x more expensive than it is today). They will have to build extensive public transportation systems that do not exist right now. And all this right at the time the foreign debt crisis hits.
You forgot that the US backup plan is to be the last badass nation on the world with access to oil reserves. This means when the crisis hits, the US will accuse the rest of the world to be uneducated people who believe in nonsense like greenhouse gases and evolution, while it is clear to everyone that the universal designer, God, is punishing us for our sins, like not using windows2040 and not paying for software patents, thus withholding money from the US that the Creator intended to be there. Clearly, such behavior warrants a declaration of War, or maybe the USA will come to Europe to assist it in its War between Atheism, Anarchism and Religion.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Article on the science behind climate change, what's certain and what's not, who's convinced and who's sceptical, .
Climate change: Menace or myth?
One prominent sceptic, meteorologist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has made an interesting case that warming may dry out the upper levels of the innermost atmospheric layer, the troposphere, and less water means a weaker greenhouse effect. Lindzen, who is one of the few sceptics with a research track record that most climate scientists respect, says this drying effect could negate all the positive feedbacks and bring the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 levels back to 1 C. While there is little data to back up his idea, some studies suggest that these outer reaches are not as warm as IPCC models predict (see "Areas of contention). This could be a mere wrinkle in the models or something more important. But if catastrophists have an Achilles' heel, this could be it. Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic science of global warming - at least among scientists. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
1. Kyoto "Would have exempted China and other developing nations entirely (despite the fact that their growing emissions would have swamped the reductions from the developed nations)."
Reminds me of a newspaper cartoon I saw:
Fat-looking, suit wearing guy comes out of a large SUV, motor still running and black smog flowing out of its exhaust pipe. He walks up to a thin, hungry-looking, barefoot and sun-burned man who has an axe in his hands and is about to hit a tree, obviously to cut it down. Rich man screams to poor man: "Stop, Amigo! We need that tree to save us from the Greenhouse Effect!" SUV motor keeps running while he speaks...
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
www.junkscience.com Cost calculator and rebuttle position to Kyoto (among other things).
I welcome global warming! And as a side note, last summer was one of the mildest I can remember. You ask what do we do when global warming gets here, I ask how soon before it arrives.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
Whenever I hear that it will be "expensive" to meet the targets set forth in the Kyoto accord I wonder if people made the same argument against factories in the late 1800's. Sure, it was a lot of work to shift to an industrial economy, but in the end what we have is (usually) more efficient than the previous model. Likewise, it was expensive to set up lines of communication that basically cover the globe, but this has created whole new economic sectors and enabled dramatic increases in productivity. Who knows what innovations we will see as a result of research and development associated with a "cleaner" economy.
In some ways becoming "cleaner" is much like space exploration...is it expensive? Yes. Is it beneficial? Yes. Can we enumerate all the benefits at the outset? Probably not. Should we do it? Yes.
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
When will human kind realize that we cannot breathe, eat and drink money!!! carbon dioxide emission is affecting everything that we rely on to survive as a species.
It's not about financial or economical benefit. It's about reversing the damage we're doing to the planet. This is just another example of how the US is always looking out for #1 while the rest of the world tries to do something about the more serious problems. IMO, the US should not under any circumstances be allowed to ignore this protocol. They're one of the biggest producers of this mess, and they have a responsibility to help deal with it.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
As it does reduce the chances of global warming. While it could have been even better if the US would have taken part, fact is they did not and so complaining that a treaty is bad even if they didn't even sign it and therefore it won't cost them anything now seems pretty useless to me. Or do you have any problems just because the rest of the world does now regulate it's CO2 emissions?
"Concensus is not a fact based exercise" - No Substance
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
A key question is whether the US economy will benefit relative the rest of the world, with some arguing that new technologies such as clean power generation and energy efficient appliances will provide an economic boost."
Why? Americans don't make or discover those things anymore.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
In the economy there is no such thing as a permanent upturn or downturn.
energy usage echoes consumption and standard of living. the more energy you use, the wealtheir your society is. limiting energy usage, means limiting the standard of living.
people who want us to limit energy usage are asking for a halt to progress and standard of living.
whatever approach is taken needs to be a little more flexible than "we need to limit energy usage"
Significant expenditure in new, clean power plants (both big, like fusion, and small, like wind farms) also boost the economy.
this is rediculous. the "new, clean power" is obviously going to cost more and will depress the economy.
I seem to recall a time in history when industry leaders insisted that if we enact child labor laws, the economy would suffer horribly and permanently.
wow, you were alive in 1938?
Actually, in the initial stages of this negotiation, the US was an active partner. I spoke to several delegates from the first Bush administration and even some holdovers from the Reagan years. Unfortunately, the European delagtes simply outvoted them and wouldn't be reasoned with. For certain delegations it was, "I won't hurt you, you don't hurt me, we'll hurt those guys behind the tree." Unfortunately, it was the Americans behind the tree and by not negotiating with them in a real way, certain European delegations created a treaty which the US would never sign on to. The US would sign a reasonable treaty, this one is not that.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Quick Summary: Everyone in the world thinks that someone has to be done about pollution.
And the "one" the world wants to "do" is the USA. Forgive us if we see right through being "done".
After reading all these posts - I can see why all the CO2 comes from the U.S.
As long as we don't have further idiotic statements coming from the White House like this:
"The [oil-dependent] American Way of Life is not negotiable"
- George Bush Snr, Earth Summit, 1992
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
That might be correct. I thought I had read that the date was 1992, but either way the industrial production of Russia has decreased significantly.
Well, i still like it :) Even if the USA is not part of it, i still think of the treaty, as it's been signed now, as a sign that gives a little hope that many countries start to take our impact on the environment more serious. And if (IF!) those countries will reduce theire CO2 emissions because of the kyoto treaty than we simply do gamble a little less with the future.
:). But so far the current US Administration has failed to convince me that they take this topic very serious.
And now arguing that it's bad because it could have been better, well what's the point of it? Do better in the USA if you can do that better in your own way - i certainly wouldn't complain
Folks, with tolerance do note that about 700 yrs ago Mr. Earth was several degrees warmer than it is now. We are at present in a mini ice age. For the science challenged and to wit reference Jame's B.'s original "Connections" on how climate change effected the 13-14 centuries, and indeed look up the fact that one major volcanic eruption, like Mt. St. Helens, puts more "global warming" gasses into the atmosphere than all the autos in the last century. A warmup of several degrees is inevitable, as is another ice age. Global warming is as natural as global cooling.
Ah but there are loads of things that they could do but won't because politicians in Canada are a bunch of puppets:
-Make Gas with Methanol for Cars madatory (cost $0)
-Or tax Gas with Methanol less than gas without (Cost 0$)
-Make license plates for SUVs and Trucks cost more according to their age. (Cost: Profit center!)
-Make cheap wasteful appliances illigal (Cost $0) -Mandate that all new Gov. fleet cars be hybrids of better (Cost: $0)
-Allow farmers to collect Methane gas from animal waste so that then can burn it and make electricity.(Cost 0$)
-Allow Pig farmers to put animal waste in this machine http://www.changingworldtech.com./what/index.asp to make oil and electricity.(Cost 0$)
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Estimates for my country, New Zealand, put the cost of building a nuclear power plant to offset our power woes at around $50 Billion. And that will last us for onlyl 30 years until it gets too old and unstable, not to mention the lasting damage to our green image that brings in so much tourist revenue.
Then after 30 years we have to fork out another $50 Billion (plus inflation) to have another 30 years of power.
And nuclear waste simply doesn't go away, until the space shuttle starts carting it out into space and ejecting it into a collision with the sun...
Saying that nuclear power is "cheaper" than ever before doesn't stop it from being completely unaffordable by all but a few of the worlds richest countries.
Real men don't write sigs
It amazes me that so much seems to be considered and written from some un-named/un-manned insider's point of view. Someone who knows more than you. And, anyone dissenting is popularly labelled an imbecile for noting and scientifically accounting the melting of ice-floats and rising water-levels.
... China/N.Korea/Syria/Iran/India/Pakistan/etc etc etc etc etc etc.. is already doing??
Global warming effects everyone in the world - whether it is man-made or not.
Yet somehow we hear again and again that it's the 'un-developed' world who are to blame for GW and almost everything else for that matter.
The Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, who has refused to sign, (on behalf of the gulled dupes in that population), claims that Australia is in the 'best performing 4 countries in the world' as far as reducing greenhouse gas emitions goes (prove him wrong if you can) and he did so publicly in that country's parliament as recently as 16-Feb-2005.. BUT refuses to sign?? wtfit?
So Australia is like one of the best, but doesn't sign. That's not like them - I thought they loved to go for the Oscars and the Gold medals??? If Aust is sooooo good at reducing GHG then why not sign???
There are some 4 nations buggerizing about - US and Aust are two.. others are Lichtenstein and Monaco. Another case of what's right and wrong? After all, there are the hundreds of the other countries in the world for those who kind of just errr forget that factoid.
You're either with us or against us? Please. This is another example of why the "rest-of-world" (more than 90% of its population) will begin (as haters of human rights abuses) to turn against the torturing U.S. (regardless of terrorist activity, and in some cases applauding it - against 'infidel U.S. troublemakers') and the U.S.'s allies as "THEIR" economies pick up while ours decline (our markets evaporate as other nations develop their own free trade arrangements which won't rely on U.S. demands). What will we all do?? Accuse them ALL of being "Anti-American?" Hey let's build even MORE tanks and missiles and depleted uranium shells.. Oh, sorry, that's what they're all pissed off about and
BHP, an Aust, and now Aust/U.S company sells everyone, including China,/N.Korea/Syria/Iran/India/Pakistan/etc etc etc, the raw (Aust) resources? What will Aust allies like U.S. have to say about that? G.W.Bush has more than just G.W. on his plate. Aust is as Poland was to Germany in 1930's.. plus if anybody didn't already know - G.W.Bush's grandfather 'Poppy' financed Nazi activity (Thiesse) in those days. Geeze, history doesn't repeat? - I thought Poland was Nazi Germany's best friend too until the 'big push'.
Wake up - anyone who can't yet see it. The evidence has been around for longer than you can afford to fix it. Took an act of congress or such to call for "dealing with the enemy" provisions to stop him from selling and shipping coal/steele to Adolf. FACT. No moaning pls. Look it up yourselves - try phoning CBS.
no earlier .. the "civil war" in 1776!
I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
Sure it will have economic costs, but developing technology will create jobs and result in lots of energy saving technology which can be sold.
why do people keep saying this. it makes absolutely no sense. if oil is the cheapest source of energy we have, we aren't going to spur the economy by using a more expensive energy source. it will cost more for a company to get goods to market. that means less product sold, which means less jobs for everybody. maybe a handful of windfarm engineers will find new jobs, but people, economies, and especially the poor will globally find less work and have less wealth.
and by the way "saving energy" is not a good goal. there is lots of energy out there, the problem is getting affordable energy with acceptable levels of pollution. if you just limited energy, you would be limiting standard of living.
just because the glacier is melting means nothing. scientific proof means proving why the glacier is melting.
from the wall street journal, january 27, 2005:
...
...it costs under $5 per barrel to pump oil out from under the sand in Iraq, and about $15 to melt it out of the sand in Alberta.
We remain dependent on oil from the Mideast not because the planet is running out of buried hydrocarbons, but because extracting oil from the deserts of the Persian Gulf is so easy and cheap that it's risky to invest capital to extract somewhat more stubborn oil from far larger deposits in Alberta.
To pick just one example among many, finding costs are essentially zero for the 3.5 trillion barrels of oil that soak the clay in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela, and the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, that's trillion -- over a century's worth of global supply, at the current 30-billion-barrel-a-year rate of consumption.
The cost of extracting oil from the earth has not gone up over the past century, it has held remarkably steady. Going forward, over the longer term, it may rise very gradually, but certainly not fast. The earth is far bigger than people think, the untapped deposits are huge, and the technologies for separating oil from planet keep getting better. U.S. oil policy should be to promote new capital investment in the United States, Canada, and other oil-producing countries that are politically stable, and promote stable government in those that aren't.
-- Huber and Mills, co-authors of "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy."
no one. there is enough cheap oil in canada and venezuela to last for a century.
check the numbers, copernicus. if global warming is really as big a problem as the UN says, we have to go back to 1940's level of pollution. it'll take more than a little home conservation to accomplish that.
This world must stop thinking of everything being either pro or anti-U.S. Including troll feeders.
Imagine things as they are. Also the U.S. must stop imagining they are the world's 'supermen' still - it sets a bad example for other countries like Australia.
The other 90%+ of the world population will appreciate this. Pacific Island nations are in a panic because sea levels are already rising - many islands will disappear in mere decades regardless of U.S. superman goodwill actions like signing one protocol.
Often supermen make mistakes. History attests to this. And btw I have seen little mention of 'carbon trading' credits in these posts. The U.S. and the other 3 (that's a total of only three) countries in the whole world risk missing out on perhaps billions/trillions in eventual annual credits/trades etc.. first time in history that the U.S. is IGNORANT of a new and innovative market? What's going on with that?
I thought DarkSarin made a good point - except that the U.S. and the other few countries not willing to sign the protocol all recently HEARTILLY voted for leaders who explicitly anunciated their idiological HATRED of such "mumbo" as global warming - and to this day are the only few countries who try to kid their populations into accepting that they are not cruel - it's the rest of the world who are mad.
I remind everyone reading this thread that the other 90% of the world's population has a memory for such short shrift. Even as we magniloquently sit and pace about the place extemporaneously flouting our relative economical advantage.
Why do tewworwists hate us? I don't know, but let's spend trillions making war instead of peace whilst we try to blot out everything else we so readily anathematise, unseen outside our own front doors.
Brilliant way forward into the future superman. btw I thought only cryptonite could hurt superman - but it seems that even DarkSarin suggests that you can't be too harsh with supermen in the U.S. in that
"It will NEVER persuade an American that you are right if you sit around (or walk around--your preference) telling them how ignorant, arrogant, and selfish they are"
Perhaps then NOTHING will help? Therefore it's ALL OVER. U.S. doesn't like being catchized for being ignorant - yet the world suffers? What kind of superpower lets their new-found powerbase rot?
Let them eat cake?
Its about time that the EU starts talking about introducing economic sanctions for nations outwith the protocol. The days of American economic power are coming to an end and no matter how much they flail their arms around in a tantrum like a petulant toddler their ignorance and arrogance should be punished as the future of the whole planet is at stake.
The twighlight of British Empire was proceeded by the collapse of the pound in a very similar way to the trajectory of the US dollar. And it is this economic lever of targeting their economy by sanctions that should be used to shake them out of their misguided view of their own superiority which will lead us all to ruin.
I see lots of strong opinions posted here, but how many of the posters have actually read the Kyoto Protocol? Of those that have read it, how many have studied it to a point of understanding it? Does anybody on this thread actually know what they are talking about? KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
shotfeel (235240) asked:
/.ers saying unkind things about India not being able to feed it's own starving people a while ago - some said "how dare THEY have a space program!!" Now you - U.S. are borrowing exhorbitant amounts from their middle class - you will be their 'call centre' soon - if they don't outsource that to a less arrogant cultural community. Relevance has more to do with 'relevance' than bombing people in history's big scheme.
what's the penalty for not meeting the "legal requirements"?
The question should be
What's the penalty for NOT trying in the first place?
Seriously, when the rest of the world is showing such good will - and it's not "time will tell" shotfeel - it's just another lost opportunity for U.S. to engage with the rest-of-the-world on another issue of major heartbreak potential.
Is not goot. Time will mark it's passing, but it can't tell. The new Aussie media Baron Rupert Murdoch media machine will not have it and they will be sure you and your grandchildren will never know why those 'funny people' outside died all those horrible deaths.. nothing to do with GW or WMD's or anything else sexed up enough for consumption in the tabloids. Ben Franklin (no less) said "a people willing to give up freedom for the sake of security deserves neither".
BenFrankly, I look forward to seeing more of THAT spirit from U.S. as would many of the 90%+ or the rest of the world's population. India has 350Million middle class residents - who are doing your IT. China has more upwardly mobile yuppies and billionaires than the U.S. ever had.. evidence that what?? Well, some may suggest it's the beginning of the end of relying on U.S. and allies for guidance on anything important.. while U.S. and allies lie, cover-up and also waste trillion$ on Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, wmd, own citizens.. and who's next?? U.S. is borrowing billions from India - I remember some unkind
You don't make friends bombing people - no matter what your "hawks" tell the president. I'm sure not many U.S. citizens would realise that the U.S. has bombed more than 60 countries in the last century?
Oh everyone bows on the tv, but the schemes behind the scenes is the risk you take - be ready then with your missiles and you better be certain you can protect us all - countrymen and allies from the folly you risk us all to.
Global warming is another failed opportunity for the U.S. to show that it CARES about something outside its patently ideologically impenetrable walls.
...until global warming would even start fully kicking in, allowing for a chance to persuade both the US and China into the Kyoto treaty, but you know what? I live in Finland, where anything from 14 to -4 degrees Fahrenheit (-10 to -20 degrees Celsius for us Europeans and whatnot) used to be perfectly normal even during a mild winter. Back in the mid-90s winters used to begin even as early as October, and sometimes there was still some unmolten snow in May.
These past three winters I have been rather disappointed with, and why not? We've only had lasting snow as late as the second week of December the past two years, and I'm quite certain 2002 the snow didn't stick to the ground until the end of November. This past winter has been one of the worst ever winters I've yet to see - February is supposed to be the coldest month of the year, yet it's been 32 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit the whole month, with today being the exception (14 degrees Fahrenheit). In the end of January month the snow almost melted away again.
I don't care_ what's causing this - be it CO2, just normal temperature fluctuation in the course of history or even aliens from planet Yuggoth with anal probes... I want to play it safe with this treaty. I want there to be a future, even though I'm being a cynic and telling myself that if it's not one thing causing us to kill ourselves, it's something else...
But hey, I'm just being a paranoid, right? (Probably a stinkin' bleeding heart hippie eurotrash libertarian, too. </self irony>) I'm just the guy who finds it a little confusing to feel comfortable outside without gloves and a woolly hat - in midwinter with the windchill factor included.
Slightly OT: Today's headline on the local newspaper was about the rightist Christians demanding for some environtalist attitude from the US government. I was wondering when they'd pick up on the faint green attitude in the beginning of the Bible...
I aten't dead.
Denis of Much Menace said:
- Make Gas with Methanol for Cars madatory (cost $0)
- Or tax Gas with Methanol less than gas without (Cost 0$)
[kaladorn] The great thing about Methanol is when you add it to gas, it burns cleaner. This has allowed the Oil companies to burn *poorer* quality gas and still meet the minimum standards. And charge a few extra cents for it per liter. And laugh all the way to the bank. Score: Oil Companies: 1 Consumers: 0 Environment: -1 (because there is a feeling of progress)
-Make license plates for SUVs and Trucks cost more according to their age. (Cost: Profit center!)
[kaladorn] That's a fantastic idea. Don't link it to emission or the care they recieve. Just take perfectly well maintained vehicles off the road because they're old. Score: Car Companies: 1 Consumer: 0 Environment: 0.25 (it would have some benefit, but not much)
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
"Most of us living in the US are NOT living in high-population density areas."
I'll pick a nit here on a possibly semantic basis. Given a definition of Metropolitan from the Population Reference Bureau as:
"Metropolitan areas include an urbanized area of at least 50,000 people, the county where the urbanized area is located, and adjacent counties linked by commuting ties."
The U.S. census of 2000 records that in a Resident U.S. Population of 281,421,906 people, 232,579,940 reside in what is considered a Metropolitan area. That's about 83% of the U.S. Resident Population. Certailnly this does not specify the amount of territory the at least 50,000 people are spread over, but even given some variation in terms I find it unlikely that the number of people living in any empirically agreeable notion of high population density areas is less than 50% among U.S. residents. It looks like most people in the U.S. do live in what would be considered relatively high population density areas - the GP is invalid in this regard. We're highly urbanized, and the dirtiest country in the world as far as polution production - those are facts.
Others have given note of possible evidence that the weather has indeed changed noticeably over the last 30+ years in some areas. It's not just about global warming - it's about ecological and general climatic trauma. Global warming is just one possible symptom. Also the arguments supporting the possibility of economic upturn due to technological advances seem just as viable as those espousing economic downturn. If politicians wanted to they could easily sell that angle - but many are already heavily invested in the status quo re the environment - it's not a U.S. economic downturn they truly fear, it's a personal one. If we had representatives worth their weight in water, they'd be willing to commit political suicide to protect the true interests of their constituants - namely avoiding ecological and climatic suicide. If they were truly concerned with the economic well being of U.S. citizens they'd do a bit more questioning of how our taxes are being spent, a bit more pondering on whether outsourcing all skilled jobs is truly best for everyone in this country and a little less time harping on hollow xenophobia wrapped up with a pretty Michael Crichton junk science bow .
Not a single one of you talked about the REAL energy altering systemic change mankind has brought to the table, and that is albedo.
The reflectivity from all of that urbanization is pouring huge amounts of energy right back into the atmosphere that otherwise would have been absorbed.
Anyone who lives in a flyover state in a large metropolitan area knows that storms end up going around the big towns unless they have a lot of energy.
I have a tough time accepting these simulations due to albedo not being a major factor.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
Apparently Poland has received a fair share of the CO2 emission quota, thus enabling it to sell.
It might seem good, since the relatively poor countries can improve on the their economy by selling their quotas, but doesn't that contradict the whole 'ecological' point of reducing the emissions?
Never heard of "Tranzi" before. Transnational progressivism as described by John Fonte has a number of points/goals -- none of which are consistent with and/or likely to be reached with freedom of association as the foundation of human rights.
Seastead this.
If you really want to look at causes of global warming, CO2 isn't your culprit. Look at methane and a variety of other "greenhouse" gasses. Granted they aren't as common, but their half life in the atmosphere is magnitudes longer, and they have tens to hundreds of times the ability to hold heat in.
Rice patties and bogs are probably the most serious greenhouse gas problem we have, but no one wants to touch the problem with a ten foot pole. It's too politically incorrect to go after rice farmers when we can blame SUV drivers and big business. Nice to see you post your FUD as AC.
Perhaps I should say "admirable start". I think of good treaties as give and take with both parties giving up something and sharing burdens equally. I do not think Kyoto meets that criteria. Bad in the sense of unfair. Good in the sense that we need to do something and anything, Kyoto included, is better than nothing.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
The second link, "stories," should have been called "If you've been living in a bubble for the past 30 years, this will bring you up to speed." Seriously. The only thing I've seen more targeted at morons is the IRS Tax Return FAQ.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Three points:
1) The treaty, even if it somehow got 100% implemented against the wishes of many, would theoretically reduce world temperatures 0.1C over the next century. This is completely unmeasureable, especially when viewed against decade to decade fluctuations in world climate. Only 200 years ago we emerged from a mini-ice-age. Remember frozen Holland in the Bruegel paintings? 0.1C is statistical noise. Kyoto basically has no measureable goals or objective criteria with which to judge success or failure.
2) Most of the countries which will do the heaviest polluting over the coming years are not counted under Kyoto. Kyoto amounts to a tax on carbon emissions levied against wealthy industrial countries but not poorer ones like india or china that burn shitloads of coal. It would have hurt the US both in terms of the cost of manufacturing competitiveness and in terms of jobs lost. This amounts to a transfer of wealth from wealthy countries to poor ones.
3)Environmentalism in general is an attempt to subvert the sanctity of property rights in western society in the intersts of "protecting mother earth." How many times have you heard about ranchers losing their homes because someone found a rare species of lizard or flower or moss on their acreage? How many people in FL lost their homes for the crime of living too close to the everglades? How many national forests are built from formerly private land snatched through eminent domain? Do you think that using greenhouse gasses as an excuse to levy exorbitant taxes on wealthy countries is somehow more justifiable than just stealing it outright? Do you think this is an accident or perhaps a real attempt to subvert our ownership based society?
Yes, but on the average, many people that live in high-population density areas are not living in ghetto slums. The really packed in ones bring the average up for a region. For instance, I qualify as living in a metropolitan area as does likley everyone in Allegheny county, by their definition. I can see downtown Pittsburgh from my house (at least the tops of the big buildings) and I can see a 20 acre forest as well. As you can guess I don't feel too crowded.
The key here is perception, most people in the US live in an area that seems pretty decent, pollution wise, regardless of the reality. There are plenty of forests here, but Pittsburgh still has the (well deserved) reputation of the Steel City. Sure I never see smog, but I dont think the water is terribly clean either.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
...disregard my whole 'bleeding heart' bit, I just can't seem to be able to read today. I most certainly shouldn't have used the term "libertarian", but "liberal" - thanks for pointing that out.
I aten't dead.
IIRC the population of Minneapolis/StPaul is higher than 350,000. It's closer to 1.5mil, isn't it? Of course that may only be true if you include the suburbs. But the US much more suburban than urban. Which is what I think the posters are getting at, not the the US is more rural, although that may be true, I'm not sure.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Three years is also about how much Kyoto would slow down the rise in temperature over the next 100 years. Effectively it buys us a couple years at most, at a year high cost (and you can bet that all the low hanging fruit will be picked first, meaning future reductions will be more costly). If we as a society decide that serious global warming IS going on, that it is anthropogenic, and that we should try to undo the damage (as opposed to just coping with the results), then we are going to need far larger reductions than Kyoto, and far larger reductions than we can do now without crippling the world's economy. Given this and that it will be far cheeper for future generations to make equivalent reductions in carbon-based fuels (better technology) than for us to do so now, I'd say we'd be better off spending the compliance costs of Kyoto on scientific research. Think about spending 4% more of GDP on research, heck, even a small fraction of that.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
US car makers lost the lead to foreign car manufacturers because they ignored the world economies and instead created bigger engines that guzzle much fuel but have neither the long sustainable high power output nor have the fuel efficiency that foreign cars have been showing off.
As an example: automotive diesel engines
We can't even import the REALLY nice ones because our diesel fuel is too dirty - a shame because the average american doesn't even know what he is missing.
Ooops, I hit the "submit" button while wanting to preview my post, so I left out my point. Here it is.
Over short or long, not joining in the effort of creating an industry that itself works on creating technology to make "cleaner" products will mean that we will become a second rate player and will forever play catch-up with the rest of the world (French!).
I for one don't want to see that happen, and, face it, we could benefit from cleaning up our emissions.
My $.02
Naked political opposition is no reason to moderate downward.
Of course, if you had the courage to not post this anonymously, it might be considered more legitimate.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Where on earth did we get the notion that nuclear warfare has not been used since WWII?
s sDecepton_DU.html
i d_p/10/opt/read_e/id_s/148.html
n _050302.htm
Iraq & Our Energy Future - Depleted Uranium Use in Iraq
"During the first Gulf War in 1991, weapons containing depleted Uranium were used for the first time in combat."
http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/anderkel.html
Weapon of Mass Deception What the Pentagon doesn't want us to know about depleted uranium "Over the past 15 years, the Pentagon has become increasingly dependent on DU weapons and armor. The 1991 Gulf War was the first major conflict in which DU weaponry and armor was used. Almost 320 tons-an amount equal to the weight of five Abrams battle tanks-were fired in the Iraqi desert. About 10 tons of DU munitions were used in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia in the '90s. DU weaponry was reportedly used in Afghanistan in 2001 as well, but reliable estimates are not yet available."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/WeaponMa
WAR CRIME! - U.S Use of Depleted Uranium -"More Deadly than Gas" "When this war ends, George Bush will have caused the poisoning of hundreds of thousands more humans than he said Saddam Hussein poisoned."
http://www.stopthenato.org/m/zit/id_ses/a5cf1047/
Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops "DU munitions are classified by a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering."
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Death_by_slow_bur
(And I assume the "clean water" thing is a joke. I've lived in parts of rural America, and the water was anything but clean. "Outright poisonous water" is probably a better description. Much of rural food production is massively bad for the local water supply.)
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Something important to note about Chicago is that it used to have a much nicer public transportation system. A major factor of its disappearance was GM buying all of the public streetcars in the 40s and destroying them (the city fined them a whole $5000 for this). So while politics are definitely a factor, the real issue is the power major corporations have over the average person's life - not necessarily some kind of unwillingness on the part of your average American.
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon