Because most proponents of this "treaty" insist that had it not been signed and put into place that the entire human race would have been exterminated. I don't believe it for a moment but that's me. I'm not the one who brought that concern to the table.
"Here we have the implication that the possible job losses from environmental regulations are as serious as war and genocide."
Huh? I missed that implication. What was implied was that a leader must take actions that are in the best interest of the country that leader serves, not in the interests of other nations.
It amazes me that you have this focus on some "law" which is not a law but some silly usenet fodder. You gravitate toward it like a fly to a turd. The minute I use Germany in an example of how nations stand up for their own interests...wham! You're on the turd. I know, everyone has a trigger. For someone else they might be triggered by the fact that I mentioned Stallin and the USSR and I know there are some former cold warriers who would be on that turd.
Try to get your mind out of that rut and open it a little. Try to see that any national leader....and forget that I ever mentioned England or the USSR....any national leader must act in a way that they believe is in the best interest of the country they serve. It is not in their best interest to simple cave in and disregard their principles for no return.
Please also consider that national leaders make serious decisions on a daily basis, most of which have nothing to do with war but are often just as important and dire.
Yes! I love it. And according to the way most/.ers think, your neighbor should welcome you in and prepare your meal for you. After all, we can't have you starving. And it's not like you are going to kill them or anything.
Help yourself. Oh, and don't worry about the mess, your neighbor will clean it up.
Interesting world these/.ers live in. Where I live your neighbor would simply blow your head off.
"The Kyoto Protocol is designed to give all citizens of Earth a better quality of life."
Damn straight. And we all know how that excludes Americans. They are second class citizens of the planet and their quality of life is not important when discussing such things. To hell with them.
There should have been some mention of Bush causing the delay followed by a discussion on how evil capitialism is to blame for a less than perfect and timely product.
Of course. As we all know, only the actions of the US have any negative impact on other countries. Places like China, India and Russia are completely innocent and incapable of having any negative impact on the rest of the world. Any country in Europe is, of course, holy and pure.
Besides, grape jelly is yet another item for China to export to the masses in the US who will consume it without regard to the environmental damage that resulted from its creation.
Ah yes, modded down as flamebait. Anyone doubt this was due to my pointing out that it's perfectly acceptable to make Americans suffer as far as the rest of the world is concerned?
First you say "would have been" when in fact it "is". If you RTFA you'll learn that with Russia having signed the "treaty" will now go into effect.
You need to realize that this "treaty" is only some paper to burn so a bunch of politicians can blow smoke up each others asses. 30 years ago it was all about the number of nukes we all had pointing at each other. With that gone they've come up with this so they can count pollutants and point fingers at each other.
This does NOTHING to reduce pollutants. It's not a "first step" in any way. Factories will continue to produce and emit and now politicians will blow smoke about it. Big whoop-D-do.
Maybe that solution won't work. And nobody would argue the fact that it would be better not to generate so much to begin with.
But don't you agree that it is better to work toward some real solution than to waste time and money on some polical masturbation that accomplishes nothing solid?
Nation-states are obsolete? Then we'll be seeing them disappear fairly quickly now? I'll be keeping an eye on world affairs for this. You might want to pass this info on to the EU who are in the process of creating an even larger nation-state structure. Their work will be for naught.
You say that national implications are irrelevant. On the other hand, and within the context of this discussion, we see both the US and Russia making actions with regard to the "treaty" based entirely on national implications. How do you account for that?
Because you disagree with my opinion it is "stupid and pointless" and you need to quote some "law" rather than debate the point. You believe that I am equating environmental controls with military surrender because you have not read this thread of the discussion. If you had read it you would know that we were discussing leaders actions in the interests of the people and country they are at the helm of and not in some global/human interest.
And you might not prefer the companionship of your fellow man if that man threatened your life or had a negative impact on your life and the lives of those closest to you. Yes, we're social creatures but we also have a survival instinct, we tend to do what we believe is best for us at the moment.
Dude, you really think we're going to just eliminate competition from human nature in the next 1000 years? Whoa.
And hey, I'm all for getting laid....but that's another subject.
Take a hard look at the situation. Look at why the US didn't sign the treaty and why Russia did. These people aren't making the decision based on what's good for the environment, it's purely about the interests of their country.
Overall this treaty does nothing to make the earth less polluted. It simply reallocates pollution amongst select countries. It's all politics, nothing but smoke and mirrors.
You're right, he did. In his mind it would have been so much easier if the other government leaders would just cave in to his wishes so he could do what was best for Germany. He felt that some countries needed to suffer and their suffering would be for the good of Germany. And what was good for Germany would also be what was good for the rest of the world.
This sham of a treaty is much the same. Some countries, such as the US, must be made to suffer for the benefit of some other select few. Anytime the US suffers it must be good for the world.
This "treaty" works under the common assumption that it is never ok for anyone to suffer unless they are in the US. That really is the reason for its popularity. Nobody really cares if it would do any real good for the environment, it makes Americans suffer and is therefore a victory for the rest of the world.
Your reply, for whatever reason, reads like the script from Willy Wonka. I get this picture in my mind of Wonka saying "You lose. You get nothing. Good day!"
Ok, sorry, had to get that out.
The point remains that you and the authors of the "treaty" seem to want to play some political/econimical game instead of actually working on the problem. And it doesn't encourage corporations to pollute less, it encourages them to compete for the right to pollute. This system, especially as Russia is playing the game, will result in a redistrobution of wealth is all. Corporations will simply move their polluting activity to whatever third world country they have purchased their pollution vouchers for. Jobs will move but pollution will continue.
You seem to assume that without the treaty pollution can not be reduced. You also assume that the "treaty" will actually result in a reduction although that is a pretty large leap since the treaty does not provide for realistic measurement or enforcement.
Your comments indicate that you are anti-capitialism. Do you suggest that the elimination of capitalism would address the pollution issue? What is your suggestion?
I notice your attempt to backspace. It seems your initial thought was that the bulk of US government spending comes from the war in Iraq. You thought about it again and decided that it comes from the war on terror as a whole. Are those just your thoughts or do you actually have some facts from the GAO to back that up?
I'm very glad that Europeans feel more united. That's been a long time coming, it's great progress and I am sincerely glad to hear it. While we're spreading the warm fuzzy feelings around, those of us in the US also are feeling more united and care much less about foreign opinion.
You left out option #4: Continue to emit but hide. Not that it matters, there is no defined method for accurate measurement.
So you're saying that it helps the environment to pollute. Rather than finding methods of production that don't pollute, you believe that a free market in pollution will benefit the environment?
It isn't about win or lose. So because I mention WWII my point is not valid? Fine then, consider any other war you like or any other difference between peoples. You honestly believe that a group of people should/would give up their beliefs just to avoid environmental damage?
And your comment about thinking of oneself.....we all know how important the feelings of ones peers are to survival. Again I'll reference WWII, just to piss you off, and say that according to your theory Stallin should have caved in. Otherwise he would have risked Hitler not liking him. It's amazing how many Soviets (now Russians) would disagree with you.
"...it sounds like you're blaming Congress for the treaty's lack of viability."
No, not at all. I blame the authors of the "treaty" for its lack of viability. You might be right, the president might be able to bully enough people to get ratification. He doesn't want to do that and burn those bridges because he knows that the treaty isn't good enough to justify that cost.
"...doing whatever needs to be done to avert that damage."
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Doing things like opposing a "treaty" that doesn't seem to actually accomplish anything when it comes to the environment. By doing that our leaders will force other leaders to work harder to come up with something that really works, that really is measurable and enforceable. Whatever it takes, even if it pisses off other countries and the liberal left.
"...tell us what he's done to reduce the CO2 emissions of the U.S.?"
How about you keep what I said in context? Let's untwist my words here and remember that I said by refusing to sign the "treaty" Bush was not harming the environment. I didn't say he was some superhero who was working to reduce any emissions. And that's not his job. If you want them reduced then you work with some lawmakers to come up with a bill that will do such a thing. Or you go run a factory and take matters into your own hands while still managing to stay in business. This attitude that you need the president and the government to do everything for you has got to stop if you want to actually accomplish anything with your life.
"If Bush....I would fully respect his effort."
And what have you done that is worthy of his respect for your effort?
There was one famous democrat who spouted off something to do with not expecting your country to do things for you but instead to ask what you could do for your country. Rather than bitch and whine about how Bush isn't doing things your way, what are you doing to help him?
I suppose if he supported the treaty at a terrible cost to the economy and standard of living in our country you would respect him a lot? If only he would blindly sign the damn thing and not care about any other consiquences then you would respect and revere the man?
So a country that has a high standard of living and has developed its industry should suffer economic hardship instead? You, and the treaty, seem to want to favor those in less developed counties at the expense of certain developed countries. That goes against one of the principles my country believes in, that people are equal and should be treated as such. A balanced method would be more favorable, cut back pollutants while keeping people in the lifestyle they are accustomed to. If their standard of living must change then it must be a gradual change.
The "treaty" does nothing more than provide economic favor to certain countries. When something is presented that is measurable, enforceable and agreeable to all parties then we'll know that the problem has been taken seriously.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like that rather than what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves?
Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.
I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.
If you'll read that Yahoo story you'll find that's exactly why Russia decided to sign. They are looking out for their own immediate interests and don't give a wet shit about what it does to the US or anyone else. That's as it should be.
"It seems odd to see them whine on one hand about too much CO2, and then whine on the other hand that people would *gasp* actually consider using a CO2 free source of electricity."
I don't know why that seems odd to you that they would do that. Sure, the logic is odd. But the fact that they contradict themselves isn't odd at all, it's the norm.
The greenie weenies act and react based on emotion, not on logical thought.
Come on, these are the same people that put in electric hand dryers in public restrooms in place of paper towels in order to save the planet. Then they complain about how the megawatts are generated to power the damn things.
It doesn't suprise me at all. And most of the people you find who oppose things like nuclear power don't have a real clue about the environment anyway. Most of 'em live in densly packed cities and have never tasted wild game or know how to find a current bush to plug a xmas tree into. These are people who, if they do own a fireplace, buy wood in shrink wrapped bundles.
Please don't let the words that dribble out of the mouths of the clueless suprise you.
"Find, as long as he is sealed inside a concrete block with 8 years worth of per capita output of pollution for an hour afterwards."
I see. So you're one of those with such a huge ego that you think we should always remove nature from the equation. Gotta lock it all up within some man made block so you can control it. Nature couldn't possibly be part of either the problem or the solution. How's it feel to be so all powerful and mighty? Must be pretty good.
Damn straight the president does what he feels is in the best interest of his country. I'm sure that many in the UK would be supportive of Churchill if he had caved in to Germany and Hitler if he said that it might not be in the best interest of queen and country but was certainly in the best interest of the world. Yeah, they would be thrilled.
That might be, you dumbass towelhead. But we'll do as we see fit in our own interests. Why don't you worry about your own stinking mess in your own country.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why must you keep talking about loss of life?"
Because most proponents of this "treaty" insist that had it not been signed and put into place that the entire human race would have been exterminated. I don't believe it for a moment but that's me. I'm not the one who brought that concern to the table.
"Here we have the implication that the possible job losses from environmental regulations are as serious as war and genocide."
Huh? I missed that implication. What was implied was that a leader must take actions that are in the best interest of the country that leader serves, not in the interests of other nations.
It amazes me that you have this focus on some "law" which is not a law but some silly usenet fodder. You gravitate toward it like a fly to a turd. The minute I use Germany in an example of how nations stand up for their own interests...wham! You're on the turd. I know, everyone has a trigger. For someone else they might be triggered by the fact that I mentioned Stallin and the USSR and I know there are some former cold warriers who would be on that turd.
Try to get your mind out of that rut and open it a little. Try to see that any national leader....and forget that I ever mentioned England or the USSR....any national leader must act in a way that they believe is in the best interest of the country they serve. It is not in their best interest to simple cave in and disregard their principles for no return.
Please also consider that national leaders make serious decisions on a daily basis, most of which have nothing to do with war but are often just as important and dire.
.
Yes! I love it. And according to the way most /.ers think, your neighbor should welcome you in and prepare your meal for you. After all, we can't have you starving. And it's not like you are going to kill them or anything.
/.ers live in. Where I live your neighbor would simply blow your head off.
Help yourself. Oh, and don't worry about the mess, your neighbor will clean it up.
Interesting world these
.
"The Kyoto Protocol is designed to give all citizens of Earth a better quality of life."
Damn straight. And we all know how that excludes Americans. They are second class citizens of the planet and their quality of life is not important when discussing such things. To hell with them.
.
How true. I too was suprised at the number of Kerry voters.
.
There should have been some mention of Bush causing the delay followed by a discussion on how evil capitialism is to blame for a less than perfect and timely product.
.
Of course. As we all know, only the actions of the US have any negative impact on other countries. Places like China, India and Russia are completely innocent and incapable of having any negative impact on the rest of the world. Any country in Europe is, of course, holy and pure.
Besides, grape jelly is yet another item for China to export to the masses in the US who will consume it without regard to the environmental damage that resulted from its creation.
.
Ah yes, modded down as flamebait. Anyone doubt this was due to my pointing out that it's perfectly acceptable to make Americans suffer as far as the rest of the world is concerned?
Watch 'em mod this one down too.
.
First you say "would have been" when in fact it "is". If you RTFA you'll learn that with Russia having signed the "treaty" will now go into effect.
You need to realize that this "treaty" is only some paper to burn so a bunch of politicians can blow smoke up each others asses. 30 years ago it was all about the number of nukes we all had pointing at each other. With that gone they've come up with this so they can count pollutants and point fingers at each other.
This does NOTHING to reduce pollutants. It's not a "first step" in any way. Factories will continue to produce and emit and now politicians will blow smoke about it. Big whoop-D-do.
.
Maybe that solution won't work. And nobody would argue the fact that it would be better not to generate so much to begin with.
But don't you agree that it is better to work toward some real solution than to waste time and money on some polical masturbation that accomplishes nothing solid?
.
Nation-states are obsolete? Then we'll be seeing them disappear fairly quickly now? I'll be keeping an eye on world affairs for this. You might want to pass this info on to the EU who are in the process of creating an even larger nation-state structure. Their work will be for naught.
You say that national implications are irrelevant. On the other hand, and within the context of this discussion, we see both the US and Russia making actions with regard to the "treaty" based entirely on national implications. How do you account for that?
Because you disagree with my opinion it is "stupid and pointless" and you need to quote some "law" rather than debate the point. You believe that I am equating environmental controls with military surrender because you have not read this thread of the discussion. If you had read it you would know that we were discussing leaders actions in the interests of the people and country they are at the helm of and not in some global/human interest.
And you might not prefer the companionship of your fellow man if that man threatened your life or had a negative impact on your life and the lives of those closest to you. Yes, we're social creatures but we also have a survival instinct, we tend to do what we believe is best for us at the moment.
.
Dude, you really think we're going to just eliminate competition from human nature in the next 1000 years? Whoa.
And hey, I'm all for getting laid....but that's another subject.
Take a hard look at the situation. Look at why the US didn't sign the treaty and why Russia did. These people aren't making the decision based on what's good for the environment, it's purely about the interests of their country.
Overall this treaty does nothing to make the earth less polluted. It simply reallocates pollution amongst select countries. It's all politics, nothing but smoke and mirrors.
.
"Only out of greed would you fight your fellows for more."
I see, so greed would be the only reason. There is never any other threat to a person or their family?
Your sheltered life and false sense of reality both saddens and frightens me.
.
"Hitler reasoned exactly like that."
You're right, he did. In his mind it would have been so much easier if the other government leaders would just cave in to his wishes so he could do what was best for Germany. He felt that some countries needed to suffer and their suffering would be for the good of Germany. And what was good for Germany would also be what was good for the rest of the world.
This sham of a treaty is much the same. Some countries, such as the US, must be made to suffer for the benefit of some other select few. Anytime the US suffers it must be good for the world.
This "treaty" works under the common assumption that it is never ok for anyone to suffer unless they are in the US. That really is the reason for its popularity. Nobody really cares if it would do any real good for the environment, it makes Americans suffer and is therefore a victory for the rest of the world.
Your reply, for whatever reason, reads like the script from Willy Wonka. I get this picture in my mind of Wonka saying "You lose. You get nothing. Good day!"
Ok, sorry, had to get that out.
The point remains that you and the authors of the "treaty" seem to want to play some political/econimical game instead of actually working on the problem. And it doesn't encourage corporations to pollute less, it encourages them to compete for the right to pollute. This system, especially as Russia is playing the game, will result in a redistrobution of wealth is all. Corporations will simply move their polluting activity to whatever third world country they have purchased their pollution vouchers for. Jobs will move but pollution will continue.
You seem to assume that without the treaty pollution can not be reduced. You also assume that the "treaty" will actually result in a reduction although that is a pretty large leap since the treaty does not provide for realistic measurement or enforcement.
Your comments indicate that you are anti-capitialism. Do you suggest that the elimination of capitalism would address the pollution issue? What is your suggestion?
I notice your attempt to backspace. It seems your initial thought was that the bulk of US government spending comes from the war in Iraq. You thought about it again and decided that it comes from the war on terror as a whole. Are those just your thoughts or do you actually have some facts from the GAO to back that up?
I'm very glad that Europeans feel more united. That's been a long time coming, it's great progress and I am sincerely glad to hear it. While we're spreading the warm fuzzy feelings around, those of us in the US also are feeling more united and care much less about foreign opinion.
.
You left out option #4: Continue to emit but hide.
Not that it matters, there is no defined method for accurate measurement.
So you're saying that it helps the environment to pollute. Rather than finding methods of production that don't pollute, you believe that a free market in pollution will benefit the environment?
Please define "Bush-crony shit"
.
It isn't about win or lose. So because I mention WWII my point is not valid? Fine then, consider any other war you like or any other difference between peoples. You honestly believe that a group of people should/would give up their beliefs just to avoid environmental damage?
And your comment about thinking of oneself.....we all know how important the feelings of ones peers are to survival. Again I'll reference WWII, just to piss you off, and say that according to your theory Stallin should have caved in. Otherwise he would have risked Hitler not liking him. It's amazing how many Soviets (now Russians) would disagree with you.
"...it sounds like you're blaming Congress for the treaty's lack of viability."
....I would fully respect his effort."
No, not at all. I blame the authors of the "treaty" for its lack of viability. You might be right, the president might be able to bully enough people to get ratification. He doesn't want to do that and burn those bridges because he knows that the treaty isn't good enough to justify that cost.
"...doing whatever needs to be done to avert that damage."
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Doing things like opposing a "treaty" that doesn't seem to actually accomplish anything when it comes to the environment. By doing that our leaders will force other leaders to work harder to come up with something that really works, that really is measurable and enforceable. Whatever it takes, even if it pisses off other countries and the liberal left.
"...tell us what he's done to reduce the CO2 emissions of the U.S.?"
How about you keep what I said in context? Let's untwist my words here and remember that I said by refusing to sign the "treaty" Bush was not harming the environment. I didn't say he was some superhero who was working to reduce any emissions. And that's not his job. If you want them reduced then you work with some lawmakers to come up with a bill that will do such a thing. Or you go run a factory and take matters into your own hands while still managing to stay in business. This attitude that you need the president and the government to do everything for you has got to stop if you want to actually accomplish anything with your life.
"If Bush
And what have you done that is worthy of his respect for your effort?
There was one famous democrat who spouted off something to do with not expecting your country to do things for you but instead to ask what you could do for your country. Rather than bitch and whine about how Bush isn't doing things your way, what are you doing to help him?
I suppose if he supported the treaty at a terrible cost to the economy and standard of living in our country you would respect him a lot? If only he would blindly sign the damn thing and not care about any other consiquences then you would respect and revere the man?
.
So a country that has a high standard of living and has developed its industry should suffer economic hardship instead? You, and the treaty, seem to want to favor those in less developed counties at the expense of certain developed countries. That goes against one of the principles my country believes in, that people are equal and should be treated as such. A balanced method would be more favorable, cut back pollutants while keeping people in the lifestyle they are accustomed to. If their standard of living must change then it must be a gradual change.
The "treaty" does nothing more than provide economic favor to certain countries. When something is presented that is measurable, enforceable and agreeable to all parties then we'll know that the problem has been taken seriously.
.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like that rather than what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves?
Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.
I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.
If you'll read that Yahoo story you'll find that's exactly why Russia decided to sign. They are looking out for their own immediate interests and don't give a wet shit about what it does to the US or anyone else. That's as it should be.
.
You bring up a great point. Here we have yet another bunch of crap that really isn't enforceable.
All this "treaty" does is promote development for certain countries. Nothing more, nothing less.
.
"It seems odd to see them whine on one hand about too much CO2, and then whine on the other hand that people would *gasp* actually consider using a CO2 free source of electricity."
I don't know why that seems odd to you that they would do that. Sure, the logic is odd. But the fact that they contradict themselves isn't odd at all, it's the norm.
The greenie weenies act and react based on emotion, not on logical thought.
Come on, these are the same people that put in electric hand dryers in public restrooms in place of paper towels in order to save the planet. Then they complain about how the megawatts are generated to power the damn things.
It doesn't suprise me at all. And most of the people you find who oppose things like nuclear power don't have a real clue about the environment anyway. Most of 'em live in densly packed cities and have never tasted wild game or know how to find a current bush to plug a xmas tree into. These are people who, if they do own a fireplace, buy wood in shrink wrapped bundles.
Please don't let the words that dribble out of the mouths of the clueless suprise you.
.
From what I read the treaty now goes into place regardless of what the USA does now. Somehow that means Bush is at fault?
The Yahoo story also points out that Russia agreed to the treaty because they hope to sell their pollution quota to other countries and attract jobs.
I'm at a loss to see how that helps the environment.
Instead this treaty seems to make pollution a commodity that can be bought and sold.
Can someone please explain to me just how the fuck that's gonna help?
.
"Find, as long as he is sealed inside a concrete block with 8 years worth of per capita output of pollution for an hour afterwards."
I see. So you're one of those with such a huge ego that you think we should always remove nature from the equation. Gotta lock it all up within some man made block so you can control it. Nature couldn't possibly be part of either the problem or the solution. How's it feel to be so all powerful and mighty? Must be pretty good.
Damn straight the president does what he feels is in the best interest of his country. I'm sure that many in the UK would be supportive of Churchill if he had caved in to Germany and Hitler if he said that it might not be in the best interest of queen and country but was certainly in the best interest of the world. Yeah, they would be thrilled.
That might be, you dumbass towelhead. But we'll do as we see fit in our own interests. Why don't you worry about your own stinking mess in your own country.
.