Originally posted by: Jadow
F Kyoto
Originally posted by: Jadow
F Kyoto
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Alistar7
While the US did not participate, did our levels drop below our 1990 levels or did they rise as the EU's did?
It was a question, not a statement, thank you for answering that. There were major reductions made to kyoto that were almost identical to what Clinton said he would agree to sign, most notably, the % drop from 3% to 1%. Bush dismissed Kyoto after it became obvious it was not a sincere or realistic effort. China, India, and 15 of the top polluters in the EU do not have to comply in ANY WAY. At least we have been upfront about our position. They act as if they are playing fairly while they gave themsevles special exemtpions, reminds me of sanctioning Iraq on one hand while dealing them illegal arms with the other.
The part in bold is a point I disagree with you over. IMHO Bush dismissed Kyoto not because of other parties - but because it would cost the economy. It worries me that he is making that decision given the obvious links to petrol consumption and the oil related connections of many of his own family and advisors. Given what I can see of the way the US political system works (lobbying) I have grave concerns over "conflicts of interest".
Cheers,
Andy
IT was the senate in 1997 that rejected Kyoto 99-0. It is amazing how Bush is blamed for this rejection and he was not even in office.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
This is all so pointless over a treaty that is so watered down it's a joke. This is going to have NO EFFECT. Does it matter how long we can keep the earth's enviornment stable enough for the human species to exist anway? Take a look at the surface of the moon, what do you see? Craters, from getting POUNDED from objects in space. The short time man has been on Earth has been one of the most stable, uneventfull environmental periods in Earth's history. In about 50,000 years as our solar system gets whipped along the tail end of the milky way we will enter a portion of space PACKED with comets, meteors, asteroids. One large one, the size of texas, would leave 95% of the earth's surface in an inferno in less than 15 minutes(theres your global warming) BEFORE it even smacked into the planet, causing a 5 year "nuclear" winter from all the dust (some global cooling today sir?) You think our piddly efforts to control pollution are going to make any difference that day?
We can't get off this rock, at least not anywhere other than barely outside it's gravitational pull. 40,000,000 light years away is the closest sun and we will never make it there. We are destined to be like 99% of all species that have been on the face of this planet, extinct.
This will all be the liberals fault if anyone is left to keep score.....
Originally posted by: Alistar7
There is no possibly.
Face it, man is the ultimate parasite on the face of the earth, the worst in history. If mother nature does not take care of us first, eventually our luck will run out and we will be hit again, and again, and again, this is mathematical certainty.
Look at the worlds population geographically. Of course it is concentrated on the coastlines and near water generally. A slight increase in temperature could be enough to flood these areas, causing significant human loss. If this is caused by man's own negligence and stupidity, we deserved nothing less, if it is a natural phenomenon it was merely our destiny.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Fate has nothing to do with it, we are not so special we generate special consideration by the forces of nature or the laws of science.
Do a little research, it is out there. We are heading towards an area of space with MILLIONS of bodies any one of which could easily wipe out mankind and every other living thing at the time on Earth.
Of course we should make the effort now, but realize our time here is limited, no matter what we do. I would much rather see the effort be made to make sure this is not our one and only stop in the celestial community of being....
Originally posted by: Alistar7
What advances?
When the Earth rolls through a 2 million object meteor storm, no advance in science is going to save you.
This is the pattern of life in the universe, we are no different. You would rather see us do everything we could to control the environment at the expense of our being stranded here, an asteroid is not going to stop just because we have achieved harmony with nature. Personally, rather than building a utopia GURANTEED to be destroyed, I would rather see us work towards making sure we can go before it happens and live on elsewhere.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The issue of global warming is not something that can be fixed or managed in a short period of time. The only prupose of measures such as this are to ensure a stable enviornment for MAN, this is not for the benefit of the Earth.
Perhaps before we get wiped out we will discover the great secrets the TENS OF THOUSANDS of other more advanced EXTRATERESTIAL civilizations have used to protect themselves. Until then any other efforts should be secondary, including trying to manipulate the enviornment on a planet which WILL be subjected to blanket exticntion on a regular basis no matter what is done.
Notice the total lack of dinoaurs roaming your neighborhood.....
Originally posted by: Alistar7
There is some serious fact in there, lol.
Before you make light of my claim of tens of thusands of advanced ET worlds, familiarize your self with the Drake equasion.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
because man's only future on Earth is death, we can prolong the inevibilitably, but not the final result.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I wonder if Pakistan, India, China and Vietnam are reaching their targets....
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I wonder if Pakistan, India, China and Vietnam are reaching their targets....
Why don't you just say what you mean....
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I wonder if Pakistan, India, China and Vietnam are reaching their targets....
Why don't you just say what you mean....
How can you ratify a treaty that gives the green light for certain countries to pollute away?
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I wonder if Pakistan, India, China and Vietnam are reaching their targets....
Why don't you just say what you mean....
How can you ratify a treaty that gives the green light for certain countries to pollute away?
Well, I tried to explain in my previous posts about my view in this. I have no doubt that there are quite a few countries that do not have the available cash to reform the energy supply. They need all the cash they can get to keep there citizens alive and to improve their very basic infrastructure. These thrid-world or developing countries should not have to worry about emission quite yet. Let them deal with the more basic issues first.
Then there are those countries who have a lot of money and are quite capable of reforming their emissions if required - it just might not be popular or particularly cheap. These countries also tend to be high among those with the largest emissions too. These countries should have to make changes and should take into account that some (above) cannot make their own change, as yet, and so must absorb the developing countries pollution cutbacks.
Finlly there is the grey area in the middle (China, India, etc - I don't know enough about Vietnam, but I guess any country where work is cheap and labaorious - I'm thinking GAP clothing stereotypes here - can't be that prosperous). How much in the way of reform have these countries to make? Well, to be honest I don't know enough about their circumstances to be sure. In the case of China and India I can see that a middle ground should be reached - and it wasn't in the Kyoto treaty.
In conclusion I would say the following:
Apart from China and India what other countries are exempt - not because they are producing less than the requisite emission level already (ie Ireland), but because they are considered too "poor"?
What proportion of the world's CO2 emissions come from those countries?
Was it so big a deal it was worth pulling out for? I mean we're not talking a trade agreement here - we're talking about possible global implications over the next decades/century of epic proportions!
Cheers,
Andy
These countries have huge military spending, China has the largest army in the world...Pakistan and India are entering a nuclear arms race...and Vietnam is well Vietnam. If these countries spent less on arms races and building up a huge military for no reason that they could funnel this over into Nader Power....