Russia ratifies Kyoto treaty ~ where is US

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Smilin
Nope. Don't have any links or whatnot. I might have heard it on NPR or something but a quick search over there isn't really producing anything. I don't really consider it any sort of "conspiracy theory" either. If anything it's a "common sense" theory.

I would not call it common sense, rather a theory without any actual basis
I doubt that 125+ countries that ratified or acceded Kyoto did it just because they knew US would turn it down ~ it is totally ridiculous.

I don't believe other countries are deliberately trying to make us look bad either. Those are your words. I believe other industrialized nations know that they can't afford the Kyoto Protocol and it just so happens they have an easy way out without making them appear environmentally unfriendly. The treaty is not legally binding until it is ratified by everyone and they know the U.S. will never ratify it.

So they ratify it knowing it will never be legally binding and it won't! Not an entirely unclever move on their part.

That?s another one of your baseless theories, which can be easily refuted. The pact will be legally binding once it is approved by Russian parliament.

It won't be legally binding to us will it? Other countries can be legally bound to it once all accept. If we're not on the list then yes, it will be legally binding to them. If we ARE on the list it will never be legally binding because all parties did not agree. Watch and see how many other countries abide by it while we refuse. Kyoto in it's current form is not going anywhere without US approval.

It really is common sense. Although you clearly disagree with my point, I'm not really sure what your point is? If your point is you disagree with me then, ok I get it. Otherwise, what is your point exactly?

Now you are trying weasel out of it ~ you weren?t talking about the treaty being legally binding to US but the treaty being legally binding to everyone. Just admit you were wrong, happens to everyone; no big deal.

My point is that you are opposed to Kyoto without knowing basic facts. I?m not trying to offend you, I?m simply pointing out that maybe you should investigate something before you say anything about it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: sandorski

People keep saying it would be disastrous, but so far no one who is working at fulfill their obligations is having a disaster on their hands. The same people also claimed future Doom when CFCs were banned. Truth is the whole opposition to Kyoto was based on little more than FUD.

The exact same thing could be said of the proponents of Kyoto.

The Kyoto Protocol, negotiated in December 1997, calls upon the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012, but it imposes no requirements for developing nations to limit, reduce or make any commitments regarding their emission levels.

Who's working to "fulfill their obligations?" Were they hit with the same requirements as the US?

Yes, they all have/had to reduce their CO2 outputs to 7% of Pre-19990 levels. The biggest difference between the various First World Nations has/had to do with how far they had to go in order to meet that target. The US was trending towards higher Fuel Consumption due to Consumers desire for SUVs and other gas guzzling vehicles and that certainly put the US at a unique disadvantage, but it was not some EU(or other) Conspiracy to shackle the US with a more stringent requirement.

Concentrations of CO2 in the Atmosphere are increasing annually, Kyoto's main goal is to at least stop that Increased Concentration. As such it was only a step towards the real solution. Which is the reversal of CO2 concentrations and the return to Normal levels of CO2 concentrations(which could take Centuries to accomplish!).

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Smilin
Nope. Don't have any links or whatnot. I might have heard it on NPR or something but a quick search over there isn't really producing anything. I don't really consider it any sort of "conspiracy theory" either. If anything it's a "common sense" theory.

I would not call it common sense, rather a theory without any actual basis
I doubt that 125+ countries that ratified or acceded Kyoto did it just because they knew US would turn it down ~ it is totally ridiculous.

I don't believe other countries are deliberately trying to make us look bad either. Those are your words. I believe other industrialized nations know that they can't afford the Kyoto Protocol and it just so happens they have an easy way out without making them appear environmentally unfriendly. The treaty is not legally binding until it is ratified by everyone and they know the U.S. will never ratify it.

So they ratify it knowing it will never be legally binding and it won't! Not an entirely unclever move on their part.

That?s another one of your baseless theories, which can be easily refuted. The pact will be legally binding once it is approved by Russian parliament.

It won't be legally binding to us will it? Other countries can be legally bound to it once all accept. If we're not on the list then yes, it will be legally binding to them. If we ARE on the list it will never be legally binding because all parties did not agree. Watch and see how many other countries abide by it while we refuse. Kyoto in it's current form is not going anywhere without US approval.

It really is common sense. Although you clearly disagree with my point, I'm not really sure what your point is? If your point is you disagree with me then, ok I get it. Otherwise, what is your point exactly?

Now you are trying weasel out of it ~ you weren?t talking about the treaty being legally binding to US but the treaty being legally binding to everyone. Just admit you were wrong, happens to everyone; no big deal.

My point is that you are opposed to Kyoto without knowing basic facts. I?m not trying to offend you, I?m simply pointing out that maybe you should investigate something before you say anything about it.

I'll admit I don't know where I picked this idea up from. It's been too long. I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. You just disagree with me and have picked up some personal crusade to win an argument that I'm not willing to have.

I'll say whatever I want. Get off my @ss and stop being such a forum nazi. Thanks.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Gotta start somewhere. Presumably, doing nothing would have less positive impact on the environment than Kyoto.

Yes, but is that start worth the possible impact on the economy?

Is it worth severely handicapping yourselves for a cause that is unlikely (possibly) to have any significant impact? Why not just take the money that would have been lost and invest it into cleaner sources of energy? Of course that is probably too idealistic.

What about the future costs of NOT doing anything? Lost productivity of farmland, higher fuel costs, higher health costs, etc..? You have to consider these costs as well.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
Can't elaborate much, since I assume many of the breakthroughs are yet to come, but Fuel Efficiency(something that the US already lags in) is certainly a very likely place where some of these Technologies will be.

These are the types of Challenges that always result in changing Technology, like landing a man on the moon. When at first you decide to do it it may look impossible, but on the road to accomplishing it you discover what is required to finish the task.

The technology for alternatives exists. The reasons it has yet to be implemented on a large scale, however, are longer than I care to go into tonight. With standard ICE cars, they're just about as efficient as they're going to get. The only thing you can do to get them to achieve higher mpg is to decrease mass, which is a trend that would have to be driven by consumers. Unfortunately, the trend is currently in the opposite direction. While engines have become more efficient, cars have become larger, negating the impact of said fuel efficiency. SUVs exacerbate the problem, yet they are very popular. The consumer's dollar is the driving force for technology.

This is why there needs to be a stabilizing factor. Use the market to change the market. There can be a tax/credit system where fuel efficient vehicles are made cheaper for customers while large fuel inefficient vehicles are made more expensive. Of course the trick is to do this without hurting businesses that rely on these vehicles, perhaps by letting businesses use it as a tax deduction.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Gotta start somewhere. Presumably, doing nothing would have less positive impact on the environment than Kyoto.

Yes, but is that start worth the possible impact on the economy?

Is it worth severely handicapping yourselves for a cause that is unlikely (possibly) to have any significant impact? Why not just take the money that would have been lost and invest it into cleaner sources of energy? Of course that is probably too idealistic.

What about the future costs of NOT doing anything? Lost productivity of farmland, higher fuel costs, higher health costs, etc..? You have to consider these costs as well.

And you are saying that Kyoto will make all of these costs vanish? Where is the proof of this?

Again, you are willing to risk much for what could be almost nothing.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Gotta start somewhere. Presumably, doing nothing would have less positive impact on the environment than Kyoto.

Yes, but is that start worth the possible impact on the economy?

Is it worth severely handicapping yourselves for a cause that is unlikely (possibly) to have any significant impact? Why not just take the money that would have been lost and invest it into cleaner sources of energy? Of course that is probably too idealistic.

What about the future costs of NOT doing anything? Lost productivity of farmland, higher fuel costs, higher health costs, etc..? You have to consider these costs as well.

And you are saying that Kyoto will make all of these costs vanish? Where is the proof of this?

Again, you are willing to risk much for what could be almost nothing.

I don't know about Kyoto specifically, but I believe we need to do more than we are doing right now to offset greater costs in the future. Start with small steps.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Ultima
I don't know about Kyoto specifically, but I believe we need to do more than we are doing right now to offset greater costs in the future. Start with small steps.

That's the problem - Kyoto is not a small step in terms of risk and costs.

 

[ElFenix]

it's a good thing the largest producer of what they're trying to cut isn't even party to the agreement!

(note: the previous presidency didn't make this a big deal, it only became a big deal when shrub took office so those two faced democrats could yell about how shrub was ruining the environment... meanwhile, last i saw the US was actually leading in reductions)

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
meanwhile, last i saw the US was actually leading in reductions)

Do you have a link for that?

 

[imported_Condor]

Quote:

You really need an Education.

Chernobyl, read up on it. Besides, if their pollution is that bad, don't you think it's actually a good thing that they are trying to do something about it?

End Quote:

You need to travel. All knowledge isn't in the comics or on the WEB. I just spent 3 years in Kiev, UK. Look on the map. Our Embassy managed Chernobyl. Many of my employees had fathers, brothers and uncles die in the effort to dump concrete and lead on the hot smoldering ruin while the radiation burned their organs.

 

[Stunt]

One could argue the cost of Kyoto for days on end...fact of the matter is we don't know how much it will cost. We just have to see if it is something that the public wants.
Just look at all of the safety measures and practices that companies must implement by law...these before implementation were probably considered counter productive to the economy. Basically anything that requires more work beyond productivity does this. But how much...questionable, look at the contractors needed to implement in every business. This creates a lot of jobs and people paying taxes...sure companies will have lower profits but it will be to buy componants, research, and labour. These are hardly damaging to an economy. But that's my 2 cents on that...the main reason for my posting is:

I wanted to mention another side of the equation that people seem to have overlooked.

Kyoto is not only involved in greenhouse emissions but on all types of emissions...this polution is the sole cause of the increased asthma problems the indutrial world is going though. With most of the emissions coming from within our borders, our sons and daughters are having complications with breathing.

Asthma Study

asthma prevalence has increased in 15 years from 30 in 1000 to 60 in 1000.
emergency room visits are going up drastically.
death rates due to asthma have quadrupled in the last 20 years.

All these trends will continue and place a burden on the economy. Think of the cost of all these additoinal doctors and treatments. It's quite staggering and not much press is made about it.

look how it affects you today:

Asthma?s Annual Impact in the United States

*Approximately 5,000 deaths annually

*Two million emergency department visits

*Nearly 500,000 hospitalizations

*14 million missed school days

* 14.5 million missed work days

*$14 billion in medical and indirect expenses

Now tell me that isnt damaging to the economy!!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Condor
Quote:

You really need an Education.

Chernobyl, read up on it. Besides, if their pollution is that bad, don't you think it's actually a good thing that they are trying to do something about it?

End Quote:

You need to travel. All knowledge isn't in the comics or on the WEB. I just spent 3 years in Kiev, UK. Look on the map. Our Embassy managed Chernobyl. Many of my employees had fathers, brothers and uncles die in the effort to dump concrete and lead on the hot smoldering ruin while the radiation burned their organs.

That's nice and all, but what does Chernobyl's mess, needing to wash boots, and Russia signing the Kyoto agreement have in common? Besides, like I said, if the place is such a Hell Hole you'd think it would be a good thing to decide to do something about it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: ElFenix
meanwhile, last i saw the US was actually leading in reductions)

Do you have a link for that?

it was sometime last year, so, no.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
One could argue the cost of Kyoto for days on end...fact of the matter is we don't know how much it will cost.

We don't know how much it costs, but we can see that the costs are huge.

We just have to see if it is something that the public wants.

The public wants lots of things, but that doesn't mean that it should get everything that it wants. Provide them with the facts with concern to the economy and they would probably change their mind.

Just look at all of the safety measures and practices that companies must implement by law...these before implementation were probably considered counter productive to the economy. Basically anything that requires more work beyond productivity does this. But how much...questionable, look at the contractors needed to implement in every business. This creates a lot of jobs and people paying taxes...sure companies will have lower profits but it will be to buy componants, research, and labour. These are hardly damaging to an economy. But that's my 2 cents on that...the main reason for my posting is:

And think how many more workers could be employed and how much better it would be for the economy to directly invest this money in alternative uses and without hampering the economy.

I wanted to mention another side of the equation that people seem to have overlooked.

Kyoto is not only involved in greenhouse emissions but on all types of emissions...this polution is the sole cause of the increased asthma problems the indutrial world is going though. With most of the emissions coming from within our borders, our sons and daughters are having complications with breathing.

Asthma Study

asthma prevalence has increased in 15 years from 30 in 1000 to 60 in 1000.
emergency room visits are going up drastically.
death rates due to asthma have quadrupled in the last 20 years.

All these trends will continue and place a burden on the economy. Think of the cost of all these additoinal doctors and treatments. It's quite staggering and not much press is made about it.

look how it affects you today:

Asthma?s Annual Impact in the United States

*Approximately 5,000 deaths annually

*Two million emergency department visits

*Nearly 500,000 hospitalizations

*14 million missed school days

* 14.5 million missed work days

*$14 billion in medical and indirect expenses

Now tell me that isnt damaging to the economy!!

And is Kyoto going to be enough to significantly lower these numbers? Or could there be other implementations done without gigantic risks to the economy?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
And is Kyoto going to be enough to significantly lower these numbers? Or could there be other implementations done without gigantic risks to the economy?

Economy isnt everything, u dont know what is going to happen until u implement it.
Everyone said that sending manufacturing overseas will ruin the US economy. But it does fine on 40% service jobs, if they enacted policy to not allow this to 'save the economy' then we wouldnt be where we are today. It's not about doing what you think is right for the economy but doing what is right and living with the results.

i don't think there are gigantic risks...but again you have no proof and neither do i.

fact of the matter is can you put an economic price on lives. Fact is you can't. If death rates continue how they are, we are talking 20,000 deaths a year in 2020.

Also the costs associated with heathcare of 2million doubling every 15 years...probably accelerating with all the new manufacturing around the world.

you've got an epidemic on your hands. Something that the world cannot afford. No matter waht dollar value you come up with, nothing replaces life...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Economy isnt everything

It is probably one of the most significant points for a country. Tell that to the population and you won't go too far.

u dont know what is going to happen until u implement it.

But you can tell if something is going to have great costs or not.

Everyone said that sending manufacturing overseas will ruin the US economy. But it does fine on 40% service jobs, if they enacted policy to not allow this to 'save the economy' then we wouldnt be where we are today. It's not about doing what you think is right for the economy but doing what is right and living with the results.

Sometimes doing what is right for the economy is what is right.

i don't think there are gigantic risks...but again you have no proof and neither do i.

Are you seriously saying that there are no large economic risks in the US agreeing and following the Kyoto Treaty?

fact of the matter is can you put an economic price on lives. Fact is you can't. If death rates continue how they are, we are talking 20,000 deaths a year in 2020.

Are you seriously saying that the Kyoto Treaty would definitely stop this significantly?

Also the costs associated with heathcare of 2million doubling every 15 years...probably accelerating with all the new manufacturing around the world.

you've got an epidemic on your hands. Something that the world cannot afford. No matter waht dollar value you come up with, nothing replaces life...

Are you seriously saying that the Kyoto Treaty would stop this significantly?

The problem is that you're asking for large economic risks for what many say will likely have little to no impact.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Ultima
This is why there needs to be a stabilizing factor. Use the market to change the market. There can be a tax/credit system where fuel efficient vehicles are made cheaper for customers while large fuel inefficient vehicles are made more expensive. Of course the trick is to do this without hurting businesses that rely on these vehicles, perhaps by letting businesses use it as a tax deduction.

This sounds great. However, it falls apart under inspection. The government CANNOT subsidize the purchase of vehicles in any significant way. To provide a sufficient driving force for change, the government would have to know at least a grand off the price of every vehicle. Multiply that by tens of millions of cars bought every year. Further, the government would essentially be handing this money over to foreign auto companies, as they traditionally have more fuel-efficient vehicles. It just doesn't work.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Are you seriously saying that the Kyoto Treaty would stop this significantly?

The problem is that you're asking for large economic risks for what many say will likely have little to no impact.

No i can't say 100% but lowering emissions will save lives period.
The lower the harmful emissions the more lives you save.
So take that with you...you want to have your kid come into the world destined to die or have breathing complications because you wanted a minimal discount or wanted ur one little raise?

It will not harm the economy to the scale you are thinking. Technically Iraq hurt the economy then. $200+ billion of wasted money. The US economy is more resilliant than you'd think...you just have to get your mind around the fact that this is what is best for everyone.

estimates for implementing kyoto are less than $100B...but who knows...

That's why implementation is slow...if it hinders the economy...it can be stopped...not that hard to reverse.
I think it is doable.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
Bush wont allow the US to ratify the Koyoto protocol... i think the US was part of it, and he took us out

at least thats what i learned in my Environment Economics class

in 1998( i think), the senate rejected kyoto 97-0. We were never part of it.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
No i can't say 100% but lowering emissions will save lives period.
The lower the harmful emissions the more lives you save.

And will Kyoto really save enough to offset the economy and the effects from that? Probably not. The Kyoto Treaty as it is right now is not going to do much, if anything, to save lives.

So take that with you...you want to have your kid come into the world destined to die or have breathing complications because you wanted a minimal discount or wanted ur one little raise?

Again, you are assuming that Kyoto is going to save your kid from having to breathe with complications...I would think if he is going to have complications then he is going to have complications with or without the Kyoto Treaty as it is right now.

Do you want your kid to be homeless and poor for nothing? That is about as ridiculous of a comparison as yours.

It will not harm the economy to the scale you are thinking. Technically Iraq hurt the economy then. $200+ billion of wasted money. The US economy is more resilliant than you'd think...you just have to get your mind around the fact that this is what is best for everyone.

Again, how can it be the best for everyone if little will be gained from it? You have to get your mind around the fact that great sacrifices aren't worth it for little to no gains.

estimates for implementing kyoto are less than $100B...but who knows...

That's why implementation is slow...if it hinders the economy...it can be stopped...not that hard to reverse.
I think it is doable.

Again, you have to show that the reason for the implementation is actually worth it and is actually possible.

You see that's the big problem. You are willing to take large risks for little to no reward. If there was direct and incontroversial evidence that says that this would be greatly beneficial and significant, then it would be a great goal. However, as it is structured at this time as well as scientific opinion regarding the actualy effects of this plan, that isn't likely.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Are you seriously saying that the Kyoto Treaty would stop this significantly?

The problem is that you're asking for large economic risks for what many say will likely have little to no impact.

No i can't say 100% but lowering emissions will save lives period.
The lower the harmful emissions the more lives you save.
So take that with you...you want to have your kid come into the world destined to die or have breathing complications because you wanted a minimal discount or wanted ur one little raise?

It will not harm the economy to the scale you are thinking. Technically Iraq hurt the economy then. $200+ billion of wasted money. The US economy is more resilliant than you'd think...you just have to get your mind around the fact that this is what is best for everyone.

estimates for implementing kyoto are less than $100B...but who knows...

That's why implementation is slow...if it hinders the economy...it can be stopped...not that hard to reverse.
I think it is doable.

Look, I don't think anyone here will argue that we should protect the environment to the best of our ability. The question is how much is the general public willing to sacrifice for values that they don't necessarily see or understand? This is what RM is arguing - people don't want to pay for it, not that he himself doesn't. What we as a nation needs to decide is where this falls on our totem poll of priorities. Funding should be meted out accordingly.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
You see that's the big problem. You are willing to take large risks for little to no reward. If there was direct and incontroversial evidence that says that this would be greatly beneficial and significant, then it would be a great goal. However, as it is structured at this time as well as scientific opinion regarding the actualy effects of this plan, that isn't likely.

You see that's the big problem. You are willing to sacrafice lives for short term gain. The sacrafices you speak of may not even exist!

Are we going to sit and wait for research to prove if gays are homosexual at birth before they get rights?...sometimes you do what is right and if evidence of huge slowdown occurs, don't implement.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Look, I don't think anyone here will argue that we should protect the environment to the best of our ability. The question is how much is the general public willing to sacrifice for values that they don't necessarily see or understand? This is what RM is arguing - people don't want to pay for it, not that he himself doesn't. What we as a nation needs to decide is where this falls on our totem poll of priorities. Funding should be meted out accordingly.

Well they are willing to spend $200B+ to "free iraq". Also willing to spend billions in missile shield. Both things that are geared at public safety and valuing life. But contamination for all eternity isnt worth it. We are making decisions for trillions of people here...not just a few million that MAY be affected by kyoto implementation.

Originally posted by: charrison
in 1998( i think), the senate rejected kyoto 97-0. We were never part of it.

"The protocol was signed by the United States and other countries in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. President Bill Clinton decided not to submit it to the Senate for ratification after 95 members signaled it would fail. After taking office in 2001, President Bush withdrew the United States as a signer." Text

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Economy isnt everything,

to a politician it pretty much is

u dont know what is going to happen until u implement it.

i guess not but since society in general is conservative there isn't much will to change from what works.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
You see that's the big problem. You are willing to sacrafice lives for short term gain. The sacrafices you speak of may not even exist!

Are we going to sit and wait for research to prove if gays are homosexual at birth before they get rights?...sometimes you do what is right and if evidence of huge slowdown occurs, don't implement.

Again, are you saying that the Kyoto Treaty is going to save lives? That it is going to cut down on these emissions to such an extent that it will be a lifesaver? That this cutdown on emissions is going to be enough to prevent any changing global patterns?

If it could save lives, then go for it. However it seems that it will have little to no impact. That's the problem. You are willing to risk much for little to no impact.

Are you willing to reduce your salary by 50% to have the luxury of a police officer on every street corner?

You are willing to let everyone become homeless and die from starvation for nothing. :roll: Stop with the equally ridiculous assertions.

Well they are willing to spend $200B+ to "free iraq". Also willing to spend billions in missile shield. Both things that are geared at public safety and valuing life. But contamination for all eternity isnt worth it. We are making decisions for trillions of people here...not just a few million that MAY be affected by kyoto implementation.

Well apparently they feel that they will also likely get something out of Iraq and the Missle Shield. I thought everyone was screaming that the war for Iraq was about oil, money, and power?

Again, are you saying that the Kyoto Treaty is going to prevent 'contamination for all eternity'? Where are you getting this from?