Kyoto Protocol

[Yoj]

Originally posted by jihad:
Its not fair to tell the less developed countries "sorry, you started too late, so you're not allowed to ever become developed"

<gags and chokes>

This kind of PC drivel is a big part of whats wrong in the modern world.

Personally I could give a diddly if the Chi-Coms or India EVER catch up to the rest of the world in technological or industrial capacity.

They chose to live/govern under a diddlyed up corrupt political system and they're reaping what they sowed with their bellybutton backwards ways.

Now all the touchy feely dumb tulips in the world like to think we owe them something?

It took the citizens of the U.S. 200+ years to rise to our current levels of industrialization and now they want us to give away the benefits of it.

Sheesh!

Lets see - India "chose to live/govern under a diddlyed up corrupt political system".  What the heck was it called again?  Oh yeah, "Democracy".  All these underdeveloped countries - why are they so backwards?  Colonialism, exploitation, the forcible extraction of their resources, could that have anything to do with it?  Naw - they're just stupid or lazy or corrupt.  

What the heck - lets just go on with business as usual.  Those scientists don't know anything and they're usually wrong, and even if they're right WE don't have to worry and our great-grandchildren can fend for themselves - screw 'em.

- Yoj

[Wotan]

How come you still the worst polluter?

 

Easy the overall size of our economy. California alone is the worlds 5th (last i checked)largest economy...

again 270 million will out produce out consume the 6 in your country  

[Dowding]

Wrong Wotan.

The GDP of the US = $9 Trillion
The GDP of the EU = $8.5 Trillion

Population of the US = 270 million
Population of the current EU = 370 million

US Carbon Production per capita = 5.5 metric tonnes
EU Carbon Production per capita = 2.4 metric tonnes

So even though the economies are of a similar size and advancement the US, with a smaller population, produces twice as puch carbon per inhabitant.

[Fatty]

But per capita, not per production.  The following is using your numbers, of which I have no clue of accuracy.

US $33k per capita production based on GDP

EU $23k per capita production based on GDP

Carbon Production vs $millionGDP US: 165 metric tons.

Carbon Production vs $millionGDP EU: 104 metric tons.

Differences?  To be sure.  For instance I don't think that a cut in emissions by 37% would neccesarily cut our economic production by 30%, but the correlation is pretty demonstrative.

[funkedup]

Dawvgrid it's simple.  Our equipment is good but we have a lot of it.  

[Vulcan]

1) everyone knows the US goverment is a puppet for US business

2) I saw some satellite imagery which captured CO2 emmissions. The bulk of the emmissions was not the US, but China and Eastern Europe. The amount coming out of China was phenomonal - and it ended up in them mid-pacific.

[Thrawn]

I figure if the US and Japan doesn't want to enter this agreement, that the 180 other countries on my planet have agree to, I'll just boycot their products.

[Wotan]

no not wrong......
 EU is not a country its a collection of small ones. Germany France and britan make up the bulk of the EU gdp.

The size of the US combined with the dispersion of the population equates to longer commuting times.

Most of the eu has a functioning and effective commuter rails buses etc which is impractical in the us due to its size.
Most of the population of the EU is concentrated in a smaller area per suare mile then in the US.

Again I drive an hour and a half 1 way to work 6 days a week. How much more carbon am I emitting compaired to the EUist (i guess if you are saying EU is a country its inhabitants need names) who walks out side to trolly or rail station to get to work.

I am not unique in this situation.

You can manipulate what ever figures you want to find a reason to justify anything.

thrawn wtf are you talking about no country (atleast only 1 i believe) has ratified it even your own...... Canada benefits well from US trade. Bite the hand that feeds you go ahead...........

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]

[Yoj]

Originally posted by Thrawn:
I figure if the US and Japan doesn't want to enter this agreement, that the 180 other countries on my planet have agree to, I'll just boycot their products.

As it turns out, Japan is in.  Looks like the US will end up being the only holdout.

- Yoj

[Dowding]

You can manipulate what ever figures you want to find a reason to justify anything.

The figures I quoted are all from an official US government site (I'll dig out the address if I get time). They speak for themselves.

Also, calling people from the EU 'EUist', is akin to me calling you a 'USist'. I think the more common terms are European and American - please correct me if I'm wrong.

The differences in infrastructure you mention are important, but not vital. Every country is different in some way, so should that be a reason not to reach agreements on certain global issues?

[Fatty]

You are correct, Japan is in, once there was an addendum added that there is no legal retribution for not meeting standards.

[Wotan]

scratch manipulate meant interpret
The figures you site are correct and am not debating them. Would love to see them drop but the reality is theres a price to pay and it would be too costly (atleast from my stand point) to make any assumptions in relation to global warming that aren't proven.

We all (world in general) want clean air water) and these are things that are tangible if we balance out the impact over time as new technology is developed. But to overreact and by making unproven doomsday claims is irreponsible (not you but by those who would advocate a whatever it takes view).

 

Also, calling people from the EU 'EUist', is akin to me calling you a 'USist'. I think the more common terms are European and American - please correct me if I'm wrong.  

The EU is nothing more then an Economic Union much like say Airbus is. A collection of countries coming together to protect and develope economic interest. As they should. But tell a German his country is the equal to say the state of Michigan in the US. The big difference being a frenchman is a frenchman 1st and so on. Theres is no Europa Nation.


   

The differences in infrastructure you mention are important, but not vital. Every country is different in some way, so should that be a reason not to reach agreements on certain global issues?  

Infrastructure is at the heart of the matter.
It means more money out of hard working americans to pay for it. Theres no "teleportals" or battery powered electric eng that can make the size of the US smaller. Eastern Europe China Soviet Union and Africa South America are huge land masses where people are scattered through out. I guess they could all get horses........
but wait horses produce tons of methane gas.........

I never said countries ought not work together....wtf

In this country our president does not have the ability to enter into any agreement on his own. Even if he wanted to American buisness and most American people wont go for it. Thats the reality.

[Thrawn]

Wotan, I said 'agreed to', not ratified.  I'm aware that the US is our largest trading partner and that we are their's.  I'm also aware that by boycotting US products that it will hurt Canada as well.  But there's little else I can do to protest.  If the US wants to be isolationist, fine have fun.  
But I'll be damned if I'll sit and watch the US have an economic advantage while the rest of the world works together to do something to reduce carbon emissions.

edit: "In this country our president does not have the ability to enter into any agreement on his own. Even if he wanted to American buisness and most American people wont go for it. Thats the reality."

I was under the empression that international treaties were solely the in the power of the executive branch in the US.

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]

[Fatty]

They are not, and a little reported fact is that when Kyoto was last up for senate approval, it was voted down 96-0.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Fatty:
They are not, and a little reported fact is that when Kyoto was last up for senate approval, it was voted down 96-0.

Thanks for the correction, Fatty.  96-0, wow!!    

edit:Just looked this up - "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;..."

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]