Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DingHao2 on July 23, 2001, 09:57:00 AM
-
Seems that everywhere, the europeans and some asians are ganging up against the US just because the economy of the US is huge. Kyoto must be another example.
Facts About Global Warming:
1. Average Temperature in the Creataceous Period: 77ºF (45ºF warmer than current temp.)
2. Average Temperature in the Jurassic Period: 75ºF (43ºF warmer than current temp.)
3. Average Temperature in the Tertiary Period: 68ºF (36ºF warmer than current temp.)
The graph that I see is that the temperature we are at now is not normal: it is a mini-ice age. If is was normal, then is would be about 25-30ºF warmer than it currently is. In addition, the CO2 levels vary naturally from period to period--nothing to do w/ industry. In the last 500 years of industrialization, the temperature has slightly decreased. So, it appears that temperature variations are normal, naturally produced variations. No need for the Kyoto Protocol, unless the Europeans want to wreak havoc on the US economy.
-
yeah please another round of "the earth wont overheat because god wont let it to happen"
:rolleyes:
-
No...im saying that the climatic temperature variations are naturally produced, not produced as a result of industrialization. If you have any evidence of your beliefs that grobal warming is a direct result of industry, plz post it.
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Ding_Hao ]
-
... and when the earth was in its infancy it was actually glowing and burning! Yes its obviously a sneaky eurotrash scheme to hurt US business!
if u wanna toejam, take a dump in your OWN backyard - not mine! My kids play there...
-
Originally posted by Ding_Hao:
No...im saying that the climatic temperature variations are naturally produced, not produced as a result of industrialization.
Frankly, the thing about god not letting the global warming happen at least was laughable...but this is reaching the point where it is sad.
-
Ask the Swedes and Norwegions about fossil fuel burning and it's repercussions.
Sulphur dioxide (from British coal-burning powerstations) and water (from the err... sky) mix to form sulphuric acid which dropped all over the scandinavian landscape in the 1970/80s. Trees dies, lakes were sterilised of aquatic life above the size of a microbe.
That is one reason why fossil fuel emissions need to be reduced - it's not just about global warming.
And this US vs Europe thing is a little bit over-played. If you look at the economy of the EU and that of the US, they are of similar sizes.
The US has a GDP of $9 trillion
EU has a GDP of $8.5 trillion
The only reason the US will suffer more than the EU, is that Americans are much more 'dirty' when it comes to carbon emissions, the chief indicator of greenhouse gas release. In 1998, EU citizens produced 2.4 metric tonnes of carbon per person compared to a figure 5.5 tonnes for inhabitants of the US.
-
It would be stupid of the US to sign off on a treaty that would cripple our economy, whats so farking hard to understand about that?
-
If emmissions are so harmful, then why has there been a decrease in global tempuratures in the last 500 years--when industrialization occured. I cant stress this point too much.
-
Originally posted by Ding_Hao:
If emmissions are so harmful, then why has there been a decrease in global tempuratures in the last 500 years--when industrialization occured. I cant stress this point too much.
Sure you can :)
You look at blanket facts and make blanket generalizations from them. (By the way - are you actually saying the the Earth's current average temperature is 32 deg. F?) ("3. Average Temperature in the Tertiary Period: 68ºF (36ºF warmer than current temp.)
Its true that some 90 million years ago the Earth was warmer. 30 million years later it got a lot colder. Things happen - having a chunk of Nickel-Steel the size of a goodly mountain travelling at high mach hit the ground will tend to muck up your climate. Whatever happened back then has nothing to do with the effects of industrialization, which is at best less than 200 years old - and the fact is that temperatures have increased over that time.
I'm not saying that the fact that industrialization is directly causing global warming is entirely proved (though it is the current concensus of scientists in the field), but throwing in facts from the geological record is a red herring - it has absolutely nothing to do with the question.
And, as Dowding rightly points out, its far from the only reason to take a hard look at the effects of modern industry.
- Yoj
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Yoj ]
-
Originally posted by jihad:
It would be stupid of the US to sign off on a treaty that would cripple our economy, whats so farking hard to understand about that?
Jihad do you have any idea of the amount of money to be made by (for example) limiting CO2 emissions? Impact the US economy? Certainly. Wreck it? Not a chance. All it will do is create a need for new products and services and new ways to make money. Some businesses will be harmed and some will do very well - which is the nature of a free market. No business gets a guarantee that changes won't hurt them - nor should they, not if you believe in a free market economy.
- Yoj
-
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming.asp (http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming.asp)
-
The real reason that the US wants to back out of it is because we are the center of the universe and it's in our best interest to slowly destroy the planet through global warming. And if that takes too long then we'll just provoke a nuke war by building ABMs. At least that will take care of the global warming issue. That's why we elected Bush -- the evil capitalists want to destroy the planet.
:rolleyes:
-
Yoj you learned economics from a cereal box?
Diverting resources from producing things people and businesses want or need to producing emissions reduction goods and services is going to lead to greater prosperity? All it's going to do is make people work more and more to get the same things they have now.
To argue that reducing emissions is worth a reduction in standard of living is one thing, but to deny that the standard of living will not decline is ridiculous.
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
All im saying with these facts about the temp of the earth millions of years ago is that variations in the earth's climate are natural. In the last 10 years, the average temperature has actually decreased. The current av. temp is hovering around 32ºF. And, for your information, it was not an asteroid that killed the dinos...it was sudden climatic change @ the end of the Cretacious period--this means that species naturally go extinct because of climatic change (which is natural) and natural selection. And regulation is not the equivalent of a free market economy--regulation=a mixed economy. (communism if the regulation is taken to the extreme--but im sure that none of us are commie bastards)
-
Ding, I don't see it as the Euros and Japanese ganging up on the Americans.
I see it as the Americans not wanting to take part in an agreement.
For once, the US big muscles won't beat other countries into submission. The US is quite isolated in its approach to dealing with by not dealing with unhealthy emissions.
It's important that the US economy doesn't slow down. It's equally important that the EU one, which is of comparative size doesn't either. Or the Asian one which is sizeable as well.
It's also very important that we do not screw ourselves on the long term by thinking short term.
So, the biggest polluter in the world does not want to take part - well, if the current countries do, it still means significantly lower emissions.
Twice as much polluting as the EU - and you do not produce *that* more goods and services in the US :D.
For me, this isn't a "world vs US" or anything relating to countries in that effect. It's simply dealing with the side effects of pollution, and unfortunately this has to be done across borders.
-
the number one question is why Romania is the only signer of this agreement.
the number two question is why China and India (two very large contries) are exempt.
-
let's all live in mud huts, eat wild berries, and oh yeah - give up ur pc. You first StSanta :)
Sorry I don't think Kyoto is worth the paper it was printed on. Did they kill trees to print that? Oh my ....
-
Well, EU, good luck compeating in an encumbered economy against the US when the US is unencumbered w/ unimportant regulations...now we'll really be leavin' you in the dust...my congrats for screwin urselves...see how well u can compete now...
-
oh, and: Why can developing countries pollute all they want while the developed countries have to be regulated all the time...
-
number three is what the heck I did with my spell checker :)
-
(http://home.t-online.de/home/aircombat/pics/smog.jpg)
i knew that this is not dangerous for us! ;)
btw: here (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?8086) are some very interesting infos regarding Carbon Monoxide Measurements.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
So, the biggest polluter in the world does not want to take part - well, if the current countries do, it still means significantly lower emissions.
Got to take issue with this Santa. What other nation on this planet has the EPA and OSHA (sp i know but I don't know the acronym) I've seen what they do to small and large businesses here in the states, and it aint pretty. I'd be willing to bet hard cash that Russia and China and all the 3rd world nations pollute way more than the USA and the EU combined. Hell anybody remember CHERNOBYL?!?! That place is still poluting isn't it? and will be for the next 10,000 years. God only knows what happens in China I wonder if they care as much about pollution as they do human rights in those countries? HMMMMMM?
Don't worry soon some smart minded capitalist will realize there's money in alternate fuel sourses and will figure out a good cheap and abundant alternative than carbon, maybe this time those evil old oil companies won't buy the pattent...
udie
-
Gh0st that must be a European plant, because there are strict regulatory limits on particulates coming out of US plants. Clean it up please, you messy Euros! ;)
-
The reason third and developing world countries like India don't have to sign is because they are going through the development the West went through 100-150 years ago.
Just because the West was first pass the post in the industrialisation stakes, doesn't mean those still in the middle of that process should be penalised. Instead, they should be advised and aided to reduce emissions themselves.
Encumbered economy? I've seen the free-flowing efficient way American industrial companies work - and it's tied up in bureacratic red-tape masquerading as safety regulation and procedure.
Eagler - environmental protectionism in general and Kyoto in particular is not about eliminating waste, impact and environmental damage. It's about reduction. I can't believe you don't see that.
-
Originally posted by Ding_Hao:
All im saying with these facts about the temp of the earth millions of years ago is that variations in the earth's climate are natural.
Of course they are - and all I'm saying is, its not relevant.
In the last 10 years, the average temperature has actually decreased. The current av. temp is hovering around 32ºF.
A ten year variation (if true, which I dispute) means nothing in a trend of perhaps a degree or two per decade. Nobody's claiming its going to hit boiling point by next Thursday. I also think you must have your figure wrong to suggest the world-wide average temperature is the freezing point of water. You don't perhaps live in northern Minnesota do you?
And, for your information, it was not an asteroid that killed the dinos...it was sudden climatic change @ the end of the Cretacious period--this means that species naturally go extinct because of climatic change (which is natural) and natural selection.
That is far from something you can give me as being "for my information". You're talking about the climatic shift due to the massive volcanism in the Dekkan Traps which occurred around the end of the Cretaceous, and yes it is a viable explanation for the mass extinctions. It just does not happen to be the concensus of scientific thought, since the impact theory has so much supporting hard evidence, from the world-wide Iridium deposits at the K-T interface to the discovery of the crater south of the Yucatan.
And regulation is not the equivalent of a free market economy--regulation=a mixed economy. (communism if the regulation is taken to the extreme--but im sure that none of us are commie bastards)
Sorry - you lost me on that one.
- Yoj
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Yoj you learned economics from a cereal box?
Diverting resources from producing things people and businesses want or need to producing emissions reduction goods and services is going to lead to greater prosperity? All it's going to do is make people work more and more to get the same things they have now.
To argue that reducing emissions is worth a reduction in standard of living is one thing, but to deny that the standard of living will not decline is ridiculous.
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
Sorry, I don't see where this diversion of resources comes from. All that is being asked is that when we make what we make we dump less CO2 into the air. That means applying, making, and selling new technologies, and it only affects companies that produce large amounts of CO2 as a byproduct.
Seems to me Detroit said the same thing you are when they were told they had to use gasoline more efficiently - "Can't be done! It will kill the automobile industry!, etc."
Well, they found a way and Detroit still makes cars - maybe better than they did before.
- Yoj
-
Dowding wrote:
Just because the West was first pass the post in the industrialisation stakes, doesn't mean those still in the middle of that process should be penalised. Instead, they should be advised and aided to reduce emissions themselves
-------------------------------
so you do admitt it will "penalise" those involved with it? Can we conclude that the USA will be penalised the most then?
Krush
-
Not a fair comparison Krusher. This is a problem that can only be dealt with in two ways - by application of technology or by capping production. The US, western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and (maybe) Russia are the only ones that can create and apply the technology, and do it without capping their productivity. Its not fair to tell the less developed countries "sorry, you started too late, so you're not allowed to ever become developed". The fair solution is for the people who can fix the problem with the minimum of hardship to do it, and require anyone who reaches a similar level to comply with the same standards - when they get there.
Of course, as affordable new technologies are developed, they should be passed on to (for example) China, India, etc., and they should be required to use them too.
- Yoj
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Yoj ]
-
these standards dont have to criple american industry. we agree to reduce emisions then pass trade laws restricting imports from countrys who don't meet these standards then the playing feild is level. the problem comes not from 'to strict of standards' but from situations like we have now where US jobs are going to mexico because if you build your plant on the south side of the river you can dump your crap right in it but if your plant is in the US you have to conform to the DEQ standards. IMO the solution is to raise the standard and dont alow imports from countrys who dont comply.
-
Yoj you are right that Detroit was able to eventually overcome the emissions rules, but it hurt the industry badly, and from about 1974 to 1984, Americans were paying more for cars which had significantly less performance and reliability than those built in the 1960's. My father had two Oldsmobile station wagons - a 1969 and a 1983 model. The 1983 model cost 3 times as much, held about 2/3 the people/cargo, had far worse performance, the same fuel mileage, and broke down constantly due to a bizarre electrically controlled carburetor designed to reduce emissions. You can argue that the reduction in smog was worth it, but the fact remains that we were paying more money for a lot less car.
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
PS Yoj:
That means applying, making, and selling new technologies
That's the diversion of resources - all the manpower and money spent on developing, constructing, and deploying the new equipment. It's not free, and it drives up the costs and/or lowers the quality of the product or service that they are trying to create in the first place.
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
So, a show of hands please.
Who's country has actually ratified Kyoto? I know, I know, it's only been what, half a dozen years. These things take time, and if the US lead the way, etc, etc.
What you have is a political game that allows some leaders to blame the lack of ratification on the US, plead for the Kyoto standards, all the while knowing it will not happen and not actually even wanting it to happen. Otherwise, they're certainly welcome to take the lead and sign on.
You're right Santa, it's got nothing to do with ganging up, it's got everything to do with having a convenient scapegoat for their own inactivity on the issue.
-
YOJ wrote:
Not a fair comparison Krusher.
------------------------------
who said I was fair !
How is this? I will be fair and buy the first round at the CON :)
Rooms reserved
CON paid for
Airline passes printed out
Vacation approved
I did just read that Seattle is number one in Air delays now at 30+ minutes so I will probably need a drink hehe
-
I work at a Power Generation Station owned by PG&E industries and it is a zero emission plant.
There are 9 cooling towers and all water is recycled throught what is termed zero discharge ( basically a water treatment plant).
All ash and emisions are run through what is basically a huge catalytic converter. Then the remaining contents are filtered through a "bag house" where are air borne particles are collected in huge filters. The contents are trapped and huge blowers continually change the direction of the airflow and all the particles (ash) are blown to an ash silo.
It is then dumped into railcars and otr Tractor trailers. Most is shipped back to the mine where the original coal came from and is used to fill in what was removed. Some is bought by various industries for commercial use.
This plant is hardly a "cutting edge design" and is over 15 years old. New generating stations have access to up to date technology and are even more clean.
American industry has indeed been responsible for "polluting" the planet but no more or less then industry world wide.
In 1998, EU citizens produced 2.4 metric tonnes of carbon per person compared to a figure 5.5 tonnes for inhabitants of the US.
Now doudt about those figures. The fact is I drive an hour and a half to work 6 days a week (most weeks). The size and the distances from place to place in the US make this a necessity. And in my case it was the same enviromentalistic who complained and moaned over every area that was considered for developement of that plant.
It takes 13 -15 hours driving time to get to the Washington DC (US capitol) from where I live. There are 270 million people ( guess but somewhere close ...on the low side if anything) Very few of them willing to give up their lifestyle because the rest of the world deems it so using "suspect science". Bill Clinton never had a mandate from the American citizens to enter this treaty and niether does GWB.
-
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!
-
Well, the test will be to see who does ratify the deal, now that it has finally been agreed. It's currently at around 30 countries, I believe.
The new watered down treaty looks a lot better. It allows for carbon sinks, which means more forests, and doesn't propose such heavy cutbacks in emissions.
The US could do a lot more, for example increasing mileage for cars, making industry more efficent etc, without hurting the economy at all, if it's done gradually.
The California legislation on zero emissions vehicles shows that laws forcing people to change quickly don't work.
-
Good point Wotan. And don't forget that USA led the way in automotive emissions control. It wasn't until the late 1980's that European countries adopted emissions standards that the US had in the early 70's. And in the last 5 years the USA has again led the world by mandating onboard diagnostic systems. The same goes for power generation and many other industries where combustion happens.
-
Good point Wotan. And don't forget that USA led the way in automotive emissions control. It wasn't until the late 1980's that European countries adopted emissions standards that the US had in the early 70's. And in the last 5 years the USA has again led the world by mandating onboard diagnostic systems. The same goes for power generation and many other industries where combustion happens.
How come you still are the worst polluter?
-
Good point Wotan. And don't forget that USA led the way in automotive emissions control. It wasn't until the late 1980's that European countries adopted emissions standards that the US had in the early 70's. And in the last 5 years the USA has again led the world by mandating onboard diagnostic systems. The same goes for power generation and many other industries where combustion happens.
How come you still the worst polluter?
-
Eagler wrote:
Let's all live in mud huts, eat wild berries, and oh yeah - give up ur pc. You first StSanta Sorry I don't think Kyoto is worth the paper it was printed on. Did they kill trees to print that? Oh my ....
heh eagler, it's a common misconception that concern about the environment cannot be combined with a healthy aggressive capitalistic mindset. It can. I'm *all* for development - I'm a science freak myself. Applied science is fascinating to me - indeed, I find myself attracted to most things in science, with the exception of chemistry :).
Implementing an agreement that seeks to *limit* emissions but one that still ensures a competitiveness is GOOD in my book. I used to live in Sweden and every time I go there, I'm still saddened when I see vast areas of forest dead for acid rain. Or when I moved ot another place and when I came back to visit and wanted to go fishing in a lake I spent most of my childhood fishing and bathing in was totally dead, just a few years later.
Ding, we're not screwing ourselves. the EU has been able to keep up with the US despite horrendous socialistic systems in place here and incredible tax rates. The European countries are actually quite strong financially when combined and very innovative. The Kyoto deal will have a quite limited impact on the economy. It'll cost some, but it's manageable.
Personally, I'm not too fond of the "well HE is not doing it, so why should *I*?" argument. My neighbor isn't picking up the trash he throws around, so why should I? It's all about personal integrity or, exported to an larger scale, national integrity.
It's weird. I can understand why Bush has second thoughts about the deal, and I can fully appreciate his desire to keep a slowing economy from slowing even more. Perhaps once the US economy is going better, the US will be more friendly towards a similar deal. Or perhaps Bush won't be reelected and the new President will have a different stance.
It's odd. I find myself hating Bush's decisions, but I find it hard to hate the man himself. I like the way he doesn't try to hide what he's up to - well, or the appearance he creates that he isn't. He appears honest enough about what he believes in - even if that is diametrically opposite to my personal values from time to time. Still, some of his decisions, such as this one, will affect me, so therefore I feel I have a legitimate reason to critisize or cheer his decisions.
-
I heard this morning that Seattle WA intends on meeting the Kyoto Protocol even though the US will not be part of it.
-
Originally posted by Wotan:
All ash and emisions are run through what is basically a huge catalytic converter. Then the remaining contents are filtered through a "bag house" where are air borne particles are collected in huge filters. The contents are trapped and huge blowers continually change the direction of the airflow and all the particles (ash) are blown to an ash silo.
It is then dumped into railcars and otr Tractor trailers. Most is shipped back to the mine where the original coal came from and is used to fill in what was removed. Some is bought by various industries for commercial use.
They make freeze-dried coffee out of it. Just got a cup from a vending-machine. <pheeew> :mad:
-
Good for Seattle, unless you start seeing more companies leave, leaving them without the massive tax revenues that make them feel their actions don't have an economic impact.
-
Originally posted by Fury:
I heard this morning that Seattle WA intends on meeting the Kyoto Protocol even though the US will not be part of it.
But but this is La La land here, tree hugger central, San Francisco North (housing costs, taxes unbearable)..in addition to that, they are trying to pass a tax bill that will rank us higher than New York for state income tax (in forms of 9 cents a gallon increase in gas, 2% increase in new/used car sales tax, an addition sales tax (already at 8.9%) and many more variables...you see, its not even going to get voted on by the taxpayers because the Dems are trying to prove that "Big Brother knows better"....its more like Big Brother has failed to do alittle city planning over the last 20 years since we;ve had our biggest economic boom since the 60's.
:mad:
-
Originally posted by Krusher:
YOJ wrote:
Not a fair comparison Krusher.
------------------------------
who said I was fair !
How is this? I will be fair and buy the first round at the CON :)
Rooms reserved
CON paid for
Airline passes printed out
Vacation approved
I did just read that Seattle is number one in Air delays now at 30+ minutes so I will probably need a drink hehe
No doubt - but as the guest I couldn't think of letting you buy the first one :) Wish we had a few more of the old crowd coming.
- 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
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Dawvgrid it's simple. Our equipment is good but we have a lot of it. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
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
-
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?
-
You are correct, Japan is in, once there was an addendum added that there is no legal retribution for not meeting standards.
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
They are not, and a little reported fact is that when Kyoto was last up for senate approval, it was voted down 96-0.
-
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!! :eek:
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 ]
-
Originally posted by Thrawn:
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;..."
Presidents still have the power to enter de facto treaties via executive agreements that effectively sidestep the legislative process. However, it would be political suicide to go over the Senate's head on this one, and even if Bush succeeded, he would have blown all of his political capital in one fell swoop.
The fact is that I doubt even Al Gore would have succeeded in pushing this one through, though perhaps he would have handled it with more international tact.
-- Todd/DMF
-
That it would harm the US economy is about as arrogant and selfish a response as it gets. What makes us so different from every other signatory nation in the protocol? What? Marlboro Reds? What? Also, saying that we won't sign because it would harm our economy is like being surrounded by a forest fire, and saying you won't help make a fire break, because it'll harm the trees...
-
At least the yanks aren't trying to bribe smaller countries to stay out of it with "economic aid".
Kinda ironic, don't ya think, the US getting berated for not signing up by some of the 'green' countries. While some of those 'green' countries voted against the Whale Sanctuary in the Southern oceans.
-
Wotan, I said 'agreed to', not ratified.
agreed to?
We can agree on alot of things but what difference does that make then.
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.
Then tell your government not to accept the condition of the agreement. Don't tell us that because your government accepts it that we should because we wont. What else you gonna do?
unilateral boycott by yourself?
Also, saying that we won't sign because it would harm our economy is like being surrounded by a forest fire, and saying you won't help make a fire break, because it'll harm the trees...
cute little post if it related to what is being discussed. Go read Ding_Hao original post.
First prove to the world the "forest is on fire" using real undebatable science. Simply stating it so does not equate to proving it so.
-
"First prove to the world the "forest is on fire" using real undebatable science. Simply stating it so does not equate to proving it so."
In other words, do the impossible. There is no such thing as "undebatable science" - that's not how science works, and never has. There are only a handful of absolute scientific laws, and if you look hard you'll still finde scientists who will debate those. Everything else is theory - i.e., a model that fits the facts as known. By definition, no model can be the only one.
Fact - the current concensus of scientific assessment is that global warming is real. You want to wait until it has been proven and there are no dissenters before starting to take any action, when by the very model being debated that is FAR too late to do anything about it.
Is it better to be Chicken Little or an Ostrich with head in sand?
- Yoj
-
yoj wrote:
No doubt - but as the guest I couldn't think of letting you buy the first one Wish we had a few more of the old crowd coming.
----------------------------------------
yea it is sad that so many of the old timers will miss this one, but the RATS have 5 guys and thier wives coming so we will start a new tradition :) cya in a few weeks !
-
Kyoto based the emission levels on the levels produced 10 years ago.
It also gives credit to countries with small populations and a lot of forests.
Also some countries that were in decline for the last 10 years (like Russia) will have huge excess of allowed pollution.
Those countries will be allowed to sell their extra allotment to polluting countries.
So Russia will suddenly have $10 billion a year just because it chose to live with communism for the previous 70 years and wreck it's economy.
Would russians care so much about polution that they forgo that $10 bil a year and let it expire rather then sell it to the same polluting USA business? Will Canada or Japain refuse that money?
Will India refuse to expand their production and miss the chance to exploit US companies reducing their production due to pollution restrictions?
If you believe that, why don't you believe that US consumers and US businesses will reduce polution by themselves out of care to the environment? Why do we need any treaties then?
miko
-
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.
You're mistaking the EEC for the EU. The EEC was the economic agreement reached back in the 70's. The EU is a political union involving the standardisation of certain laws on certain issues (human rights and now environmental accords). It also includes a basis for more a more integrated European military.
Airbus is a bad example. That is a private partnership between leading engineering companies - they are not government agencies.
The new environmental standards also look at waste (in all its vearious guises) - the reduction of which should be a target for every developed country on the planet.
-
Don't worry soon some smart minded capitalist will realize there's money in alternate fuel sourses and will figure out a good cheap and abundant alternative than carbon, maybe this time those evil old oil companies won't buy the pattent...
HELLO???!!! cheap, abundant, efficient energy alternative=NUCLEAR POWER!! where have u been in the last 50 years??
Well, france gets all their energy from nuclear power, and when's the last time u heard about an accident there??
-
Yeah, last I heard they could still LIVE in France. Of course, they're French, so nothing could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong.....
-
And u live where?? the good ole clean USA OMG!!!!
-
Sorry - was being overly subtle. My point was just that the one problem with fission power is that, as unlikely as it might be to have a major accident, or a terrorist incident, IF it were to happen the consequences are enormous. So, if we go that route those are things that have to be considered. Its not simply a matter of go out and build more plants and live happily ever after - unless you really believe that engineers and security systems are infallible :)
- Yoj