Will the USA green up its act?

[straffo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
He bases his article off facts and data, all provided in the Kyoto agreement.  Here is a good book about it, I've read it. Our economy would have collapse by now had we been forced to it.  
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691088705/104-4787837-7054321?v=glance&n=283155

But as the Kyoto treaty was not accepted this book is only pure speculation
ence the "would have could have ..." part of my post

Here is a brief synopsis of the book.

I believe the Kyoto is a step in the right direction, its just not the right treaty for keeping nations alive and thriving.

Oh, and FWIW< our CAFE standards have risen significantly. Unfortunately it does nothing for reducing Global warming because  the population of the earth increases. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that increasing gas milege is NOT going to reduce global warming. Now, reducing population, that certainly will!
[/B]

I don't know what CAFE stand for ... I guess you're not speaking of café ?

July 11, 2001
Not sure what you're saying? Article was writtein in 2001. [/B]

but the article is based on older sources :

As noted by the National Research Council (NRC) in a 1992 report on automobile fuel economy,

PS : (ugly frenchman hat on)
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/000/700/725/cafeornl.pdf

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by straffo
But as the Kyoto treaty was not accepted this book is only pure speculation
ence the "would have could have ..." part of my post


I don't know what CAFE stand for ... I guess you're not speaking of café ?


but the article is based on older sources :


PS : (ugly frenchman hat on)
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/000/700/725/cafeornl.pdf

Well yeah! They're saying we WOULD have been up a creek without a paddle, good thing we DIDN'T ratify! Anyway, the ONE FACT in the article above quotes an older source, so? It doesn't change the fact that the Kyoto treaty was a wash...

[Rotax447]

Beetle;

Okay, so I am standing in water in Nebraska.  Now, I have to ask myself, is it because it is raining, or because you are peeing on my leg and telling me it is raining:-)

"It's not about money. It's about the freaking planet."

For Europeans it is about saving the planet.  You have a sizable, highly vocal Green Party that is not interested in talking about dollars and sense.   Americans are more pragmatic.  The hot button mantra of save the planet does not work in American politics.  We want jobs, and we want a better standard of living for our children.

"Your own former president Bill Clinton spoke at the conference"

Beetle, do you know who Bill Clinton and George Bush are?  They are American millioneers.  Stop and think about that for a moment.  If the economy goes up, down, or sideways, it does not effect them in the least.  A change of Per Capita Income from $40,100 to $36,090 will sure effect the average surf.

Bill  Clinton is pandering to far left wing of his party.  You know, the politically motivated people who contribute to the Hillary Clinton for President fund.  George does the same thing to the far right in his party.  There is nothing right or wrong in what they are doing, it is American politics.  When Bill or George speak, we surfs who labor for a living at $40,100 per annum, do not throw our critical thinking out the window.

Beetle, put on your critical thinking hat for a moment and answer me this.  What was the rational for giving China, India, et.al. an exemption from the Kyoto treaty?


-Rotax447

[Vulcan]

Kyoto is BS, it acheives nothing positive.

Kyoto would cost a million Euro jobs, 80 billion euros by 2010
A new study from European think tank, the International Council for Capital Formation, says even the near term costs of Kyoto to four key European economies could be nearly catastrophic.

Among the ICCF's key findings are projected job losses of at least 200,000 each in Italy, Germany and the UK to meet Kyoto targets by 2010 - and as many as 611,000 in Spain.

The study also found a significant reduction in GDP below base case levels by 2010 was likely in those four economies:


0.8% for Germany (18.5 billion Euros),

3.1% for Spain (26 billion Euros),

2.1% for Italy (27 billion Euros) and

1.1% for the UK (22 billion Euros).

In addition, the ICCF predicts an average increase in electricity prices of 26% and an average increase of 41% of natural gas prices by 2010.

Coming close after the Gleneagles Dialogue meeting of the G8 countries in London, the research underlines Prime Minister Tony Blair's view that countries are 'nervous' about emissions targets and 'would not sacrifice economic growth for external agreements,' the ICCF said.

"The findings of our research support Blair in his recent move away from the 'target and timetable' approach to climate policy - and suggest that an alternative approach is urgently needed for both the developing and developed world.

"A cooperative global approach to reducing emission growth, building on the Asia-Pacific Pact, is more likely to produce real emissions reductions, without damaging economic growth in the EU and elsewhere," said ICCF managing director, Dr Margo Thorning.

The ICCF research, carried out by Global Insight Inc, an international economic modelling firm, assumes that the cost of emission allowances under Kyoto would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher energy prices and ultimately high prices for all goods and services, ICCF said.

The report suggests that the period between 2008-2012 would see severe economic shocks that might lessen after 2012 provided demands were not increased.

"However, achieving targets that are even more aggressive, would take ever larger carbon fees, and would continue to take a significant toll on economic performance.

"For example, if countries were to adopt a post 2012 target of a 60 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2050, Italian industry would pay 54 per cent more for natural gas in 2020 and UK industry would pay 57 per cent more," the study says.

Among the ICCF recommendations are that some costs could be mitigated with the expansion of nuclear power, an option not seen as politically possible in New Zealand.

According to stats the US has decreased its greenhouse emissions despite not being a signatory, and that Europe has increased theirs despite being a signatory.

Kyoto is estimated to cost NZ $1 billion despite us contributing less than 0.4% to global emissions. Despite NZ's major source of power being hydro dams, and despite NZ have a huge forestry industry, we are going to have to buy carbon credits of a bunch of coal burning 3rd world countries. Do you think that'll stop them burning coal? NAH! They'll just buy more cars and luxury goods with their earnings and need more energy creating more pollution.

Kyoto is the biggest pile of poo to come out of the left wing tree hugging hippie camp for a long time. It has a pattern of thought to it that has a the fingerprint of female logic.

[beet1e]

Ripsnort - ok OK, I see we do have some common ground. You're aware of the problem of global warming, and maybe even the need for fuel conservation, even if Kyoto is not the way to do it. Well that's something.

Admittedly, I don't pretend to know the T&C of Kyoto verbatim, but I'm all for market forces being made to encourage people to conserve natural resources, and try to avoid the ecological catastrophe that looms on the not too distant horizon. As I've said in the past, diesel fuel is taxed less than petrol in most European countries. In Austria and Italy, this has resulted in 60% of all cars being diesel variants - much more fuel efficient, and therefore less crude oil is needed to meet the demands of the motoring public. In Britain, where our chancellor and future PM believes in taxing everything, diesel is even more expensive than petrol, and only 34% of cars are diesels.

It seems that many in the US are happy to trust W to come up with two technological miracles: 1) The miracle to develop a new source of energy to replace oil; 2) The miracle to solve global warming - some sort of chemical to spray into the clouds? So I don't think my own "miracle" is too farfetched: I would like to see further exploration of the diesel concept, with alternative fuels - eg. the bio-diesel option. Diesels are more efficient, but they emit more particulates when powered by hydrocarbon diesel. I would like to see other fuels explored - it should be possible to find one. Even one of Rudolph Diesel's earliest engines ran on peanut oil! - and that was more than 100 years ago.

For Europeans it is about saving the planet. You have a sizable, highly vocal Green Party that is not interested in talking about dollars and sense. Americans are more pragmatic. The hot button mantra of save the planet does not work in American politics.

This isssue is not all about Europeans or the British Green Party. As for Kyoto, 157 countries have signed up. There are only 25 European Union member states, plus a few others like Norway, Switzerland that are not members, so as you can see most of the Kyoto signatories are not European.

We want jobs, and we want a better standard of living for our children. - rotax

- all the more reason to take the global warming issue more seriously, as it's their generation and the ones beyond that which are going to be affected by global warming. As for jobs, please explain to me how changing to more fuel efficient cars will destroy jobs.

The rationale for soft-pedalling with countries like China, India (and Mexico?) is that those are developing countries. Countries like the US and UK have gone through their industrial age to develop the wealth they have now, why shouldn't other countries? But admittedly, it would be good if they could adopt current western technology to minimise pollution and greenhouse gas output, and not become like those stinking industrial estates of Eastern Europe in the days of the Berlin wall.

So you won't accept the words of your former Mr. President. Will you accept the findings of a team of American scientists?

Arctic ice cap 'will disappear within the century'

Just a hunch - are you MiniD?

greenhouse gases make the earth warmer.

a warmer earth means less fuel burnt to keep warm.

less fuel burnt to keep warm means less greenhouse gases.


it's simple really. - john9001

Simple though it may be, it's still not simple enough for you to understand the problem. In the case of the UK (and possibly other countries too) it will result in climate cooling.  

Global warming 'will bring cooler climate for UK'

[mora]

I do believe that the burning of fossile fuels is a major contributor to the global warming. If the majority of scientist are correct, then it's way too late to stop it with any kind of treaties.

BUT, the problem will take care of itself after the oil production reaches it's peak, and the oil prices skyrocket(PEAK oil). The consumption will then inevitably go down, hopefully solving this global warming issue.

When it happens those countries who have allready cut their use of fossile fuels will be in a better position, than those who haven't. These treaties are one way to prepare for the future. Actually they might have been drafted just for that reason, but are marketed to the public as something else.

[Rotax447]

Beetle;

Please bear with me.  I majored in physics, not environmental, chemical, petroleum, or automotive engineering, and certainly not politics.  I look at things which are complex, and try and break them down into simple, easy to understand components.  Contrast this to my engineering colleagues, who are always taking something simple, and turning them into something which is devilishly complex.  Are you, by any chance, an engineer?

I take global warming very seriously.  I do not take environmentalists or politicians seriously, when they do not give me the facts and figures necessary to make an informed, intelligent, decision.

Let's start with something simple, like running my car on peanut butter, rather than gasoline.  Both gasoline and peanut butter are hydrocarbon based fuels.  They produce energy by combining with oxygen molecules in the atmosphere.  The by product of that chemical bonding is carbon dioxide.   What is the difference in carbon dioxide emission, between a tank of gasoline, and a tank of peanut butter?  I don't know!  Bill Clinton never told me!  I sure would like to know, before I start burning peanut butter in my automobile.

To fill my tank up with gasoline, I need an oil well, a pump, a ship, a refinery, and a truck.   To fill  my tank with peanut butter,  I need a  farm,  fertilizer, pesticides,  tractors,  a truck, a refinery, and a  truck.   All of those objects require fossil fuels to manufacture or function.  If peanut butter is indeed producing less carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline, then how about the farming, and the refinement of peanut butter.  Does it produce more carbon dioxide emissions than the refinement of gasoline?  I don't know!  Algore never told me!  I sure would like to know, before I start refining peanut butter for my automobile.

Here is quick reality check.  If the tank of peanut butter cost more then the tank of gasoline, then you can bet your free market economy that the peanut butter costs more energy to produce than the gasoline.

Are fuel efficient cars the way to go?  I honestly can't even answer that!  If a hybrid car, manufactured with aluminum, plastics, ceramics, carbon composites, lead acid batteries, and a peanut butter burning engine, costs $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 more than a less fuel efficient car, then how much total energy have I saved?   I don't know!  Beetle never told me!  I sure would like to know, before I manufacture that car.

Enough of the engineering, let's move on to the politics.  One hundred fifty-seven countries have signed onto the Kyoto accords.  Included  in those signatures are China, India, Mexico, and Brazil.  Countries which are admired and respected throughout Europe, for their environmental policies and concerns.  So, what did you do at Kyoto to reward them for those policies and concerns?  You gave them a burn fossil fuel free card!   You knew that if you told them that their economies would have zero, or negative growth for a generation, they would tell you to stick the treaty where the sun never shines.   What happened to saving the  planet?  Are you telling me that their fossil fuels don't cause rain in Nebraska?   And how do we ensure that they have the fuel to burn?  Simple, take it away from those rich, greedy, Americans.

Once again Beetle, my questions stands.  How much energy do you want to take away from us?  I gave you the numbers ... rise above Bill Clinton and Algore and give me an honest answer.


-Rotax447

[lazs2]

what am I not seeing?  

if the U.S. cut it's fossil fuel burning in half...  would the world use that much less?  Nope... the same amount would be used... it would get cheaper and "developing" nations would want more of it.  

They of course would have no such economy restricting measures and would drive any POS that would run on the (now) very cheap gas.  

the more we use the more that get's used under strict smog device rules.

The less we use the more that get's used in third world countries.

Or maybe... you could get the arabs to not sell cheap oil?

probly the worst waste and the worst polluters are the airlines... why not stop all travel that wasn't approved by the UN?   Same for boats... riding around for pleasure is just sinful what with the ice caps melting and all...

surely you could all forgo a little travel on your vacations to save the planet?

Beet... I would love to see you pull a boat bigger than rips up some of the "hills" we have here with a 1.8 liter car.  You would make people very angry.

and... as vulcan says...  if the U.S. is the only country to reduce greenhouse gasses.... all the rest of you need to get with it before you talk to us.

lazs

[mora]

Originally posted by Rotax447
I take global warming very seriously.  I do not take environmentalists or politicians seriously, when they do not give me the facts and figures necessary to make an informed, intelligent, decision.

Let's start with something simple, like running my car on peanut butter, rather than gasoline.  Both gasoline and peanut butter are hydrocarbon based fuels.  They produce energy by combining with oxygen molecules in the atmosphere.  The by product of that chemical bonding is carbon dioxide.   What is the difference in carbon dioxide emission, between a tank of gasoline, and a tank of peanut butter?  I don't know!  Bill Clinton never told me!  I sure would like to know, before I start burning peanut butter in my automobile.

To fill my tank up with gasoline, I need an oil well, a pump, a ship, a refinery, and a truck.   To fill  my tank with peanut butter,  I need a  farm,  fertilizer, pesticides,  tractors,  a truck, a refinery, and a  truck.   All of those objects require fossil fuels to manufacture or function.  If peanut butter is indeed producing less carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline, then how about the farming, and the refinement of peanut butter.  Does it produce more carbon dioxide emissions than the refinement of gasoline?  I don't know!  Algore never told me!  I sure would like to know, before I start refining peanut butter for my automobile.

Here is quick reality check.  If the tank of peanut butter cost more then the tank of gasoline, then you can bet your free market economy that the peanut butter costs more energy to produce than the gasoline.

The idea of the pro-biofuel people is that the growth process has tied up the carbon from CO2 of the atmosphere, so there's no extra CO2 emission as there is when burning fossile fuels. In short, the CO2 turns to C during the growth process and back to CO2 when you burn the plant. The refining process doesn't take nearly as much energy as refining crude, but it takes considerable energy nevertheless.

You are right about about the farming pesticides etc. That's the reason why biofuels suffer from terrible "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI). At best it's around 3:1 in the case of biodiesel, and 1:6 in the case of ethanol, and some people(and the EU) thinks it's a good idea to burn ethanol to power vehicles!! I don't have anything against biofuels, but they aren't going to provide a cheap alternative to fossile fuels, ever.

Originally posted by Rotax447
Are fuel efficient cars the way to go?  I honestly can't even answer that!  If a hybrid car, manufactured with aluminum, plastics, ceramics, carbon composites, lead acid batteries, and a peanut butter burning engine, costs $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 more than a less fuel efficient car, then how much total energy have I saved?   I don't know!  Beetle never told me!  I sure would like to know, before I manufacture that car.

Of course they are the way to go, but sadly the focus in development has lately been towards safety instead of economics. If the cars would be designed towards low weight and fuel efficiency they would consume half of what they do now. Not hard to achieve at all if there would be will to do it. But there's no point to scrap your existing vehicle to buy a new one.

Originally posted by Rotax447
Enough of the engineering, let's move on to the politics.  One hundred fifty-seven countries have signed onto the Kyoto accords.  Included  in those signatures are China, India, Mexico, and Brazil.  Countries which are admired and respected throughout Europe, for their environmental policies and concerns.  So, what did you do at Kyoto to reward them for those policies and concerns?  You gave them a burn fossil fuel free card!   You knew that if you told them that their economies would have zero, or negative growth for a generation, they would tell you to stick the treaty where the sun never shines.

I totally agree with you. However I'm not worried at all because I trust peak oil to take care of this issue(if there's anything to be done). It's a 100% binding "contract". We will all lose, but the biggest losers will be those who consume most.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by beet1e
No, you're STILL not getting it. The downside is - (and Lazs, please pay attention very carefully - here comes the important bit that you've failed to grasp so far) -  that although the gases which come from cars thanks to your emission control standards and catalytic converters are harmless to humans, they are "greenhouse gases" which are directly responsible for global warming. As I understand it, the CO2 acts like a warm blanket around the earth, trapping in heat (hence the nickname "greenhouse gas") and causing an increase in temperature, resulting in polar ice cap meltdown, rising sea levels, land erosion and loss etc. etc. Unless and until you can come up with a way to turn the toxic gases that cars used to emit into gases which are harmless to humans AND which are not "greenhouse gases", the only way to avoid the predicted ecological disaster is to go easy on the oil, until W can announce his long awaited technological miracle.

CO2?  You left out the part about animals exhaling CO2.  Maybe mass genocide would cater to your needs?

Karaya

[mora]

Yeah, and the marching pro Kyoto commies are actually contributing to the global warming!:)

Of course population should be in a level that the planet can support. This is another matter I trust  to take care of itself. Of course we shouldn't take any measures to increase population growth rates anywhere. Genocide OTOH would be immoral, those who seriously suggest that should start by offing themselves.(Not you Karaya;))

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by mora
Yeah, and the marching pro Kyoto commies are actually contributing to the global warming!:)

Of course population should be in a level that the planet can support. This is another matter I trust  to take care of itself. Of course we shouldn't take any measures to increase population growth rates anywhere. Genocide OTOH would be immoral, those who seriously suggest that should start by offing themselves.(Not you Karaya;))

 To the Zoo's!!!!!!  Come on gents!

Karaya

[mora]

No way! Gunpowder contains carbon too!:) And knives should be banned too.

I think I'd make a decent enviro nazi.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by mora
No way! Gunpowder contains carbon too!:) And knives should be banned too.

I think I'd make a decent enviro nazi.

 

Karaya

[storch]

^ ^ ^