Author Topic: Kyoto Protocol (Read 3658 times)

Krusher · « **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2001, 01:58:00 PM »

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.

Eagler · « **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2001, 01:59:00 PM »

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 ....

DingHao2 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2001, 01:59:00 PM »

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...

DingHao2 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2001, 02:01:00 PM »

oh, and: Why can developing countries pollute all they want while the developed countries have to be regulated all the time...

Krusher · « **Reply #19 on:** July 23, 2001, 02:09:00 PM »

number three is what the heck I did with my spell checker

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #20 on:** July 23, 2001, 03:38:00 PM »

i knew that this is not dangerous for us!

btw: here are some very interesting infos regarding Carbon Monoxide Measurements.

Udie · « **Reply #21 on:** July 23, 2001, 03:41:00 PM »

Quote

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

funkedup · « **Reply #22 on:** July 23, 2001, 03:42:00 PM »

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!

Dowding · « **Reply #23 on:** July 23, 2001, 04:17:00 PM »

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.

Yoj · « **Reply #24 on:** July 23, 2001, 04:32:00 PM »

Quote

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

Yoj · « **Reply #25 on:** July 23, 2001, 04:37:00 PM »

Quote

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

Krusher · « **Reply #26 on:** July 23, 2001, 05:09:00 PM »

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

Yoj · « **Reply #27 on:** July 23, 2001, 05:21:00 PM »

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 ]

capt. apathy · « **Reply #28 on:** July 23, 2001, 05:23:00 PM »

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.

funkedup · « **Reply #29 on:** July 23, 2001, 05:46:00 PM »

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 ]