kyoto treaty does absolutely nothing as long as the biggest polluting industries can just be shipped to countries that aren't signatories
*cough*china*cough*india
*cough*china*cough*india
Originally posted by: Czar
"rouge" nation catagory???Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Czar
only the eu pushing for it?
how about japan?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4267245.stm
Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi issued a statement welcoming the treaty but also calling on non-signatories to rethink.
"From now, we have to build a system in which more nations will work together under the common framework to stop global warming," he said.
Doesn't necessarily sound like he's pushing Kyoto. Seems that he wants to work more with other nations to have a better plan.
Technically there's more than just the EU in the 'rogue' nation category pushing for the plan, but the EU is the main party. It's pretty similar to the Iraq war group with the US being the main party, but other players in the field as well.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
kyoto treaty does absolutely nothing as long as the biggest polluting industries can just be shipped to countries that aren't signatories
*cough*china*cough*india
Originally posted by: sandorski
Why would there be preventions for China/India to Reduce emmissions? I think you heard something wrong. Last I heard China was actually working on reducing pollution(can't remember if it was Greenhouse Gas related) quite agressively. It is true that China/India were given an exception from Kyoto, but I highly doubt they are prevented from doing what they can to reduce Greenhouse Gas emmissions.
who cares about spelling??Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Czar
"rouge" nation catagory???Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Czar
only the eu pushing for it?
how about japan?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4267245.stm
Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi issued a statement welcoming the treaty but also calling on non-signatories to rethink.
"From now, we have to build a system in which more nations will work together under the common framework to stop global warming," he said.
Doesn't necessarily sound like he's pushing Kyoto. Seems that he wants to work more with other nations to have a better plan.
Technically there's more than just the EU in the 'rogue' nation category pushing for the plan, but the EU is the main party. It's pretty similar to the Iraq war group with the US being the main party, but other players in the field as well.
Um, read my post again. 'Rogue', not 'rouge'
Originally posted by: Forsythe
6,379,157,361 people in the world
293,027,571 In the USA
Meaning you are 0.045935153252602134703790700233833% of the entire worlds population.
Go stick your fairness up somewhere incomfortable.
Now if you go saying that "IT'S MADE UP BY EVAL COLONIALIST AMERICAHATING LIBS", you might just be right. But some say that, and that it is just natural, most say the other. So listen to the goddamned chances of it. It's not gonna happen in my time, but if it does happen it'll prolly be ion my chrildrens time (of which i have none yet, thank god).
Originally posted by: Czar
who cares about spelling??
what do you mean by "there's more than just the EU in the 'rogue' nation category" ?
Originally posted by: Forsythe
6,379,157,361 people in the world
293,027,571 In the USA
Meaning you are 0.045935153252602134703790700233833% of the entire worlds population.
Go stick your fairness up somewhere incomfortable.
Now if you go saying that "IT'S MADE UP BY EVAL COLONIALIST AMERICAHATING LIBS", you might just be right. But some say that, and that it is just natural, most say the other. So listen to the goddamned chances of it. It's not gonna happen in my time, but if it does happen it'll prolly be ion my chrildrens time (of which i have none yet, thank god).
Originally posted by: sandorski
re Selling of credits: In Kyoto due to the insistence of the US and Others. The US ultimately didn't sign on, but the idea of Credits survived and was eventually added.
Kyoto started with a lofty goal, reduce Greenhouse Gas emmissions. Many balked at the task at hand, so the compromise began. To get needed Nations on side, this or that compromise was added in, not the best way to solve the actual problem, but the only realistic way of reaching such an agreement between such a diverse group who all have competing interests. That's just the way International agreements work.
Kyoto chose a benchmark to reach. Some Nations just happen to be under that benchmark, giving them extra Credits which they can either Use up or Sell to others who may or may not reach their targets.
Other Nations must make drastic cuts, it is estimated that Canada must reduce its' emissions by 30-40% for example.
re no one wants to talk about Kyoto anymore: Of course not, Kyoto is a done deal. It has been negotiated and now it is to be implemented. No more changes are to be made to Kyoto. There will be future agreements on Greenhouse Gas emissions, but they will not be Kyoto, they'll be some other City, other Targets, other Methods.
Originally posted by: Jack31081
Originally posted by: sandorski
re Selling of credits: In Kyoto due to the insistence of the US and Others. The US ultimately didn't sign on, but the idea of Credits survived and was eventually added.
Kyoto started with a lofty goal, reduce Greenhouse Gas emmissions. Many balked at the task at hand, so the compromise began. To get needed Nations on side, this or that compromise was added in, not the best way to solve the actual problem, but the only realistic way of reaching such an agreement between such a diverse group who all have competing interests. That's just the way International agreements work.
Kyoto chose a benchmark to reach. Some Nations just happen to be under that benchmark, giving them extra Credits which they can either Use up or Sell to others who may or may not reach their targets.
Other Nations must make drastic cuts, it is estimated that Canada must reduce its' emissions by 30-40% for example.
re no one wants to talk about Kyoto anymore: Of course not, Kyoto is a done deal. It has been negotiated and now it is to be implemented. No more changes are to be made to Kyoto. There will be future agreements on Greenhouse Gas emissions, but they will not be Kyoto, they'll be some other City, other Targets, other Methods.
About Canada, if you look at the NYTimes graphic, the actual reduction required is about 15-20%. But the environment doesn't give a damn about percentages. It only cares about raw tonnage. Canada produced about 200 million tons in 2002 and needs to reduce its emissions to what looks to be around 160, 170 million tons. Obviously, this isn't entirely accurate, because I'm eyeballing it, but it's close. That's a reduction of 30, maybe 40 million tons. Not a whole lot.
As I said before, under the Kyoto Treaty, no reduction is needed, even by the 11 countries bound by the treaty. All that's required is an exchange of credits and money.
If 'they' wanted an effective environmental treaty, Kyoto surely ain't it.
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
It is pathetic how some people actually believe this can work. The world can never come together, because there are too many differences, and there will always be someone (probably the French) that'll have an exact opposite opinion, maybe just for the hell of it. Let everyone deal with it themselves. There are treehuggers everywhere to make a loud whisper in every country.
All that things like this are doing is to slow down the technological development of the countries the accords and treaties are "protecting." We'd be leaps ahead of where we are now without this.
This week the Kyoto greenhouse-gas treaty goes into effect without the participation of the United States. Many Democrats and editorialists will pound the table over this--John Kerry already did so last week, at the Brookings Institution. You'll hear a reprise of outrage that George W. Bush withdrew the United States from Kyoto negotiations. Here's something you probably won't hear about : the multilateral greenhouse-gas reduction agreement George W. Bush approved a year ago. The world's first international anti-global-warming agreement to take force is not the Kyoto treaty. It is a Bush Administration initiative, and you have not heard a peep regarding the initiative because the American press corps is pretending it does not exist.
Last July, Bush announced an international agreement for global reduction in emissions of methane, the most potent of the common greenhouse gases. Discussion of action against global warming centers on carbon dioxide, which receives the bulk of attention for reasons we will get to in a moment. But molecule by molecule, methane has 23 times more atmospheric warming effect than carbon dioxide. The White House's July 2004 agreement requires the United States, United Kingdom, India, Ukraine, Mexico, and Italy to reduce global methane emissions by an amount equal to roughly one percent of all greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere by human activity. Surely you are thinking, One percent--that's not much. But the best-case outcome for the Kyoto treaty is roughly a one percent reduction in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas.
Needless to say you've probably never seen a front-page article with a headline like, BUSH TAKES STEP TO CUT GREENHOUSE GASES. The press corps has relentlessly pretended the Bush anti-methane initiative does not exist. According to a scan of Nexis by New Republic super-intern T.A. Frank, no American newspaper put Bush's methane regulation initiative on the front page when the agreement was announced; most said nothing at all about it. Another chance to mention the initiative came in November 2004, when China, which is on a pace to pass the United States as the leading source of artificially emitted greenhouse gases, joined the anti-methane partnership. In November, Brazil, Russia, and Nigeria, a greenhouse player because of its oil industry, also joined. Again, very little notice from journalists; The Washington Post did note the development in a short article on page A24.
The press corps is pretending the anti-methane initiative does not exist in order to avoid inconvenient complications of the Black Hat versus White Hat narrative it has settled into regarding global warming. In this narrative, the White House is completely ignoring building scientific evidence of artificially triggered climate change; everything Bush does is wicked; everything the enlightened Euros do is noble. The narrative is simple and easy to follow--plus, it's pretty easy to get supporting quotes from Democratic politicians and enviros. The drawback to the narrative is that it isn't true. But why should that stop the nation's reporters and editorialists?
That Bush is not doing enough regarding the greenhouse effect is a different and plausible complaint. The administration's energy policy leaves much to be desired, especially Bush's lack of action for higher gas mileage in SUVs and pickup trucks. (Increased MPG, which should be done for economic-security reasons regardless of climate trends, means reduced greenhouse gases.) And though Bush was only doing the inevitable when he withdrew the United States as a party to the Kyoto deal--Bill Clinton never submitted the treaty, completed in 1997, to the Senate because he knew Kyoto stood no chance of ratification--the president handled the decision poorly, offending European governments. But the notion that Bush has done nothing at all about greenhouse gases can only be sustained if you ignore what he has done. It's understandable that Democrats and enviros pretend Bush has taken no action; they have a self-interest in this pretense. Editors and editorialists should give credit where due.
For years analysts have been pointing out that methane, being much more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, ought to be the first target of global-warming action. I know for sure that smart, dashingly handsome, cutting-edge types knew about this, since there's a section on this point in my 1995 book A Moment on the Earth, and I wrote about the promise of methane reduction in this 2000 New York Times article. In that same year, one of the preeminent climate analysts, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, published this paper arguing that an anti-methane initiative might buy the world a couple of decades in which to find a solution to the larger problem of carbon emissions. When Hansen's work was misinterpreted as an argument that methane reduction would make carbon reduction unnecessary, he published this clarification. Because carbon dioxide is emitted in far larger quantities than methane, there is no probable future scenario that does not include substantial global action against carbon emissions. (There are only unlikely future scenarios such as a natural decline in temperatures, which might make us decide not to worry about greenhouse emissions.) Hansen's point was simply that the best bang for the buck lies in going after methane first.
Here's the beauty of the idea: Unlike carbon emissions, which are unavoidable with current technology, most methane emissions could be zeroed out without the slightest economic disruption. Methane is the principal compound in natural gas. Artificially emitted methane comes in roughly equal shares from agriculture, mainly rice cultivation; energy production, mainly leaks in natural-gas pipelines; and waste disposal, mainly landfill decomposition. (Cow methane, a staple of bad jokes, is real but statistically less important than the other categories.) A considerable share of methane emissions is waste. Keep the methane in the pipes and you've not only reduced a greenhouse gas, you have a commodity that can be sold. Capture the methane from the landfills and, again, you've not only reduced a greenhouse gas, you have a commodity that can be sold.
Yet reporters who write reams about carbon dioxide rarely mention methane, and some environmentalists become actively upset when the potential for methane reduction is raised. Why? Because the United States is the world's number-one emitter of carbon dioxide. (At least for the moment; if current trends hold, China will pass us.) Keeping the focus on carbon dioxide is the blame-America-first strategy. The European Union, on the other hand, is a leading emitter of methane, given the natural-gas energy economies of many Western European nations. Talk about methane reduction makes Europe uneasy. In the regnant global warming narrative, the United States is always bad and the European Union is always good. Raising the methane issue complicates that narrative.
Here's what Bush' s initiative calls for. The president has approved $53 million over the next five years to research ways to cut global methane emissions by 50 million metric tons of "carbon equivalent," the cumbersome term used for global warming calculations. The goal represents a roughly one percent global reduction in "carbon equivalent" emissions. But considering that greenhouse gases have been rising almost uninterrupted since the mid-1800s, the first reduction might represent the small step that starts the long journey. (Kyoto's modest percentage goal can be defended in the same way--we've got to start somewhere, and small successes may open the door to larger ambitions.)
Developing-world officials have shown little interest in greenhouse gas reduction, since they have more urgent concerns and worry that Western nations are promoting global-warming fears in order to slow the development of the South. This is not the motive, nor need clean-energy systems slow development, but the worry is a real psychological factor, especially in India and China. Bush negotiators from the EPA and the little-recognized Council on Environmental Quality--which in the last four years has gotten scant press recognition for its excellent work on issues including diesel-pollution reduction--convinced developing nations to sign on to methane reduction by pointing out the beauty of the plan: that capturing methane creates a valuable product that can be sold.
Administration officials gave the program a clunker name, Methane to Markets, which says nothing about greenhouse gas reductions; the deal needed a name as classy as the Kyoto Protocol. But as Kyoto draws all the headlines, an American-led international effort has preceded it and is already seeking international reduction in artificially emitted global-warming gases. Maybe it is unrealistic to expect Democrats and enviros to cite Bush's achievement. It would be nice if the press corps would at least report what has happened
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
It is pathetic how some people actually believe this can work. The world can never come together, because there are too many differences, and there will always be someone (probably the French) that'll have an exact opposite opinion, maybe just for the hell of it. Let everyone deal with it themselves. There are treehuggers everywhere to make a loud whisper in every country.
All that things like this are doing is to slow down the technological development of the countries the accords and treaties are "protecting." We'd be leaps ahead of where we are now without this.
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
It is pathetic how some people actually believe this can work. The world can never come together, because there are too many differences, and there will always be someone (probably the French) that'll have an exact opposite opinion, maybe just for the hell of it. Let everyone deal with it themselves. There are treehuggers everywhere to make a loud whisper in every country.
All that things like this are doing is to slow down the technological development of the countries the accords and treaties are "protecting." We'd be leaps ahead of where we are now without this.
Hey @sscrack, it's your stupid country that is the problem, and it nearly allways is.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
It is pathetic how some people actually believe this can work. The world can never come together, because there are too many differences, and there will always be someone (probably the French) that'll have an exact opposite opinion, maybe just for the hell of it. Let everyone deal with it themselves. There are treehuggers everywhere to make a loud whisper in every country.
All that things like this are doing is to slow down the technological development of the countries the accords and treaties are "protecting." We'd be leaps ahead of where we are now without this.
Hey @sscrack, it's your stupid country that is the problem, and it nearly allways is.
Hey @sscrack, it's Europe that is the problem, and like how history has proven, it always is. The world has now united behind the US.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
It is pathetic how some people actually believe this can work. The world can never come together, because there are too many differences, and there will always be someone (probably the French) that'll have an exact opposite opinion, maybe just for the hell of it. Let everyone deal with it themselves. There are treehuggers everywhere to make a loud whisper in every country.
All that things like this are doing is to slow down the technological development of the countries the accords and treaties are "protecting." We'd be leaps ahead of where we are now without this.
Hey @sscrack, it's your stupid country that is the problem, and it nearly allways is.
Hey @sscrack, it's Europe that is the problem, and like how history has proven, it always is. The world has now united behind the US.
Originally posted by: Jack31081
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
It is pathetic how some people actually believe this can work. The world can never come together, because there are too many differences, and there will always be someone (probably the French) that'll have an exact opposite opinion, maybe just for the hell of it. Let everyone deal with it themselves. There are treehuggers everywhere to make a loud whisper in every country.
All that things like this are doing is to slow down the technological development of the countries the accords and treaties are "protecting." We'd be leaps ahead of where we are now without this.
Hey @sscrack, it's your stupid country that is the problem, and it nearly allways is.
Hey @sscrack, it's Europe that is the problem, and like how history has proven, it always is. The world has now united behind the US.
Um, what in the sam hell are you talking about? What has the world united behind the US on? Most countries still think we're a bunch of jackoffs for not ratifying Kyoto. We're the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. We produce more emissions than all of Europe and Africa combined. You could probably toss South America in there too and we'd still be producing more. While China is quickly catching up to us, America is still the 'problem' when it comes to emissions.
But molecule by molecule, methane has 23 times more atmospheric warming effect than carbon dioxide
Keeping the focus on carbon dioxide is the blame-America-first strategy. The European Union, on the other hand, is a leading emitter of methane, given the natural-gas energy economies of many Western European nations. Talk about methane reduction makes Europe uneasy. In the regnant global warming narrative, the United States is always bad and the European Union is always good. Raising the methane issue complicates that narrative.
Most of the countries in the graphic aren't bound by the treaty to do anything, so there's no need for them to change a thing. Now, as a group, the eleven countries bound by the Kyoto Treaty are producing 128 million tons LESS greenhouse gases than in 1990. Huh. That means it's possible for the Kyoto Treaty to be followed to the letter, yet increase global emissions by as much as 128 million tons. Double Huh. Now the US is producing 216 million tons more gas than in 1990. Russia alone is producing 281 million tons less gas, so we could easily buy enough credits just from Russia to satisfy the treaty.
Originally posted by: Jack31081
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
It is pathetic how some people actually believe this can work. The world can never come together, because there are too many differences, and there will always be someone (probably the French) that'll have an exact opposite opinion, maybe just for the hell of it. Let everyone deal with it themselves. There are treehuggers everywhere to make a loud whisper in every country.
All that things like this are doing is to slow down the technological development of the countries the accords and treaties are "protecting." We'd be leaps ahead of where we are now without this.
Hey @sscrack, it's your stupid country that is the problem, and it nearly allways is.
Hey @sscrack, it's Europe that is the problem, and like how history has proven, it always is. The world has now united behind the US.
Um, what in the sam hell are you talking about? What has the world united behind the US on? Most countries still think we're a bunch of jackoffs for not ratifying Kyoto. We're the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. We produce more emissions than all of Europe and Africa combined. You could probably toss South America in there too and we'd still be producing more. While China is quickly catching up to us, America is still the 'problem' when it comes to emissions.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US is also the world's largest producer/manufacturer.
Are people really this clueless? Most of the world has united together to reject further talks on Kyoto! Nobody wants to talk about what happens past 2012. US, Australia, China, India, oil producing countries, developing countries, even Italy...
Originally posted by: Jack31081
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US is also the world's largest producer/manufacturer.
Are people really this clueless? Most of the world has united together to reject further talks on Kyoto! Nobody wants to talk about what happens past 2012. US, Australia, China, India, oil producing countries, developing countries, even Italy...
You should have stated you were referring to 'further' talks in your previous post. But nothing I've said is incorrect. Everyone thinks we're jerks for not signing the Kyoto Treaty, regardless of whether anyone wants to continue it past 2012 or not.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Jack31081
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US is also the world's largest producer/manufacturer.
Are people really this clueless? Most of the world has united together to reject further talks on Kyoto! Nobody wants to talk about what happens past 2012. US, Australia, China, India, oil producing countries, developing countries, even Italy...
You should have stated you were referring to 'further' talks in your previous post. But nothing I've said is incorrect. Everyone thinks we're jerks for not signing the Kyoto Treaty, regardless of whether anyone wants to continue it past 2012 or not.
Technically we've signed it.
If we must look bad if we are to reject colonialism, then so be it. Hmm.. if most are opposed to it now, then why does 'everyone' think we're jerks?