TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Russia to follow Kyoto
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Russia to follow Kyoto

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3705362.stm

good move

now we just have to wait for the US...

Re: Russia to follow Kyoto

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew now we just have to wait for the US...

Maybe if Kerry gets elected US might join in.

Are you guys gonna fit the bill to change our entire infrastructure to meet the demands of the bill if it is signed?

Re: Re: Russia to follow Kyoto

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Maybe if Kerry gets elected US might join in.

Dream on. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Senate controls treaty membership, and when the Senate voted on Kyoto, it failed 95-0. (That includes a Kerry no vote).

Democrats won't vote for it because the unions don't support it.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Are you guys gonna fit the bill to change our entire infrastructure to meet the demands of the bill if it is signed?

The point of Kyoto is not to hurt the US, or to be fair to all countries. It is a step on the way towards less emission of CO_2 - a goal which even the Bush administration has recognized the value of. That obtaining the goal is more devastating for some countries than others is an unfortunate fact, but that does not mean that the goal should not be pursued. Same thing with combating epidemics and terrorists - some countries will be more affected by the dealings than others, but the necessity of the goal makes that irrelevant.
(And, remember, as a Dane I'm also living in a country who has to do sacrifices.)

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic The point of Kyoto is not to hurt the US, or to be fair to all countries. It is a step on the way towards less emission of CO_2 - a goal which even the Bush administration has recognized the value of. That obtaining the goal is more devastating for some countries than others is an unfortunate fact, but that does not mean that the goal should not be pursued. Same thing with combating epidemics and terrorists - some countries will be more affected by the dealings than others, but the necessity of the goal makes that irrelevant. (And, remember, as a Dane I'm also living in a country who has to do sacrifices.)

But many times in the war on terror resources are shared, American and other military and special forces are around the globe helping other countries.

In the Kyoto treaty it is pretty much every man for himself. Russia is not what it used to be, it's a small economy and hasn't been the same since it broke up from the USSR. China is in the perfect time to be in the treaty as they are just building their infrastructure with their new tech boom whereas ours has been built for years and would cost trillions of dollars. If there was a way to do it without possibly plunging an ecnomy on a weak rebound back into recession or hurting our taxpayers then it seems logical to me.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil But many times in the war on terror resources are shared, American and other military and special forces are around the globe helping other countries. In the Kyoto treaty it is pretty much every man for himself. Russia is not what it used to be, it's a small economy and hasn't been the same since it broke up from the USSR. China is in the perfect time to be in the treaty as they are just building their infrastructure with their new tech boom whereas ours has been built for years and would cost trillions of dollars. If there was a way to do it without possibly plunging an ecnomy on a weak rebound back into recession or hurting our taxpayers then it seems logical to me.

Redirecting taxes (guess not a correct english word) is one successfull way of doing it. For example, you raises the taxes of carbondioxide emissions, but cut the taxes for something else (like income tax or environemt friendy things), so in the end if you decrease your carbondioxide emissions taxes will also decrase and wise versa if you dont. government doesnt end up having more money or anything but people/companies look for alternatives.

Some more things that do cost money for the tax payers but not significant:
Substitutes for companies that develop environment technics
Public transport?
etc

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic (And, remember, as a Dane I'm also living in a country who has to do sacrifices.)

Not according to Kerry. He believes yoru sacrifises are insignifcant

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Not according to Kerry. He believes yoru sacrifises are insignifcant

Wauv, I haven't got a clue as to what you are alluding to? Anyways, he might be right, after all Denmark is a tiny weeny country when considered on a global scale.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Not according to Kerry. He believes yoru sacrifises are insignifcant

can you explain for the simpletons (like me)?

This is the prime example of how other countries, not been the most powerfull and richests, want to make an effort on this global problem, that will have even bigger impacts on the long run, then the US could ever imagine, and the flip side of this is that.. the US is the one that could be hit the hardest from this catastrophic problem, and yet, the current administration still thinks we can not be affected by this.. it sort of reminds me of " the day after tomorrow". IF the president would have had taken the precautions beforehand.. but oh, it was the evil vice -president heh. ( Cheney ! )

The funny thing is the science behind the Kyoto accord was disproven due to scientific fraud about six months ago. There was even a long post about it.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't protect the environment, but crippling the world's largest economy to do so based on faulty science doesn't sit well with me.

Ciao from Italia.

The greatest folly of the Kyoto accord is that the worlds GREATEST POLLUTERS, namely the developing countries of asia and south america, are exempt from this treaty. It makes absolutely no sense to cripple the world's strongest economy, based on inconclusive science, which will then have practically zero effect on the impact of CO2 admissions and an even less conclusive impact on global warming. Not to mention the further stifling of third world economies which are growing rapidly and providing a greater standard of living for the people.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag can you explain for the simpletons (like me)?

It was from the last presidential debate - it was the part pundits agreed Bush won over Kerry. Bush articulated a good point where Kerry came off like he doesn't care about the contributions of the US's allies. ... I don't remember specifics now but it was something about calling them the coalition of the unwiling or coereced.

quote:

Originally posted by drewfactor ...It makes absolutely no sense to cripple the world's strongest economy, based on inconclusive science, which will then have practically zero effect on the impact of CO2 admissions and an even less conclusive impact on global warming....

There's far more consensus among scientists on the effects of CO_2 admissions on global warming, than on the Kyoto accord having a "crippling" effect on the US economy. You really can't play the sceptical environmentalist card on this one - the only excuses for not commiting yourself are selfishness and stupidity.

It is easy to call selfishness and stupidity when you live in a comparibly unindustrialized nation.

Here is an article if you care to read it from one of the lead scientiests of the UN Panel on climate change discussing that CO2 has no scientifically linked effect on global warming. It goes to say that global warming is a pattern that happens throughout history and how CO2 is needed for the earth to operate. It also goes on to say that the US already have 55% more efficient carbon technology than it did in the 70s.

This is just an excuse for environment nazis to blame the US once again when there is no scientific evidence to back up their claims.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/...timony0503.html

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic There's far more consensus among scientists on the effects of CO_2 admissions on global warming, than on the Kyoto accord having a "crippling" effect on the US economy. You really can't play the sceptical environmentalist card on this one - the only excuses for not commiting yourself are selfishness and stupidity.

I believe it is selfish to want and destory the US economy.

There is as much consensus the Kyoto accord will wreck economic havock on the USA economy as Co2 on the envrionment. I'm curious, since there isn't much consensus on the effect of Co2 on global warming, how are you basing this argument?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus It was from the last presidential debate - it was the part pundits agreed Bush won over Kerry. Bush articulated a good point where Kerry came off like he doesn't care about the contributions of the US's allies. ... I don't remember specifics now but it was something about calling them the coalition of the unwiling or coereced.

ah yes, i forgot about poland.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag ah yes, i forgot about poland.

Looks like Poland forgot about Poland too ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/m...q.polandtroops/

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil It is easy to call selfishness and stupidity when you live in a comparibly unindustrialized nation. Here is an article if you care to read it from one of the lead scientiests of the UN Panel on climate change discussing that CO2 has no scientifically linked effect on global warming. It goes to say that global warming is a pattern that happens throughout history and how CO2 is needed for the earth to operate. It also goes on to say that the US already have 55% more efficient carbon technology than it did in the 70s. This is just an excuse for environment nazis to blame the US once again when there is no scientific evidence to back up their claims. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/...timony0503.html

of course gloobal warming is a pattern that happens throughout global history... and then come the ice ages.

i'm personally not as concerned with global warming as i am with what is happening to my stomping grounds here in the southern appalachians. since my childhood, areas above 5000 ft have become graveyards of ghost white trees. pollution induced haze restricts the ability to see from one mountain to the next.

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9907/13/smokies.ozone.enn/

this report is from 5 years ago... trust me, it's become worse.

i am not a proponent of destroying our economy to make us zero emmissions in a few short years. i do feel that it is our responsibility to gradually make changes to that goal. it's great that some of these changes have begun to happen over the last 30 years, but as technology betters, we should be willing to make some sacrifices to enact cleaner forms of energy production.

I wouldn't have any problems with the coal plants in ohio, if ohio kept all of it's air. I don't think ohio would still be running coal plants if this were the case. this is a scaled down reality of our inate selfishness when dealing our roll in global policy. we have no problem spending $120 billion to invade an endangered oil producer, but we can't make the same expenditures to help curve pollution because it will wreck our economy?

there are costs that don't come in account when filing fiscal reports, and my children will have to deal with those costs. coupled with an ever-increasing national debt, i don't think i'll get too many father's day cards in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Looks like Poland forgot about Poland too ... http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/m...q.polandtroops/

okay, i don't feel so bad now

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil It is easy to call selfishness and stupidity when you live in a comparibly unindustrialized nation.

I really wouldn't call Denmark a comparably unindustrialized nation. Small, yes, but industrialized nevertheless. EU industry size as a whole is comparable to the US one, yet it produces much less environmentally hazardous materials than the US does. The big difference between US and EU industries is that EU was forced to have stricter environmental laws because it is more crowded than the US, and that in turn caused the development of cleaner industry. Not only that the US has not shown any hint at wishing to support the Kyoto protocol in the future, it has not shown a hint of good will to transform its industry into a cleaner and more environmentally friendly form.

quote:

Here is an article if you care to read it from one of the lead scientiests of the UN Panel on climate change discussing that CO2 has no scientifically linked effect on global warming. It goes to say that global warming is a pattern that happens throughout history and how CO2 is needed for the earth to operate. It also goes on to say that the US already have 55% more efficient carbon technology than it did in the 70s. This is just an excuse for environment nazis to blame the US once again when there is no scientific evidence to back up their claims. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/...timony0503.html

So if the CO2 emissions don't have any effect on the environment, why did the US government bother to reduce those emissions by 55%?

Well if you say the entire EU then they have a comparable economy but rarely you see anyone from europe say they are from the European Union, they say they are from France, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, etc. So when I say that I mean when a person speaking from a single European country compares how we act compared to their country it is just not a fair comparison. It is like someone from iceland complaining about how americans won't clean up their pollution, well of course we haven't we have 10,000x the number of people, traffic, factories, companies, etc etc. It is a lot easier when you have a smaller area, less people, and a smaller infrastructure.

About the article
It is not necessarily developing cleaner less carbon based emittants, it has developed "more efficient" methods that are 55% more productive, I probably wasn't clear about that. In essense we are getting 55% more out of the same carbon deposits today than in the 70s

quote:

For example, the US produces a unit of GDP using about 55% of the energy required to produce the same unit in 1970. The U.S. is decarbonizing its economy and this will continue. Even though carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and energy from carbon allows people to live better lives, we can look forward to new sources of energy as the genius of America works on the next source of inexpensive energy.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Well if you say the entire EU then they have a comparable economy but rarely you see anyone from europe say they are from the European Union, they say they are from France, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, etc. So when I say that I mean when a person speaking from a single European country compares how we act compared to their country it is just not a fair comparison. It is like someone from iceland complaining about how americans won't clean up their pollution, well of course we haven't we have 10,000x the number of people, traffic, factories, companies, etc etc. It is a lot easier when you have a smaller area, less people, and a smaller infrastructure.

That is completely illogical! what you are saying is that since US is so big, you cant have good environmental policies?! wtf!?

Second, EU do have environmental laws, as do the US? The population of the US and the EU is about the same (EU is even a bit larger...), so that argument is just bad. Come up with a better one.

that is not what I am saying, i have wasted another 10 minutes of my life so i am done with this thread.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.