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

good move

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

quote:

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

Maybe if Kerry gets elected US might join in.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

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

___________________

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.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

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

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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 ! )

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

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.